Why is it so easy to win the Premiere League?

[Freakiie]

In the end, when you have thousands of hours put into something, you kinda get good at it. Generally. Just look at any other game out there, no matter how hard they supposedly are, at some point people will start playing them with their own house rules because they get to good at the game.

People do no hit runs in Dark Souls, people start Civ 6 a whole technological era behind against Deity AI, naked Rimworld starts in a biome that instantly starts killing you and I'm sure most people here can think of a whacky challenge run or two they've seen for games they enjoy outside of FM.

At some point you simply can't look at the developer to make things harder, as there simply are limitations regarding what AI can do, what you want AI to do and limitations you will have because in the end it is a game where you have to make decisions how certain stuff is coded and the players will figure that stuff out. At that point it's up to the player to make his own difficulty and FM has plenty of options for that and this forum has plenty of examples of what other players do to make things more challenging. All you need is the restraint to actually stick to your rules.

[bigmattb28]

3 minutes ago, Freakiie said:

In the end, when you have thousands of hours put into something, you kinda get good at it. Generally. Just look at any other game out there, no matter how hard they supposedly are, at some point people will start playing them with their own house rules because they get to good at the game.

People do no hit runs in Dark Souls, people start Civ 6 a whole technological era behind against Deity AI, naked Rimworld starts in a biome that instantly starts killing you and I'm sure most people here can think of a whacky challenge run or two they've seen for games they enjoy outside of FM.

At some point you simply can't look at the developer to make things harder, as there simply are limitations regarding what AI can do, what you want AI to do and limitations you will have because in the end it is a game where you have to make decisions how certain stuff is coded and the players will figure that stuff out. At that point it's up to the player to make his own difficulty and FM has plenty of options for that and this forum has plenty of examples of what other players do to make things more challenging. All you need is the restraint to actually stick to your rules.

Did you just assume the gender of an FM player? Oh dear......

[DP]

32 minutes ago, Freakiie said:

In the end, when you have thousands of hours put into something, you kinda get good at it. Generally. Just look at any other game out there, no matter how hard they supposedly are, at some point people will start playing them with their own house rules because they get to good at the game.

People do no hit runs in Dark Souls, people start Civ 6 a whole technological era behind against Deity AI, naked Rimworld starts in a biome that instantly starts killing you and I'm sure most people here can think of a whacky challenge run or two they've seen for games they enjoy outside of FM.

At some point you simply can't look at the developer to make things harder, as there simply are limitations regarding what AI can do, what you want AI to do and limitations you will have because in the end it is a game where you have to make decisions how certain stuff is coded and the players will figure that stuff out. At that point it's up to the player to make his own difficulty and FM has plenty of options for that and this forum has plenty of examples of what other players do to make things more challenging. All you need is the restraint to actually stick to your rules.

You can at least make the top AI teams more consistent. In 2040 I want to see the top AI teams in the league only losing 5 or so games (like real life). At the moment they lose too many and hence when you introduce a human manager it’s not challenging enough. 

[Brother Ben]

43 minutes ago, bigmattb28 said:

Did you just assume the gender of an FM player? Oh dear......

[Dagenham_Dave]

1 hour ago, DP said:

First thing I want to see when the beta is out, is to holiday for 20 seasons and then see how tight it is at the top

Really? Thats the first thing you're going to do when the beta comes out? Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. 

Me, I'm just going to, you know, just play the game. 

[DP]

2 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Really? Thats the first thing you're going to do when the beta comes out? Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. 

Me, I'm just going to, you know, just play the game. 

100%. I haven’t bought FM for a few years now because it’s not a challenge after ten years. This was never the case in old CMs (with less variables for the AI, granted). 

The AI improvements are a headline feature - much welcomed - so I’ll be seeing if they are doing what they’re supposed to for long term games. If not I won’t buy the game. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

1 minute ago, DP said:

The AI improvements are a headline feature - much welcomed - so I’ll be seeing if they are doing what they’re supposed to for long term games. If not I won’t buy the game. 

There's so many variables though, I've no idea how you are going to get any sort of definite conclusion doing that. Just play the game and enjoy it instead of wanting it to be 100% perfectly suited to you. That's my advice anyway. 

