Football Manager 2024 Official Feedback Thread

[forameuss]

6 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

I got it, in fact it would be way better this way, since different options would produce different reactions. The point with FM now is that you click the same options and get the same reactions all the time, making it shallow and uninteresting. If they could find a balance between making interactions more dynamic, more life-like without it being too time consuming, it'd be great.

The suggestion about firing up manager feuds is great, especially when you're managing a small/weaker team.

Yeah. I'm not disputing the state of it now, as I would almost certainly click "send assistant" in pretty much all cases.  I could probably recite all the questions you'd get when joining a new club, and I barely even play the game anymore.

If you can make the process more dynamic and properly relevant, even if there is no context that comes off the back of it, that would be an improvement, but there's so much potential in taking a proper deep dive into the module and making that revolutionary step.  

[Koffing]

Long term veteran here. The amount of set piece goals are disgusting. I have 4 star set piece coach who is responsible for set pieces and half of goals conceeded comes from set pieces.He arranges players so idiotically there are always free player in 18yrd box or around. This was supposed to be headline feature but like other promised features it is nothing but a false advertisement.

15/41 goals come from set pieces. Add this to throw in to back post cross and half of conceeds are from set pieces.There is no counterplay here, I put air defence every week, I select corner defending every preparation my CBs 15 jumping at least , my fullbacks 12 minimum , my forward has 16, but oppositon small frame can score against me .

[akkm]

1 hour ago, whatsupdoc said:

while we have an ME that has mainly oscillated 10 degrees this way and that for years, seesawing back and forth between the same problems, rather than genuinely improving

This nails it...overall we still have issues with the likes of central creativity which is just astonishing all these years into it. Then when that's missing we have crossing too effective sometimes or long shots/set pieces instead.  The juggling act of trying to implement the likes of pressing and other things seems too hard....though I would concede the pressing thing must be very hard to get right.

I'd say overall there's been gradual/very small step changes but the pace at this stage is too slow and actual real improvement is somewhat an illusion at times.

Take this year...the positional changes...sure, it's great but the overall impact is players just move into places on the pitch somewhat differently than before...but only to not play good passes from a different area of the pitch than previous years so the overall issue of weak pass decision making and weighting remains...it's just happening in a different way/area. And anyway movement has been an issue for years so this kind of movement should have been in the engine 10 years back.

The graphical improvements have helped give an impression of improvement and it's obviously very welcome and last 2 years have more of the chaos of modern football implemented but there are still core issues which are just moved around from one to another every year and even from build to build each year.

This means real improvement of the simulation of footballing behaviour, movement and decision making remains stunted and a brilliant match engine and genuine progress remains as elusive as it did many years back. Yes I'm aware of the complexity of what's trying to be simulated and size/trickiness of coding that within the framework of what's been built and grown over many years but one of the issues is the core of the engine isn't properly simulating fundamental decisions as well as it should be. The output is usually only as good as the inputs. I'll always say what SI have done is impressive against that backdrop but they're not doing enough at this stage to make the match engine as good as it can be and as easily balanced every year as it could be.

I mean even the whole thing of waiting until feb/march patch to wait for a match engine to settle is ludicrous given the stage of development of this game and the match engine can have several large changes to ways of playing each time within a release. Of course it's great SI is willing to do that throughout a game version but should there really be the need for that how many years into the product. Then they say...well we have to shut off to go to work for the next year's engine...but invariably that's just to shut down work to move onto another match engine which needs balancing which throws things off several times the next year. So it's almost like it's moving on to produce another match engine where knock ons just cause more knocks ons going around in circles.

This is not meant to trigger whataboutisms re state of gaming industry/software development and all that where attempts to make lower standards acceptable and ok is unnecessary here.

Given all that was promised pre release versus what transpired we should all be wary of next year's big change. I'm not convinced it's because so much focus has already moved onto next year and if that is actually the case then one could cynically view the pre release hype as disingenuous at best. Given the pattern that has emerged over the years of repeating/unfixed bugs with additions sometimes adding to that or just not implemented well I think the best way to feedback is by not buying the game.

