*Official* Football Manager 2023 Feedback Thread

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, greenz81 said:

 

You said this to me last year with regards to the public beta? Neil has mentioned millions of users could spot a bug better than 20-30 internal beta testers. A 1000 public beta testers is better than none. There is no harm in just having a public beta branch open. Even if you are not going to use it much for any feedback, a user can still test it and probably spot something SI missed completely.

As well as their own internal tracking they also have an external private beta that runs all year round with a large pool of dedicated users that does just that. 

They also then tried to expand that previously into an even bigger all round public beta, but that bigger set of eyes never actually materialised. Those few who did provide useful feedback will almost certainly have been added to the private beta. 

[Neil Brock]

6 minutes ago, Tyburn said:

Sorry Neil, but who asked for earrings??

Diego Armando Maradona. 

[greenz81]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

As well as their own internal tracking they also have an external private beta that runs all year round with a large pool of dedicated users that does just that. 

They also then tried to expand that previously into an even bigger all round public beta, but that bigger set of eyes never actually materialised. Those few who did provide useful feedback will almost certainly have been added to the private beta. 

Can we agree it needs to be bigger? If these bugs are still being missed, then public is the way forward. I dont see what the issue is with being given free information? Ive seen bugs even brought up during the beta release from the public (not the game engine issues) and still slipped through. I still have issues aligning my columns! Thats been going on for numerous versions of the game! Is it the case of less bug reporting is better because SI have only one programmer? (obviously SI don't)

[Tyburn]

3 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

Diego Armando Maradona. 

🤣😁

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, greenz81 said:

Can we agree it needs to be bigger? If these bugs are still being missed, then public is the way forward. I dont see what the issue is with being given free information? Ive seen bugs even brought up during the beta release from the public (not the game engine issues) and still slipped through. I still have issues aligning my columns! Thats been going on for numerous versions of the game! Is it the case of less bug reporting is better because SI have only one programmer? (obviously SI don't)

SI are always on the look for users who provide good quality bug reporting and feedback. Users who fit the criteria get invited to the private beta. 

[greenz81]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

SI are always on the look for users who provide good quality bug reporting and feedback. Users who fit the criteria get invited to the private beta. 

So this obviously works then... no need for public beta branch 

[Neil Brock]

3 minutes ago, greenz81 said:

Can we agree it needs to be bigger? If these bugs are still being missed, then public is the way forward. I dont see what the issue is with being given free information? Ive seen bugs even brought up during the beta release from the public (not the game engine issues) and still slipped through. I still have issues aligning my columns! Thats been going on for numerous versions of the game! Is it the case of less bug reporting is better because SI have only one programmer? (obviously SI don't)

It's not as simple as more people testing = more bugs logged and fixed.

Every bug that gets logged has to be prioritised and considered for development work. As we've said here a number of times, resources have to be considered and designated for the highest priority items.

Let's say transfer logic and AI. That requires resource to improve it every year. Compare that with a transfer bug that say only will be encountered by managers for players on semi-professional contracts in Swaziland. 

What is the better spend of resource? Investigating and improving an area of the game which every single player is going to use, or one that has a genuine bug, that next to nobody will ever encounter? 

In an ideal world we'd fix every single issue raised AND improve the already working areas of the game, but as any producer or software developer will tell you, that just isn't realistic. 

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, greenz81 said:

So this obviously works then... no need for public beta branch 

Nothing is perfect but it works much, much better than the widescale public beta did. The nature of its privacy means it doesn't get talked about but the users who contribute, the majority of whom are on this forum, do an incredible job and don't necessarily get the public plaudits they deserve 

[greenz81]

2 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

It's not as simple as more people testing = more bugs logged and fixed.

Every bug that gets logged has to be prioritised and considered for development work. As we've said here a number of times, resources have to be considered and designated for the highest priority items.

Let's say transfer logic and AI. That requires resource to improve it every year. Compare that with a transfer bug that say only will be encountered by managers for players on semi-professional contracts in Swaziland. 

What is the better spend of resource? Investigating and improving an area of the game which every single player is going to use, or one that has a genuine bug, that next to nobody will ever encounter? 

In an ideal world we'd fix every single issue raised AND improve the already working areas of the game, but as any producer or software developer will tell you, that just isn't realistic. 