[DP]

Just now, Dagenham_Dave said:

There's so many variables though, I've no idea how you are going to get any sort of definite conclusion doing that. Just play the game and enjoy it instead of wanting it to be 100% perfectly suited to you. That's my advice anyway. 

I’ve looked at lots and lots of data over the years. If I can see any encouragement that title battles are back regardless of how far in the game you go it’s a massive thing for me. 
 

The game is just not a challenge at the top levels 10 years in so the hope is the headline feature helps with this. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

4 hours ago, DP said:

You can at least make the top AI teams more consistent. In 2040 I want to see the top AI teams in the league only losing 5 or so games (like real life). At the moment they lose too many and hence when you introduce a human manager it’s not challenging enough. 

In real life last season

Man Utd finished 3rd in the EPL, lost 9 games

Lazio finished 2nd in Serie A, lost 8 games

Real Madrid finished 2nd in La Liga, lost 8 games

Borussia Dortmund finished 2nd in the Bundesliga, lost 7 games

PSG won Ligue 1, lost 7 games. 

 

In my FM23 save at the moment (in 2032)

Barcelona top of La Liga, unbeaten with 6 games left, Real Madrid and Villarreal next, having lost just 3 games each

Bayern top of the Bundesliga, lost just 3 games with only a few left to play, Hertha 2nd having lost 5

Man City top of the Prem with only 3 defeats all season. Arsenal 2nd with 6. 

Monaco top of Ligue 1, just 2 defeats, PSG 2nd with 4. 

Serie A is the only league where the top team has lost a lot of games, but it's an exciting 4-way battle for the title with a handful of games left. 

 

I'm not really seeing where the big issue is. If SI were to code the game so that the top 4 or 5 sides hardly ever lost a game, 80% of the game's userbase would vanish as there would be next to no chance of them winning anything. 

[DP]

9 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

In real life last season

Man Utd finished 3rd in the EPL, lost 9 games

Lazio finished 2nd in Serie A, lost 8 games

Real Madrid finished 2nd in La Liga, lost 8 games

Borussia Dortmund finished 2nd in the Bundesliga, lost 7 games

PSG won Ligue 1, lost 7 games. 

 

In my FM23 save at the moment (in 2032)

Barcelona top of La Liga, unbeaten with 6 games left, Real Madrid and Villarreal next, having lost just 3 games each

Bayern top of the Bundesliga, lost just 3 games with only a few left to play, Hertha 2nd having lost 5

Man City top of the Prem with only 3 defeats all season. Arsenal 2nd with 6. 

Monaco top of Ligue 1, just 2 defeats, PSG 2nd with 4. 

Serie A is the only league where the top team has lost a lot of games, but it's an exciting 4-way battle for the title with a handful of games left. 

 

I'm not really seeing where the big issue is. If SI were to code the game so that the top 4 or 5 sides hardly ever lost a game, 80% of the game's userbase would vanish as there would be next to no chance of them winning anything. 

Of course there is an issue. Hence why this is a headline feature. Long term squad building needs to be fixed - they have said they’re looking to make it better. 

Of course there are seasons and examples of teams doing better but long term analysis of the data shows the big teams struggle to squad build effectively and hold it together. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by DP

[Dagenham_Dave]

3 minutes ago, DP said:

Of course there is an issue. Hence why this is a headline feature. Long term squad building needs to be fixed - they have said they’re looking to make it better. 

 

Yes, but that's not going to necessarily impact the issue you seem to have with the game,  given that if AI squad building is improved as they say, then its improved for all teams. So you may well still get a multitude of seasons where the top sides lose more than 5 games. But on the flip side, your own team may lose more too because the AI teams have built stronger squads. Any soak test you do without a human manager involved is utterly pointless. But you do you. 

[DP]

9 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Yes, but that's not going to necessarily impact the issue you seem to have with the game,  given that if AI squad building is improved as they say, then its improved for all teams. So you may well still get a multitude of seasons where the top sides lose more than 5 games. But on the flip side, your own team may lose more too because the AI teams have built stronger squads. Any soak test you do without a human manager involved is utterly pointless. But you do you. 