Unfortunately many are quasi addicted (or actually addicted ) to the game so keep buying it every year despite vowing to themselves to not buy it the previous year lol. Again, SI declaration before release of how it would be being last in the cycle could be viewed very cynically as a means to appease those previously critical of the game and prompting them to think/convincing them this year will be different...but sadly, in essence, it hasn't really to be fair. And I do mean sadly as I've played it since 1st game and it's the only game I play or want to play and I really want it to be great.

The soundings out of SI are a little trite at this stage with the same things being offered up in terms of excuses and that.

Given the volume of sales increasing I'm not sure what appetite SI has to even change its approach as really...does it even have to against this measure...so I really feel don't buy the game is the best feedback people can give. 

roll on the next update and let's see how things are then

 

[2feet]

2 hours ago, Koffing said:

Long term veteran here. The amount of set piece goals are disgusting. I have 4 star set piece coach who is responsible for set pieces and half of goals conceeded comes from set pieces.He arranges players so idiotically there are always free player in 18yrd box or around. This was supposed to be headline feature but like other promised features it is nothing but a false advertisement.

15/41 goals come from set pieces. Add this to throw in to back post cross and half of conceeds are from set pieces.There is no counterplay here, I put air defence every week, I select corner defending every preparation my CBs 15 jumping at least , my fullbacks 12 minimum , my forward has 16, but oppositon small frame can score against me .

 

what about other attributes: positioning, decisions? concentration?

what is the team moral like?

are you zone marking? man marking?

what type of goals are you conceding from set pieces? headers? or other types? is it a failure to mark? 

 

 

[Koffing]

15 dakika önce, 2feet said:

 

what about other attributes: positioning, decisions? concentration?

what is the team moral like?

are you zone marking? man marking?

what type of goals are you conceding from set pieces? headers? or other types? is it a failure to mark? 

 

 

why ? does other teams have better positioning decisions concentration than my players? my players are well above avarage than league median.Prob in top 3

Team morale only kicks in at set pieces?  

Why should i choose what type of marking I choose ? It is all decided by set piece coach.

all type, free headers, rebounds, from corners or player unmarked at edge of box, indirect freekick idiot player placement so 2-3 player unmarked at box

[2feet]

3 hours ago, Koffing said:

why ? does other teams have better positioning decisions concentration than my players? my players are well above avarage than league median.Prob in top 3

Team morale only kicks in at set pieces?  

Why should i choose what type of marking I choose ? It is all decided by set piece coach.

all type, free headers, rebounds, from corners or player unmarked at edge of box, indirect freekick idiot player placement so 2-3 player unmarked at box

team moral affects your attributes. they'll drop by a few points at various times during a game.

maybe your coach is choosing the wrong type? or maybe the opposition is watching how previous teams have scored from set pieces and is copying them. like exactly what happens in real football. so you need to adjust maybe?

take the time to set up your own free kicks, based on what you see is currently going wrong.

[Leon_fogo]

The ME is ruined, the player is injured in midfield and the other team doesn't play fair, and a goal happens... this is recurrent, as are the millions of balls hitting the post, as well as the irritating expulsion in the first half and the thousand goals per game... This FM has everything to be a great game, but it seems that Sigames decided to forget about this year thinking only about FM 25...

Where's the hot fix? Where are the bug fixes that there are millions of here on the forum?

Please do something, or forget about selling 25, because this FM started off beautifully and is becoming the darkest version of the series... It's a predictable, scripted game, and worse... there's room for improvement because it was good in the beta!

[Arnar]

5 hours ago, 2feet said:

team moral affects your attributes. they'll drop by a few points at various times during a game.

maybe your coach is choosing the wrong type? or maybe the opposition is watching how previous teams have scored from set pieces and is copying them. like exactly what happens in real football. so you need to adjust maybe?

take the time to set up your own free kicks, based on what you see is currently going wrong.

And why doesnt his 4 star set piece coach adjust how the team sets up for set pieces?

What is the purpose of adding the role... when it doesnt matter how good of coach you hire is in setting the team up?

4 stars should surely be one of the best in the league.