So dont you think its time the studio reviewed how it packages Football Manager? If SI are consistantly releasing a product that requires multiple patches throughout the year, shouldnt SI just be releasing a DATA update. Lets say every 2 years a 'NEW' Football Manager is published. One that the user can play all year round without having the wait for the seasonal patches that get released. It has been consistantly like this over the past few years and again without the constant communication, frustation ensues. In reality, people buy football manager for the DATA update really. I do not know of many people who play the game actually talk about its features, its mainly the story they have created in that world. Obviously that is something not ideal for SI because they would lose money every 2 years, but in the long run, you'd have a much better product and a happier community

[XaW]

3 minutes ago, greenz81 said:

So dont you think its time the studio reviewed how it packages Football Manager? If SI are consistantly releasing a product that requires multiple patches throughout the year, shouldnt SI just be releasing a DATA update. Lets say every 2 years a 'NEW' Football Manager is published. One that the user can play all year round without having the wait for the seasonal patches that get released. It has been consistantly like this over the past few years and again without the constant communication, frustation ensues. In reality, people buy football manager for the DATA update really. I do not know of many people who play the game actually talk about its features, its mainly the story they have created in that world. Obviously that is something not ideal for SI because they would lose money every 2 years, but in the long run, you'd have a much better product and a happier community

Don't you think actually reading the responses you get are better than bashing your head into the same wall time and time again when you actually get the communication you've asked for earlier?

[Neil Brock]

Yeah to be clear on public beta - we have what we call a 'Dream Team' private group of testers. This is made up of people involved in research, our moderating team and those who has consistently raised quality feedback or logged issues via our Bug Trackers over the years. So essentially those who have contributed within the community.

We also have a staffed in-house group of full-time testers for multiple areas of the game who work as part of our wider development team. These are highly skilled individuals who have to cover a mountain of areas across the game. Some of these may be obvious (UI, Match, Transfers and Contracts), others a bit more under the hood (Database, Competitions and Rule Groups) and some of those primarily for the infrastructure of the game (Core Tech, QA Engineering). Then you have to take into account FM is now available across iOS, Android, PS5, Xbox, Steam, Epic, GamePass, Apple Arcade (yes including tvOS) and Switch. Each of those games and platforms come with their own quirks which require testing and signing off for every build we both release, and test internally.  

We have also utilised the Steam 'Public Beta' track in the past as well, but now so many of our players also enjoy FM across Epic and Microsoft Store/Game Pass, using this isn't as inclusive as it once was. It is something which we'll always consider, but not something we're currently looking to utilise.  

Even rolling an update to our Private Testing group requires a large amount of person-power. To create and check the builds, to write up the build notes, to monitor and log all the suggestions/issues etc. 

Every single aspect of game development takes resource. And we have to utilise that in the best possible way for our games and our studio. 

[Robioto]

On 03/04/2023 at 18:34, greenz81 said:

This year alone was the biggest 'con' of it all. Promised multiple 'features' when in reality are not and still havent fixed previous 'features'!

This is by far my biggest issue, features that were shoved in uyears ago still don't work properly and fundemental features like youth development, manager AI, media/player interaction, scouting and the match engine are falling apart of the seams.

Marketing friendly fluff features take priority to shift the latest game while fundemetanl systems remain largely untouched or at best tweaked. This is what happens in an monopoly, it's no different to the state of FIFA.

[greenz81]

5 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

Yeah to be clear on public beta - we have what we call a 'Dream Team' private group of testers. This is made up of people involved in research, our moderating team and those who has consistently raised quality feedback or logged issues via our Bug Trackers over the years. So essentially those who have contributed within the community.

We also have a staffed in-house group of full-time testers for multiple areas of the game who work as part of our wider development team. These are highly skilled individuals who have to cover a mountain of areas across the game. Some of these may be obvious (UI, Match, Transfers and Contracts), others a bit more under the hood (Database, Competitions and Rule Groups) and some of those primarily for the infrastructure of the game (Core Tech, QA Engineering). Then you have to take into account FM is now available across iOS, Android, PS5, Xbox, Steam, Epic, GamePass, Apple Arcade (yes including tvOS) and Switch. Each of those games and platforms come with their own quirks which require testing and signing off for every build we both release, and test internally.  

We have also utilised the Steam 'Public Beta' track in the past as well, but now so many of our players also enjoy FM across Epic and Microsoft Store/Game Pass, using this isn't as inclusive as it once was. It is something which we'll always consider, but not something we're currently looking to utilise.  