My only request is that I have competition once I’m an established powerhouse. We all know that is an area FM fails at and it’s a big problem for me and many others. As you say, no guarantees it’s fixed as part of this hence why I want to see holidays to find out for myself. The league needs to be on full detail too as this gives a general indication of where my competition may be if I’m winning that league. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by DP

[Dagenham_Dave]

27 minutes ago, DP said:

My only request is that I have competition once I’m an established powerhouse. We all know that is an area FM fails at and it’s a big problem for me and many others. As you say, no guarantees it’s fixed as part of this hence why I want to see holidays to find out for myself. The league needs to be on full detail too as this gives a general indication of where my competition may be if I’m winning that league. 

If you insist on doing such a test, I wouldn't be looking at the amount of games lost by the top teams, as that would be pointless without the human manager involved. What you need to be looking at to see if this area of the game has improved is the make up of the top squads - ie, are they still all full of 30+ year olds, or is there a genuine mix of youth and experience, with the young players looking as good, if not better than the players they are replacing. 

[USASoundersFan]

7 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

Personally if the above wasn't a consideration i'd have it uber realistic and make success nigh on impossible and thus exceptionally rewarding if you manage it. 

That sounds amazing. Maybe not nigh on impossible but much more difficult than it is.

I want to be able to take a sixth-tier mid-table team and struggle to ever get promoted, like it generally is in real life.

[The Amazing Dale Watkins]

On 16/10/2023 at 11:04, USASoundersFan said:

I want to be able to take a sixth-tier mid-table team and struggle to ever get promoted, like it generally is in real life.

The number of people who would genuinely enjoy such a neverending struggle isn't enough to pay for the breakroom coffee at SI Towers. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

On 16/10/2023 at 19:04, USASoundersFan said:

I want to be able to take a sixth-tier mid-table team and struggle to ever get promoted, like it generally is in real life.

I did this with Droylsden on FM14 - 9 consecutive seasons in the Conference North. We had no money and never had a single youth intake, so had to bring in garbage players every year on peanuts. Reached the playoffs 3/4 times, but no further. Only stopped because FM15 came out, where ironically  I took Hereford from the Conf North to winning the Champions League in 15 seasons. 

[DominicForza]

On 12/10/2023 at 05:51, Dagenham_Dave said:

Getting rid of the sliders was the best thing SI ever done with the tactics side of the game. It was a dreadful system. 

I liked the sliders.   

I really dont like the ways roles are "locked in."   I can't have a DLP shoot from distance?   I can't have a Pressing Forward press but lower his tackling?   I do think the roles simplify things for people and perhaps it does reduce exploit tactics, but making the roles a starting template with more tweaking available would be a big plus for me.  

[Dagenham_Dave]

8 hours ago, DominicForza said:

I really dont like the ways roles are "locked in."   I can't have a DLP shoot from distance?   I can't have a Pressing Forward press but lower his tackling?   I do think the roles simplify things for people and perhaps it does reduce exploit tactics, but making the roles a starting template with more tweaking available would be a big plus for me.  

There's lots of tweaking you can do with individual roles. There are some instructions you can't tweak, mainly those that go against what the role is supposed to do, which makes sense. 

If you were given complete freedom to tweak everything, there would be no point in having 'roles' for players at all. 

Also, the AI is not yet advanced enough where it can experiment with instructions and formations outwith the defaults in the game, so while that's the case, the tactical options for the player exist in their current form so that the player doesn't have even more of an advantage over the AI than it already does. 

[Nonlondoner]

I've done Arsenal saves with every version of FM and never not won the league by the 2nd season. Perhaps it's more understandable now but during the "Banter Years" it seemed all we needed was a decent midfielder and we'd be challenging. 

I can't decide whether that it proves FM is unrealistic or whether Arsenal have just needed Declan Rice for the last 20 years.

[SwPnX]

How's the new FM so far in regards to challenge? I could only find one comment in early access feedback topic nothing else. Did SI and tyrannical majority allow the minority player base to get a different experience and better value for their money? 