 

Im in my 8th season have had a 1 star set piece coach and 4,5 star set piece coach. They all have set the team up the same, based of the set piece wizard at the start of the game.

That screenshot is taken from a last 16 game (ai vs ai) in the world cup. 

The 3 unmarked guys passed the ball between them before scoring.

[luka_zg]

Does AI still not differentiate between user team and AI team? Because my team is hitting 2+ posts per game from insanely clear chances, while AI is hitting the net with the first chance they get without any problems. Have yet to see them hit the post once. It's just phenomenal. This has to be the biggest example of George Costanza's claim: "It is not a lie if you believe it."

[whatsupdoc]

35 minutes ago, luka_zg said:

Does AI still not differentiate between user team and AI team? Because my team is hitting 2+ posts per game from insanely clear chances, while AI is hitting the net with the first chance they get without any problems. Have yet to see them hit the post once. It's just phenomenal. This has to be the biggest example of George Costanza's claim: "It is not a lie if you believe it."

You playing at high tempo?

[dannyo666]

16 hours ago, akkm said:

 

Given all that was promised pre release versus what transpired we should all be wary of next year's big change. I'm not convinced it's because so much focus has already moved onto next year and if that is actually the case then one could cynically view the pre release hype as disingenuous at best. Given the pattern that has emerged over the years of repeating/unfixed bugs with additions sometimes adding to that or just not implemented well I think the best way to feedback is by not buying the game.

Unfortunately many are quasi addicted (or actually addicted ) to the game so keep buying it every year despite vowing to themselves to not buy it the previous year lol. Again, SI declaration before release of how it would be being last in the cycle could be viewed very cynically as a means to appease those previously critical of the game and prompting them to think/convincing them this year will be different...but sadly, in essence, it hasn't really to be fair. And I do mean sadly as I've played it since 1st game and it's the only game I play or want to play and I really want it to be great.

The soundings out of SI are a little trite at this stage with the same things being offered up in terms of excuses and that.

Given the volume of sales increasing I'm not sure what appetite SI has to even change its approach as really...does it even have to against this measure...so I really feel don't buy the game is the best feedback people can give. 

roll on the next update and let's see how things are then

 

Nice post.The new features SI promisd SI said were in the game and are not its what's really getting to me like mentioned in your post…These new features do not work,like say AI squad building....and than we get a  post from si saying "They are happy with AI squad building?Either everyone who bought the game has lost the plot or SI have again not delivered on the game...Payed hard earned money for this game we have....It crazy now,it really is..I mean scouting is broken along with a host of other things..how did that happen and is a patch going to fix it?Scouting is kinda at the core of the game and that does not work correctly on 24... the list goes on and on and its all been reported now....so where do we go?

[diLLa88]

As long as steam reviews remain Very Positive nothing is going to change and I guess it is better to just accept the reality of this game never going to be as good as it once was. I've been frustrated for several years as I tried to post bug reports and provide feedback in this thread, only to get confronted with no fixes and hostile moderators .

I haven't launched FM24 for a month now and it will probably remain this way. Time to retire on this series after ~25 years. I have zero expectations that FM25 with a completely new engine will be anything better.

Edited January 11 by diLLa88

[Rodrigogc]

The problem is not only the bugs and issues, but to me the predictability of the outcomes is such a big turn off. I was playing Fulham and had built a squad I was very satisfied with, feeling like playing the game but as soon as I get to the matches I know I'll be seeing set pieces goals almost every match and the ball hitting the woodwork, and players missing easy through passes, etc.. If you play a simulator where you know what is going to happen next, this is no longer a simulator.

[Ein]

Unfortunately, contemporary ideology is imbued with the myth of progress. However, newer does not necessarily equate to better. I personally don't find any problems playing older editions. I typically update the database myself, mostly by revising PAs and fixed attributes. I use dynamic PA (-10, -95, -9, etc) for most players under 26 so games are more replayable, unpredictable and fun. When a new edition is out, I try the demo and don't buy it if I don't like it, which is what I did with FM24. People will still buy and praise the game for a number of reasons (swayed by marketing, addiction, social media monetisation interests, etc).