Even rolling an update to our Private Testing group requires a large amount of person-power. To create and check the builds, to write up the build notes, to monitor and log all the suggestions/issues etc. 

Every single aspect of game development takes resource. And we have to utilise that in the best possible way for our games and our studio. 

Sounds like SI may have spread themselves a bit thin whilst expanding (do not take that as negative)

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain. This is the sort of information the community would like to know to see what is actually happening behind the scenes. Alot of the community, including myself, have followed you guys for 20+ years

 

6 minutes ago, XaW said:

Don't you think actually reading the responses you get are better than bashing your head into the same wall time and time again when you actually get the communication you've asked for earlier?

Huh? ok?

[Neil Brock]

4 minutes ago, Robioto said:

This is by far my biggest issue, features that were shoved in uyears ago still don't work properly and fundemental features like youth development, manager AI, media/player interaction, scouting and the match engine are falling apart of the seams.

Marketing friendly fluff features take priority to shift the latest game while fundemetanl systems remain largely untouched or at best tweaked. This is what happens in an monopoly, it's no different to the state of FIFA.

And just to be clear, it's posts like these which in part, is why developer interaction on these forums have dropped off. Hyperbolic statements without anything constructive or considered. Appreciate people want to have their say and get frustrations off their chest, but just makes me want to channel Larry.

[XaW]

1 minute ago, greenz81 said:

Huh? ok?

Listen, I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying here, but you give easy solutions to difficult issues. And that doesn't work like that. Your suggestion is the equivalent of saying because it takes a mother 9 months to bring a child to term, 9 women should be able to do it just 1 month. There is an issue there with understanding how things work. Neither you nor I have the inside knowledge to be able to lecture SI how to run their business. If it was an easy thing to improve, they would have done so already. Neil is really giving you a peak behind the curtain now, but instead of appreciating it and showing understanding, you just continue with thinly veiled critique and showing you easy ways to fix it when they would likely fail at hte first hurdle. And you do so in a brazen way that gives of the aura of entitlement. This might not be your meaning, but that's how it comes across here.

That's why I'm asking you to read and take in what you are being told here. No one, SI or any of us users, want FM to be anything less than perfect, but we might also have different perspectives of what is perfect. And some times certain thing is perfect, and others far from it. But leaving comments like the last few pages does not contribute to a good climate for dialogue and communication.

[themadsheep2001]

Also just on the data update and releasing a full release every 2 years instead. This comes up every year, despite SI previously repeatedly pointing out its a non-starter. 

Halving a companies revenue means half the pot from which funding can be allocated to recourses. You don't need to work at SI to see how that's going to impact making a bigger and better release. 

[KillYourIdols]

Neil Brock is OP, Plz Nerf.

Edited April 5, 2023 by KillYourIdols

[autohoratio]

Not sure what my striker is doing here 🤔

 

 

Other observations:

1. I've set my WBL and WBR (WB strata) to man mark their DR and DL respectively. Those instructions are not followed, they stick closer to the AMR and AML instead. 👎 The choice being taken away from the User here is poor game design.
2. Ball-far wing backs are hesitant to get forward and attack the space
3. The game is tennis serve simulator - defender has the ball, defender pings it up to the striker, striker flagged offside, rinse and repeat.
4. Set pieces are awful. Throw-ins make me want to never play a single-striker formation ever again because the striker ALWAYS decides to ignore his set instructions and come short, leaving no-one to lead the line. I have to re-adjust attacking free kicks before every match because of the bug where a random (or at least the wrong) player is set as the taker instead of the greyed out player
5. "Take short kicks" GK instruction apparently means "either kick it to the wing backs or hoof it"
6. Goalkeepers love to try and claim a ball that's going wide and in the process take three steps backwards on the endline to take it into touch and concede a corner. Not something you really see in real life.
7. "Struggling to meet the pace of the match" or "Would've preferred to stay on the bench" is far too common

[João14]

2 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

Yeah to be clear on public beta - we have what we call a 'Dream Team' private group of testers. This is made up of people involved in research, our moderating team and those who has consistently raised quality feedback or logged issues via our Bug Trackers over the years. So essentially those who have contributed within the community.