[SPE3D]

On 16/10/2023 at 14:14, Dagenham_Dave said:

Really? Thats the first thing you're going to do when the beta comes out? Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. 

Me, I'm just going to, you know, just play the game. 

That's the first thing I would do. Squad building AI is a deal breaker to some. I want to see proof SI games have actually fixed something. 

[Razal]

1 hour ago, SwPnX said:

How's the new FM so far in regards to challenge? I could only find one comment in early access feedback topic nothing else. Did SI and tyrannical majority allow the minority player base to get a different experience and better value for their money? 

I personally think the game is easier compared to fm 23, if you want to check for yourself, Omega luke released a video of Fm 24 alpha where he took relegation candidate plymouth into premier league with one signing (I dont know how many he did in january). All he had was a good tactic, which i personally belieave shouldnt be enough to do this

[RandomGuy.]

On 16/10/2023 at 19:04, USASoundersFan said:

I want to be able to take a sixth-tier mid-table team and struggle to ever get promoted, like it generally is in real life.

You'd have to play it realistically though. 

Feels like a lot of folk jump into a division full of semi-pro sides with barely any coaches or scouts, then set about chucking thousands a week (combined, so 7/8 at £200-£300pw at the best coaches/scouts/players and then complain the clubs around them arent playing as well or making as good signings. 

At EPL level its just wrong, though. Elite clubs with infinite money should be nigh on impossible to overthrow quickly. Some leagues have it good (Scotland can be really tough to conquer without a game breaking tactic as Celtic/Rangers have so much more money), but the top leagues definitely dont balance it well.

I still think if you...

- remove star ratings from scout reports

- remove star ratings from squad lists

- make agents far more aggressive about money

- make players care more about getting a "big move" (feels easy to tie great players into long term deals at a level lower than they should be) by stretching reputation ranges and influencing it more by club finances

... then suddenly youll see people really struggling to take folk up the divisions and to the top. Realistically it should make signings more hit and miss, while also making it hard to build a squad and retain it.

Id hate it as it would make the game harder but it would probably solve a lot of issues and make the best players funnel towards the bigger teams rather than spread out.

Edited October 20, 2023 by RandomGuy.

[Dagenham_Dave]

2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

You'd have to play it realistically though. 

Feels like a lot of folk jump into a division full of semi-pro sides with barely any coaches or scouts, then set about chucking thousands a week (combined, so 7/8 at £200-£300pw at the best coaches/scouts/players and then complain the clubs around them arent playing as well or making as good signings. 

At EPL level its just wrong, though. Elite clubs with infinite money should be nigh on impossible to overthrow quickly. Some leagues have it good (Scotland can be really tough to conquer without a game breaking tactic as Celtic/Rangers have so much more money), but the top leagues definitely dont balance it well.

I still think if you...

- remove star ratings from scout reports

- remove star ratings from squad lists

- make agents far more aggressive about money

- make players care more about getting a "big move" (feels easy to tie great players into long term deals at a level lower than they should be) by stretching reputation ranges and influencing it more by club finances

... then suddenly youll see people really struggling to take folk up the divisions and to the top. Realistically it should make signings more hit and miss, while also making it hard to build a squad and retain it.

Id hate it as it would make the game harder but it would probably solve a lot of issues and make the best players funnel towards the bigger teams rather than spread out.

Good post. People are too stubborn to make things harder for themselves though, they just want SI to make the game exactly to their own specifications. 

[Freakiie]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

You'd have to play it realistically though. 

Feels like a lot of folk jump into a division full of semi-pro sides with barely any coaches or scouts, then set about chucking thousands a week (combined, so 7/8 at £200-£300pw at the best coaches/scouts/players and then complain the clubs around them arent playing as well or making as good signings. 

At EPL level its just wrong, though. Elite clubs with infinite money should be nigh on impossible to overthrow quickly. Some leagues have it good (Scotland can be really tough to conquer without a game breaking tactic as Celtic/Rangers have so much more money), but the top leagues definitely dont balance it well.

I still think if you...