[steve.bs69]

8 ore fa, Arnar ha scritto:

And why doesnt his 4 star set piece coach adjust how the team sets up for set pieces?

What is the purpose of adding the role... when it doesnt matter how good of coach you hire is in setting the team up?

4 stars should surely be one of the best in the league.

 

Im in my 8th season have had a 1 star set piece coach and 4,5 star set piece coach. They all have set the team up the same, based of the set piece wizard at the start of the game.

That screenshot is taken from a last 16 game (ai vs ai) in the world cup. 

The 3 unmarked guys passed the ball between them before scoring.

Absolutely ridiculous

[Zoolok42]

On 10/01/2024 at 10:14, rp1966 said:

Only if the question is "how do we decimate the FM playerbase?" - DLC is no more an answer than subscription. 

EDIT - Just to expand on this - for DLCs you have the question of what would FM players actually buy as DLC , and secondly how would they feel if FM25 came out as a skeleton game with lots of functionality stripped out to be sold back as DLC - because that's how the DLC model works.  As for subscription - people payting a monthly or annual fee are going expect something for that money - that means regular releases of sufficient scope and quality for them to feel a subscription is worthwhile (that's ignoring people's strong aversion to software subscription models in general).

SI's problem is, and has been for a very long time, quality control.  No change in business model will overcome that - it needs an honest analysis of working methods and why so many bugs are coming through every release and, more worryingly, getting carried over from release to release. Hopefully this is something that has been addressed in the FM25 build methodology, because if not I'm expecting a very poor launch - and being someone who was very hyped for Cities:Skylines II, only to find it's a very buggy, half-baked game - I really don't want that for FM25 as well (though I'm not optimistic - even MVP seems to be an aspirational level for new games releases these days).

As far as bug fixes are concerned FM24 is probably dead now - they'll probably fix something that crashes the game and pick off some low-hanging fruit, but SI will now be focussed on FM25.  FM24 is something they'll want to move on from with minimal further resource commitment.

FM is already a subscription in everything but the name, it has been that for years. You pay 60 euros per year (or whatever) for 12 months of patches and 1-2 database updates. Patches are bugfixes with a minor new feature every now and then. I am not sure how this isn't already seen as a subscription model, because they sell basically the same game every year. You would have to go a few years in the past to notice any major differences between FM 24 and an older FM.

An opposite example would be Civilization, for instance, because the differences between Civilization 4, 5, and 6 are enormous, it's a totally different game, on the same topic, and they come out every 5-6 years, not every year at the same time, like FM does. Essentially, every game that comes out every year at the same time with minor differences is a subscription game, regardless of how they want to call it.

[rp1966]

41 minutes ago, Zoolok42 said:

FM is already a subscription in everything but the name, it has been that for years. You pay 60 euros per year (or whatever) for 12 months of patches and 1-2 database updates. Patches are bugfixes with a minor new feature every now and then. I am not sure how this isn't already seen as a subscription model, because they sell basically the same game every year. You would have to go a few years in the past to notice any major differences between FM 24 and an older FM.

An opposite example would be Civilization, for instance, because the differences between Civilization 4, 5, and 6 are enormous, it's a totally different game, on the same topic, and they come out every 5-6 years, not every year at the same time, like FM does. Essentially, every game that comes out every year at the same time with minor differences is a subscription game, regardless of how they want to call it.

Not really, as with subscription if you stop paying the subscription you lose access to the game. Annual releases are different as you can always stop and then continue to play any version you own until your hardware/OS no longer supports it.

 

Edited January 11 by rp1966

[Rodrigogc]

It is not subscription, but it feels like - and an expensive one. FM is released every year, whereas you have a game like Ghost of Tsushima that costs less, is amazing and is not released every year. In fact, it was released 3 or 4 years ago.

 

I wouldn't mind paying for updates and patches every year, as long as the game is great. Problem is we pay for a game that is released in November, and only get to play decently around March because there's always patches to fix bugs, play for 6 months and get tired because we are already waiting for the next version. And it's been like this for years..

 

Someone said about playing older versions and updating them yourself. How you guys do this ? Because I'm interested in doing it, but don't even know where to start from. 