We also have a staffed in-house group of full-time testers for multiple areas of the game who work as part of our wider development team. These are highly skilled individuals who have to cover a mountain of areas across the game. Some of these may be obvious (UI, Match, Transfers and Contracts), others a bit more under the hood (Database, Competitions and Rule Groups) and some of those primarily for the infrastructure of the game (Core Tech, QA Engineering). Then you have to take into account FM is now available across iOS, Android, PS5, Xbox, Steam, Epic, GamePass, Apple Arcade (yes including tvOS) and Switch. Each of those games and platforms come with their own quirks which require testing and signing off for every build we both release, and test internally.  

Regarding testing alone, can we exchange some DMs? Don't know if you are able to take a 5min break to read them

[Rashidi]

22 minutes ago, autohoratio said:

I've set my WBL and WBR (WB strata) to man mark their DR and DL respectively. Those instructions are not followed, they stick closer to the AMR and AML instead. 👎 The choice being taken away from the User here is poor game design.

Or perhaps unrealistic choices? To do this successfully your wingback needs to disregard his defensive line settings to go up the pitch when you side is defending.  What happens if there is an attacking winger driving down his position? Your instruction would force him into tracking the opposing fullback.

What if their fullback is a fullback on defend duty? Now does your wingback simply go mark the player even if the opposition is playing very defensively?

A long time ago when man marking was an instruction that involved a simple check box, this could be done, but tactical systems were incredibly unbalanced.

Wingbacks can mark very tight at the moment and are really proactive at shutting flank threats at the moment with the right setups, but I doubt setting up marking the way you suggest has ever been a conscious design choice.

If you do feel that it can work and you can explain how other roles should pick up the slack protecting the flanks during defensive transitions, then make a feature request. It could be a feature in the future.

[autohoratio]

12 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Or perhaps unrealistic choices? To do this successfully your wingback needs to disregard his defensive line settings to go up the pitch when you side is defending.  What happens if there is an attacking winger driving down his position? Your instruction would force him into tracking the opposing fullback.

I agree that it would be a very risky choice and prone to being exploited by the opposing winger, but when the opposition are playing a 4-2-3-1DM (as in recent matches I played), I have a back 3 and 2 DMs covering 4 attackers - I don't need both wing-backs to stay back as well. What I'd like to see is for my ball-near wing-back to press the opposing full-back (in the match I took the video in, their FB was set to a WB role), allowing the WCB to cover the winger. Currently, I would have 2 CBs doing nothing.

To use an analogy, if Gasperini can have Atalanta suicidally pressing man-for-man, why can I not experiment with trying to recreate that system in FM? Even if that experiment goes wrong (and plenty of coaches in real life have tried system tweaks that haven't worked!), I don't feel I can properly attempt it with the current ME - I'd have to push WBs up to the WM strata to start with, which comes with its own drawbacks.

 

[themodelcitizen]

7 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

Wasn't something we were able to easily address without knock-ons elsewhere. The main competition still runs to completion, it's just as noted there are problems with the qualifiers not reflecting what happens in the play-offs, so the lowest ranked teams in the competition will be more randomised. Saying that, I believe it's likely to pick the stronger ranked teams from those play-offs, meaning it reflects the most likeliest outcome of said qualifiers. 

I appreciate the response, but If UEFA qualifiers didn't actually work but the game just took stronger ranked teams, people wouldn't see it as a pleasant workaround, they'd riot.

This is game-breaking for international management in CONCACAF outside of the top teams who automatically qualify. Could we not just change the "setup date" for the Gold Cup to right after the playoffs?

[autohoratio]

1 hour ago, Rashidi said:

Or perhaps unrealistic choices? To do this successfully your wingback needs to disregard his defensive line settings to go up the pitch when you side is defending.  What happens if there is an attacking winger driving down his position? Your instruction would force him into tracking the opposing fullback.

What if their fullback is a fullback on defend duty? Now does your wingback simply go mark the player even if the opposition is playing very defensively?

A long time ago when man marking was an instruction that involved a simple check box, this could be done, but tactical systems were incredibly unbalanced.

Wingbacks can mark very tight at the moment and are really proactive at shutting flank threats at the moment with the right setups, but I doubt setting up marking the way you suggest has ever been a conscious design choice.

If you do feel that it can work and you can explain how other roles should pick up the slack protecting the flanks during defensive transitions, then make a feature request. It could be a feature in the future.