- remove star ratings from scout reports

- remove star ratings from squad lists

- make agents far more aggressive about money

- make players care more about getting a "big move" (feels easy to tie great players into long term deals at a level lower than they should be) by stretching reputation ranges and influencing it more by club finances

... then suddenly youll see people really struggling to take folk up the divisions and to the top. Realistically it should make signings more hit and miss, while also making it hard to build a squad and retain it.

Id hate it as it would make the game harder but it would probably solve a lot of issues and make the best players funnel towards the bigger teams rather than spread out.

I don't feel like any of these would really make much of a change.

Star ratings? Who cares.

Money? Who cares.

Players wanting big moves? This could matter a bit, but in the lower leagues it's all about constantly rebuilding a squad good enough for the league you're in with loans and free transfers and once you get into the Championship or especially the Premier League your inherent finances and league reputation will easily do the job to attract and keep talent. Yes, top talent might want to leave after a season or two, but then you just squeeze the top clubs dry and get yourself a new player that's almost as good from somewhere outside England that would love nothing more than join your club because of that sweet sweet Premier League reputation. This would mostly screw with people who aren't managing in England, as thanks to that PL reputation every player is desperate to play there, even if it's a massive step down club wise.

 

You want to make signings hit or miss? Here's how you do that: Remove the hidden stats from scout reports! Player never played outside Brazil? No worries, we know he's highly adaptable! Player played 5 minutes in some youth league? We know he's highly injury prone, better avoid the guy! Player hasn't even made his youth team debut yet? He's highly inconsistent, better look for something else. Player who hasn't gotten a carded once? Oh he's actually a really dirty player, better stay away from him! I'd love to see those things get moved to the data analyst side of things for players who actually have played enough games to analyse it. "Data says this guy gets a lot of cards, this could suggest high dirtiness" etc.

That would be an actual start. As it stands we can see most potential red flags if we scout a player to 100% even if it makes no sense that a scout would be able to know these about some youth player.

Then, make youth player personalities much more dynamic than they are now. Have most youth players start with not that amazing personalities (I mean, how many 16 year olds really are super professional?) and have their personalities actively develop, with their surroundings having some influence, but most of it being random. Create the chance that you actually get a highly talented youngster who after signing his first pro contract just never develops because he doesn't care. Let the player actually get bitten by newgen Balotelli! In FM we would never let that happen because we wouldn't sign a player who has a poor personality, but if we have no option other than to hope that his personality develops in the right direction we'd have to gamble a lot more. It would probably also reduce the amount of absurdly high CA youngsters, although SI did address that in recent versions a bit by adjusting the development curve.

That would make it much less enticing to just mass stack youngsters and you would have to rely a lot more on actually buying already established players, which even with PL money would be quite costly. Then look at making factors like leadership and experience more important so that you can't as easily play with a first eleven of 21 year olds any more and you would actually have to keep some leadership figures around. Also I would say nerf stuff like advanced language courses, it's a bit silly how every player can just be send on them and most will learn the language at some point or another. Have this be something that needs to come from the player themselves, which you can then fund or not and make it so that rather than just adaptability, other personality attributes are worked into this, with for example a highly professional player being far more likely to ask to go on one of these courses and again have this have a proper knock on effect on the field with players taking much longer to gel if they have language issues.

As it stands, building a team is simply too easy as it's basically impossible for the player to buy a flop. We know their personality, we know most of their hidden attributes, we know their actual attributes. Hiding star ratings isn't going to do anything when I can see that a player has the right attributes for whatever role I want to play him in. It's not going to change the fact that I can see that there are no hidden attributes that would be an instant red flag. It's not going to change that I can see that he's professional.

Of course you can also go the even more extreme step and remove attributes altogether, which some skins do, but at that point you're entering territory that very few FM players want to be in, myself included. But, if you think the game is too easy, I'd say try one of those skins and see how it goes. I honestly couldn't do it.

[SwPnX]

3 saat önce, Dagenham_Dave said:

Good post. People are too stubborn to make things harder for themselves though, they just want SI to make the game exactly to their own specifications. 

Obviously they do that because they're the customers of a product made by a company in a free market. Different strokes for different folks. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by SwPnX