[2feet]

10 hours ago, Arnar said:

And why doesnt his 4 star set piece coach adjust how the team sets up for set pieces?

What is the purpose of adding the role... when it doesnt matter how good of coach you hire is in setting the team up?

4 stars should surely be one of the best in the league.

 

Im in my 8th season have had a 1 star set piece coach and 4,5 star set piece coach. They all have set the team up the same, based of the set piece wizard at the start of the game.

That screenshot is taken from a last 16 game (ai vs ai) in the world cup. 

The 3 unmarked guys passed the ball between them before scoring.

if you’re not setting up your set pieces yourself then you’re asking for trouble.

 

aston villa and Chelsea have some of the best set piece coaches in the game

 

but currently, as of 4th January 24, they are joint fifth in the league for goals conceded from set pieces.

 

But that’s just not realistic.... right?

 

Source:

https://www.bettingexpert.com/news/analysis/premier-league-set-pieces-goals-corners-and-free-kick-stats#3

[Hovis Dexter]

4 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

... Someone said about playing older versions and updating them yourself. How you guys do this ? Because I'm interested in doing it, but don't even know where to start from. 

You basically search the internet for an updated data base for your specific version of the game.

[alian62]

4 hours ago, diLLa88 said:

As long as steam reviews remain Very Positive nothing is going to change and I guess it is better to just accept the reality of this game never going to be as good as it once was. I've been frustrated for several years as I tried to post bug reports and provide feedback in this thread, only to get confronted with no fixes and hostile moderators .

I haven't launched FM24 for a month now and it will probably remain this way. Time to retire on this series after ~25 years. I have zero expectations that FM25 with a completely new engine will be anything better.

Getting that way myself . I'm revisiting older games now .

There is only 2 ways this game will ever improve.  1 is for sales to take a nose dive and 2 is for another competitor in the marketplace that makes a decent manager game . 

Unfortunately the marketplace is littered with 2nd rate football manager games that are only interested in you spending money via coins while playing the game 

 

 

Edited January 11 by alian62

[Ein]

42 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

Someone said about playing older versions and updating them yourself. How you guys do this ? Because I'm interested in doing it, but don't even know where to start from. 

You can either download an updated database or do it yourself via the pre-game editor (located in Steam under tools). I personally prefer to do it myself and keep updating it.

[Rodrigogc]

26 minutos atrás, alian62 disse:

Getting that way myself . I'm revisiting older games now .

There is only 2 ways this game will ever improve.  1 is for sales to take a nose dive and 2 is for another competitor in the marketplace that makes a decent manager game . 

Unfortunately the marketplace is littered with 2nd rate football manager games that are only interested in you spending money via coins while playing the game 

 

 

Problem is that 1 is the consequence of 2. Sales will not decrease because there's no competition and FM is king in its field. The game is still great despite many issues, but of course competition would be great for those who love the genre. 

[forameuss]

34 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

Problem is that 1 is the consequence of 2. Sales will not decrease because there's no competition and FM is king in its field. The game is still great despite many issues, but of course competition would be great for those who love the genre. 

That argument is always so weak in my mind.  The equivalent of that comic strip of the guy riding a bike and shoving a stick in the spokes.  If someone wants things to change on a product they're not enjoying, continually buying it has to be the worst way to go about it.

The competition argument is similarly pointless when it's quite clear that that is NEVER coming.  They had a competitor in EA, and even with their deep, grubby little pockets, they were beaten so badly in the genre that they pretty much folded (and admittedly absorbed the "product" back into the main game, where it stagnates to this day).  No other developer is going to enter the space as a genuine alternative because they'd be absolutely mental to.  FM has two main technical strengths - their match engine and their database.  Any competitor would start out at a disadvantage stretching to decades on both fronts.  It's why the only alternatives are grubby little mobile games. 

No white horse is coming over the hill.  If you want change, stop buying.  You'll be financially better off, and you can spend that - and your time - on something you might, you know, actually enjoy.  