Here's an example passage of play to show what I mean. Here the WBs have no man/position marking PIs.

WBR #2 marks the opposing DL when their DML and DCL are passing between each other, then just drops off despite three players being in a near enough position to cover the opp. AML, which I think would be sufficient to allow the WBR to continue pressing the DL.

 

 

[iAlwaysWin]

4 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Also just on the data update and releasing a full release every 2 years instead. This comes up every year, despite SI previously repeatedly pointing out its a non-starter. 

Halving a companies revenue means half the pot from which funding can be allocated to recourses. You don't need to work at SI to see how that's going to impact making a bigger and better release. 

I appreciate people need to feed there familes and afford there expensive things, but if you look at the last 4 or even 5 editions of FM, its pretty much been copy and paste with a few added features, doesnt scream huge amount of time, investment and resources to me. Maybe its not time and money thats the problem, but ideas to actually make this game feel fresh and new.

[JRHaggs]

2 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Or perhaps unrealistic choices? To do this successfully your wingback needs to disregard his defensive line settings to go up the pitch when you side is defending.  What happens if there is an attacking winger driving down his position? Your instruction would force him into tracking the opposing fullback.

What if their fullback is a fullback on defend duty? Now does your wingback simply go mark the player even if the opposition is playing very defensively?

A long time ago when man marking was an instruction that involved a simple check box, this could be done, but tactical systems were incredibly unbalanced.

Wingbacks can mark very tight at the moment and are really proactive at shutting flank threats at the moment with the right setups, but I doubt setting up marking the way you suggest has ever been a conscious design choice.

If you do feel that it can work and you can explain how other roles should pick up the slack protecting the flanks during defensive transitions, then make a feature request. It could be a feature in the future.

I mean, if a player wants to do something tactically foolish, so what? There are certainly times when op's choice of man marking wold be perfectly reasonable. Just because it might not be in most situations doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do it at all.

[themadsheep2001]

1 hour ago, iAlwaysWin said:

I appreciate people need to feed there familes and afford there expensive things, but if you look at the last 4 or even 5 editions of FM, its pretty much been copy and paste with a few added features, doesnt scream huge amount of time, investment and resources to me. Maybe its not time and money thats the problem, but ideas to actually make this game feel fresh and new.

There's load of ideas, just take a look at the features request. But they take a lot of time and resources to go from a couple of sentences to a feature. Even the base game alone, like the ME and AI take up huge amounts of time, 

[deco2609]

12 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Pomysłów jest mnóstwo, wystarczy spojrzeć na prośbę o funkcje. Ale przejście od kilku zdań do funkcji zajmuje dużo czasu i zasobów. Nawet sama podstawowa gra, taka jak ME i AI, zajmuje ogromne ilości czasu, 

it might be worth moving to releasing a full version every two years 

 

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, deco2609 said:

it might be worth moving to releasing a full version every two years 

 

It wouldn't for reasons already mentioned earlier in the thread, about 6 posts ago.

[ajw10]

On 02/04/2023 at 15:27, ajw10 said:

Has anyone managed to get small forwards to get good ratings or is this another dreadful "quirk"? Am I doomed to seeing my smaller team get penalised because "headers won" is broken as well as the actual heading stats (which was meant to have been fixed in the latest update)?

Anybody? I've experimented by going quite extreme in terms of short passing, but still my forwards will get 6.3s for not being able to win multiple headers

[themadsheep2001]

1 hour ago, ajw10 said:

Anybody? I've experimented by going quite extreme in terms of short passing, but still my forwards will get 6.3s for not being able to win multiple headers

There's no information here on what you're trying to achieve?

[ajw10]

56 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

There's no information here on what you're trying to achieve?

I'd like to know if it's possible for an attack to get through a run of games without failing to win multiple headers, which impacts their match rating.

[themadsheep2001]

7 minutes ago, ajw10 said:

I'd like to know if it's possible for an attack to get through a run of games without failing to win multiple headers, which impacts their match rating.

Yes. Although I still don't understand what the point of this is. The last thing I'm concerned about with small attackers is aerial contests. If I want them to play well I'd play to their strengths. Seems a waste of time to focus on that. 

[ajw10]

7 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Yes. Although I still don't understand what the point of this is. The last thing I'm concerned about with small attackers is aerial contests. If I want them to play well I'd play to their strengths. Seems a waste of time to focus on that. 

Match ratings are important though, so having what seems like a bug negatively impact them is an annoyance. 

So not a "waste of time".

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, ajw10 said:

Match ratings are important though, so having what seems like a bug negatively impact them is an annoyance. 

So not a "waste of time".

If you're trying to keep attackers match ratings high, may I suggest doing pretty much anything else other than trying to get small attackers to win headers.

That's just plain silly I assume you're playing as Arsenal? If you want Saka for example getting f good match ratings, virtually everything else offensively is better: dribbling defenders, completing passes, shots on goal, goals. Not once have I worried about my short forwards winning aerial battles to maintain ratings. 

[ajw10]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

If you're trying to keep attackers match ratings high, may I suggest doing pretty much anything else other than trying to get small attackers to win headers.

That's just plain silly I assume you're playing as Arsenal? If you want Saka for example getting f good match ratings, virtually everything else offensively is better: dribbling defenders, completing passes, shots on goal, goals. Not once have I worried about my short forwards winning aerial battles to maintain ratings. 

right, but what I'm saying is that I don't set out to play long to my forwards. I go out of my way to keep the ball on the floor as much as possible. 

There was a bug pre patch where too many headers were contested, I'm still seeing this (albeit not as much as before). 

I don't see the same level of headers in the ME as I do in the stats, so I'm asking if it's possible to rule out it still being a bug.

I have at times noticed aimless long balls from both my team and the AI, so I am leaning more towards it being a bug that wasn't fully fixed.

[themadsheep2001]

7 minutes ago, ajw10 said:

right, but what I'm saying is that I don't set out to play long to my forwards. I go out of my way to keep the ball on the floor as much as possible. 

There was a bug pre patch where too many headers were contested, I'm still seeing this (albeit not as much as before). 

I don't see the same level of headers in the ME as I do in the stats, so I'm asking if it's possible to rule out it still being a bug.

I have at times noticed aimless long balls from both my team and the AI, so I am leaning more towards it being a bug that wasn't fully fixed.

If you're getting your attackers on the ball enough they're going to get good ratings. If you're aiming to keep the ball on the deck then it's about passing triangles and overloads, while not playing too quick that the support can't get there. Honestly can't say aerial contests comes anywhere near my thinking in terms of ratings. 

[Rashidi]

11 hours ago, JRHaggs said:

I mean, if a player wants to do something tactically foolish, so what? There are certainly times when op's choice of man marking wold be perfectly reasonable. Just because it might not be in most situations doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do it at all.

I am afraid the game was not designed in a way that players would follow your instructions like robots.

[BenArsenal]

My own feedback from playing around with FM23 so far is that international football feels broken in the game. Or at best, a half-assed effort.

I mean, the most simple and basic low hanging fruit is that international squads now allow for a 26 man squad (including friendlies) but the game is still stuck on 23.

Also, it appears that the dates for international games are wrong.

Finally, for those managing teams at the Qatar WC, the final squad cutoff date is supposed to be 14 November, but the game puts it on 6 November. This makes no sense as teams play warm-up friendlies in the run up to the WC which starts on the 20 Nov, and you're not supposed to finalise the squad so early.

Edited April 6, 2023 by BenArsenal

[azymin]

I think that @Neil Brock has implied that the hard core base isn't the primary driver in design decisions. It's the casual player, and based on Steam reviews casual player is happy.

I also think that there are many instances where big issues in the game are not addressed and no reason for why is available. For example - international management, set pieces, regen reputation growth bug, incorrect or incomplete tool tips, no user manual, etc. These items have not been addressed and there is no explanation as to why. This is where I believe most of the frustration comes from. These are not rare small bugs, but BIG parts of the game. 

In my opinion SI has chosen a way of communicating that limits available information so as to not have to deal with blow back. It's not at all my favorite, but there are certainly other developers who operate the same way. However, there are also developers who are much more transparent and release road maps to content and provide better feedback. That's how I wish SI would communicate.

 

[Bobek]

So no update today?  

[HUNT3R]

4 minutes ago, Bobek said:

So no update today?  

Neil covered this a few days ago.

 

 

[FourFiveOne]

6 hours ago, BenArsenal said:

My own feedback from playing around with FM23 so far is that international football feels broken in the game. Or at best, a half-assed effort.