[rrreee3]

Hello, after reading almost a dozen most recent pages of this topic. I'm very interested in the feedbacks about "attributes don't matter" and the goalkeeper scoring while being an Advanced Forward.

Is there any chance that players performance are buffed by the improvement of ME specifically on positional play regardless of their mental attributes quality and etc etc that affects player performance?

From what i've read from the blog i linked earlier it seems like it only improves attacking movement performance because the blog only talks about attacking play which i guess also explains the high scoring games in FM24 compared to FM23?

 

 

 

I would like to know what the devs think about this, thanks for reading!

Edited January 11 by rrreee3

[whatsupdoc]

11 minutes ago, rrreee3 said:

Hello, after reading almost a dozen most recent pages of this topic. I'm very interested in the feedbacks about "attributes don't matter" and the goalkeeper scoring while being an Advanced Forward.

Is there any chance that players performance are buffed by the improvement of ME specifically on positional play regardless of their mental attributes quality and etc etc that affects player performance?

From what i've read from the blog i linked earlier it seems like it only improves attacking movement performance because the blog only talks about attacking play which i guess also explains the high scoring games in FM24 compared to FM23?

 

 

 

I would like to know what the devs think about this, thanks for reading!

A few short tests suggested the following: 

1. Attacking players too regularly completed challenging finishes (weaker foot, first time shots) from low crosses. This seemed to render their footedness and finishing  attributes irrelevant in some cases. 

2. Likewise, regardless of their off the ball / mental stats / whatever other stats, attacking players would get free in good spaces in the box, and score from low crosses. 

[Rodrigogc]

22 minutos atrás, forameuss disse:

That argument is always so weak in my mind.  The equivalent of that comic strip of the guy riding a bike and shoving a stick in the spokes.  If someone wants things to change on a product they're not enjoying, continually buying it has to be the worst way to go about it.

The competition argument is similarly pointless when it's quite clear that that is NEVER coming.  They had a competitor in EA, and even with their deep, grubby little pockets, they were beaten so badly in the genre that they pretty much folded (and admittedly absorbed the "product" back into the main game, where it stagnates to this day).  No other developer is going to enter the space as a genuine alternative because they'd be absolutely mental to.  FM has two main technical strengths - their match engine and their database.  Any competitor would start out at a disadvantage stretching to decades on both fronts.  It's why the only alternatives are grubby little mobile games. 

No white horse is coming over the hill.  If you want change, stop buying.  You'll be financially better off, and you can spend that - and your time - on something you might, you know, actually enjoy.  

I agree with everything you said, the point about the competition is that people want to play a manager game, and they can't find no alternative that comes close to FM, so they buy FM. I've been playing manager games since CM 01/02, it's the only game genre that appeals to me, so if I don't buy FM, what else am I going to play ? The alternative is playing older versions, which is still FM.

Competition is key. Henry Ford used to say "You can buy cars of any color, as long as it is black", because he sold the Model T only in black color and was king back then. Then came General Motors and started producing cadillacs and chevrolets and Buicks.. in many colors, took over the low price cars market and the only black color Model T by Ford was finally beaten. People adore and buy FM because it is still a good game, what everyone argues is that it could be way better.

[dannyo666]

33 minutes ago, forameuss said:

That argument is always so weak in my mind.  The equivalent of that comic strip of the guy riding a bike and shoving a stick in the spokes.  If someone wants things to change on a product they're not enjoying, continually buying it has to be the worst way to go about it.

The competition argument is similarly pointless when it's quite clear that that is NEVER coming.  They had a competitor in EA, and even with their deep, grubby little pockets, they were beaten so badly in the genre that they pretty much folded (and admittedly absorbed the "product" back into the main game, where it stagnates to this day).  No other developer is going to enter the space as a genuine alternative because they'd be absolutely mental to.  FM has two main technical strengths - their match engine and their database.  Any competitor would start out at a disadvantage stretching to decades on both fronts.  It's why the only alternatives are grubby little mobile games. 

No white horse is coming over the hill.  If you want change, stop buying.  You'll be financially better off, and you can spend that - and your time - on something you might, you know, actually enjoy.  