I mean, the most simple and basic low hanging fruit is that international squads now allow for a 26 man squad (including friendlies) but the game is still stuck on 23.

Also, it appears that the dates for international games are wrong.

Finally, for those managing teams at the Qatar WC, the final squad cutoff date is supposed to be 14 November, but the game puts it on 6 November. This makes no sense as teams play warm-up friendlies in the run up to the WC which starts on the 20 Nov, and you're not supposed to finalise the squad so early.

Exactly, national teams now have 26 players and some coaches even select up to over 30 players for Qualifiers and friendlies (Italy for example) - ofcourse you can only have a certain amount of players on the bench for a match; the rest of players are sent to sit with the crowd in the stands (but are mostly grateful to be with the squad anyway and proud to be called up). We should have this option too for FM24, just like real life. Aswell as being able to set up training for a specific tactic chosen by the nat. team manager and give recommendations and advice to players on where to improve like when Roberto Martinez used Yannick Carrasco as a wingback for Belgium instead of the winger that he naturally is and supposedly asked him to train his defending skills (in this scenario the club coach of said player (for example Simeone, who did agree with the defensive focus) could agree with your advice/task given to the player.. or not. Another example is Camavinga. Ancelotti decided to use Camavinga as a left back (he even played there yesterday vs Barcelona) instead of a central midfielder and Deschamps said he agreed with it and also plans to use Camavinga as a left back for France. Id like a club/nat. team coach to speak about it in the media whether they agree or not, maybe even have a chat with the other coach about it.). Also the ability as a nat. team coach to chat with the U21 & U19 nat. team coaches when there is a supertalent who you'd like to call up for the full nat. team and thus take away that player from their U21/U19 squad, which could lead to frustation with that U21/U19 nat. team coach unless they agree with it (for example when a 17 year old is playing top division football and getting good ratings or stats or the U21/U19 has found a good replacement or they dont play any important games in that period). Just an example; Romelu Lukaku made his debut for Belgium at 16 years old. Õdegaard same or even 15 years old for Norway, Gavi at 16 (?) for Spain.

There are so many posibilities to bring more depth, realism and immersion into coaching a national team. It hasn't been up to date or improved since years, which is a real shame.

Edited April 6, 2023 by FourFiveOne

[JRHaggs]

14 hours ago, Rashidi said:

I am afraid the game was not designed in a way that players would follow your instructions like robots.

OP shows in a clip that there is backup. Two players in position to neutralize the winger.

Perhaps, even if asked to man mark the fullback, the wingback should retreat if the winger is unmarked. But if the winger is neutralized, the wingback should follow the instruction.

I know you're a legend, and I love your videos, but your response seems intentionally glib. Robots have nothing to do with it. Why can we assign a fullback to mark the opposite side wingback at all if they won't do the admittedly stupid thing? I'm not defending the tactical implications of what OP is trying to do. I'm sympathizing with their annoyance at unpredictable player behavior from fairly straightforward (again, if foolish) tactical input.

[FourFiveOne]

1 hour ago, FourFiveOne said:

Exactly, national teams now have 26 players and some coaches even select up to over 30 players for Qualifiers and friendlies (Italy for example) - ofcourse you can only have a certain amount of players on the bench for a match; the rest of players are sent to sit with the crowd in the stands (but are mostly grateful to be with the squad anyway and proud to be called up). We should have this option too for FM24, just like real life. Aswell as being able to set up training for a specific tactic chosen by the nat. team manager and give recommendations and advice to players on where to improve like when Roberto Martinez used Yannick Carrasco as a wingback for Belgium instead of the winger that he naturally is and supposedly asked him to train his defending skills (in this scenario the club coach of said player (for example Simeone, who did agree with the defensive focus) could agree with your advice/task given to the player.. or not. Another example is Camavinga. Ancelotti decided to use Camavinga as a left back (he even played there yesterday vs Barcelona) instead of a central midfielder and Deschamps said he agreed with it and also plans to use Camavinga as a left back for France. Id like a club/nat. team coach to speak about it in the media whether they agree or not, maybe even have a chat with the other coach about it.). Also the ability as a nat. team coach to chat with the U21 & U19 nat. team coaches when there is a supertalent who you'd like to call up for the full nat. team and thus take away that player from their U21/U19 squad, which could lead to frustation with that U21/U19 nat. team coach unless they agree with it (for example when a 17 year old is playing top division football and getting good ratings or stats or the U21/U19 has found a good replacement or they dont play any important games in that period). Just an example; Romelu Lukaku made his debut for Belgium at 16 years old. Õdegaard same or even 15 years old for Norway, Gavi at 16 (?) for Spain.

There are so many posibilities to bring more depth, realism and immersion into coaching a national team. It hasn't been up to date or improved since years, which is a real shame.

I've put my ideas/requests in the feature request section, thumbs up will be appreciated for support. if anyone is interested; 

https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/574700-feature-requests-international-management-features/

Thanks!

 

[ajw10]

This game will never be the game I want it to be.

I can win easily, it's not an issue with that, but it's just not a fun game. I'm finding the match rating issue a real problem for my enjoyment, plus I'm just having issues getting my striker involved.

There's too many penalties in this game and scoring from set pieces is far too easy. Player interactions are a mess and the AI's squad building is the worst it's ever been.

Really hope FM 24 is a good game. I enjoyed 22, so this title feels like a huge step back

[JordanMilly]

On 09/02/2023 at 17:01, blejdek said:

What the heck, 4 matches in 10 days ?? 2 of those matches are even away, is this some kind of bug or is this a normal occurance ? 

 

Given how often teams that are in multiple competitions in the Premier League end up playing anywhere from 3 games in 5 days to 4 in 7 days, and that this is around New Year (when the match schedule is tight anyway), yep, that's entirely normal.

[BenArsenal]

8 hours ago, FourFiveOne said:

Exactly, national teams now have 26 players and some coaches even select up to over 30 players for Qualifiers and friendlies (Italy for example) - ofcourse you can only have a certain amount of players on the bench for a match; the rest of players are sent to sit with the crowd in the stands (but are mostly grateful to be with the squad anyway and proud to be called up). We should have this option too for FM24, just like real life. Aswell as being able to set up training for a specific tactic chosen by the nat. team manager and give recommendations and advice to players on where to improve like when Roberto Martinez used Yannick Carrasco as a wingback for Belgium instead of the winger that he naturally is and supposedly asked him to train his defending skills (in this scenario the club coach of said player (for example Simeone, who did agree with the defensive focus) could agree with your advice/task given to the player.. or not. Another example is Camavinga. Ancelotti decided to use Camavinga as a left back (he even played there yesterday vs Barcelona) instead of a central midfielder and Deschamps said he agreed with it and also plans to use Camavinga as a left back for France. Id like a club/nat. team coach to speak about it in the media whether they agree or not, maybe even have a chat with the other coach about it.). Also the ability as a nat. team coach to chat with the U21 & U19 nat. team coaches when there is a supertalent who you'd like to call up for the full nat. team and thus take away that player from their U21/U19 squad, which could lead to frustation with that U21/U19 nat. team coach unless they agree with it (for example when a 17 year old is playing top division football and getting good ratings or stats or the U21/U19 has found a good replacement or they dont play any important games in that period). Just an example; Romelu Lukaku made his debut for Belgium at 16 years old. Õdegaard same or even 15 years old for Norway, Gavi at 16 (?) for Spain.

There are so many posibilities to bring more depth, realism and immersion into coaching a national team. It hasn't been up to date or improved since years, which is a real shame.

Exactly. In fact it feels like international football has regressed in FM23 compared with older FMs. We used to be able to talk to players about lack of playing time and advise them accordingly if they want a call up. That appears to have been gone.

Edited April 7, 2023 by BenArsenal

[LeoFM]

 

Things like this is what makes the FM23 match engine the worst one I can ever recall. 

[Maviarab]

10 hours ago, BenArsenal said:

Exactly. In fact it feels like international football has regressed in FM23 compared with older FMs. We used to be able to talk to players about lack of playing time and advise them accordingly if they want a call up. That appears to have been gone.

Not appears...it has, period.  If international football hadn't been abandoned enough over the last god knows how many years, they have actually removed one of the features that did exist.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Maviarab

[vcpinheiro14]

4 horas atrás, LeoFM disse:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Things like this is what makes the FM23 match engine the worst one I can ever recall. 

This is absolutely a bug. The players didn't follow the defensive line, that could happen in some ambiguous circunstances but not in this obvious one, even players with the worst decision making attributes should see what to do here.

Edited April 7, 2023 by vcpinheiro14