Yup-That database is where the moneys at-Thats one thing thats exceptional here.....no one can come close in database terms what with all the local scout/researcher's around the world and 25 years of doing so.........

 

5 hours ago, Ein said:

Unfortunately, contemporary ideology is imbued with the myth of progress. However, newer does not necessarily equate to better. I personally don't find any problems playing older editions. I typically update the database myself, mostly by revising PAs and fixed attributes. I use dynamic PA (-10, -95, -9, etc) for most players under 26 so games are more replayable, unpredictable and fun. When a new edition is out, I try the demo and don't buy it if I don't like it, which is what I did with FM24. People will still buy and praise the game for a number of reasons (swayed by marketing, addiction, social media monetisation interests, etc).

Taking graphics out of the equation which FM is true to form in regards ME and just general good times playing the game?Is there any standout year?Ive done searches on this but people have a lot of nostalgia(myself included)in what year they will say

[Zachary Whyte]

6 hours ago, rrreee3 said:

Hello, after reading almost a dozen most recent pages of this topic. I'm very interested in the feedbacks about "attributes don't matter" and the goalkeeper scoring while being an Advanced Forward.

I would like to know what the devs think about this, thanks for reading!

I'll just pop in a say this, attributes absolutely do matter in the match engine and have a big effect. There is a reason why Haaland will most likely be the top scorer in the Premier League every season in game, if attributes didn't matter we would see a lot more random results and outcomes.

We also wouldn't recommend playing your goalkeeper as a striker, they will be bad and will obviously score less goals than your strikers.

[rrreee3]

5 minutes ago, Zachary Whyte said:

I'll just pop in a say this, attributes absolutely do matter in the match engine and have a big effect. There is a reason why Haaland will most likely the top scorer in the Premier League every season in game, if attributes didn't matter we would see a lot more random results and outcomes.

We also wouldn't recommend playing your goalkeeper as a striker, they will be bad and will obviously score less goals than your strikers.

What do the devs think about feedbacks about high scoring games being more frequent in FM24, is it a problem? If yes, then what's the explanation?

[Zachary Whyte]

Just now, rrreee3 said:

What do the devs think about feedbacks about high scoring games being more frequent in FM24, is it a problem? If yes, then what's the explanation?

We're happy with the internal numbers for goals at the moment, the average goal rate is lower than that of real life.

High scoring games will be more frequent in FM24 than in FM23 but that's because high scoring games are becoming more frequent in real-life.

[RDF Tactics]

8 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

You playing at high tempo?

don't you dare with 'slow the tempo down' 

[andu1]

30 minutes ago, Zachary Whyte said:

We're happy with the internal numbers for goals at the moment, the average goal rate is lower than that of real life.

High scoring games will be more frequent in FM24 than in FM23 but that's because high scoring games are becoming more frequent in real-life.

When AI uses 4-4-2 , the results tend to get out of line. It's an issue not present in previous FMs

[RDF Tactics]

3 hours ago, 2feet said:

if you’re not setting up your set pieces yourself then you’re asking for trouble.

 

aston villa and Chelsea have some of the best set piece coaches in the game

 

but currently, as of 4th January 24, they are joint fifth in the league for goals conceded from set pieces.

 

But that’s just not realistic.... right?

 

Source:

https://www.bettingexpert.com/news/analysis/premier-league-set-pieces-goals-corners-and-free-kick-stats#3

just to play devils advocate...how are you personally judging who's some of the best set-piece coaches in football?

And to the original post, I don't think the upset is just about conceding goals purely because he has a good set-piece coach. He has what's necessary to be good in the air as a team. And one of the issues the set-piece coach is doing is leaving a free man.

I don't know the average height of the current Chelsea team...But it's not a team I'd bank on being aerially dominant (of course, not just about height). I don't think Chelsea was a good example. And a team like that, who have to constantly chop and change their team, they're not going to be familiar as a team with their set-pieces

[akkm]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

That argument is always so weak in my mind.  The equivalent of that comic strip of the guy riding a bike and shoving a stick in the spokes.  If someone wants things to change on a product they're not enjoying, continually buying it has to be the worst way to go about it.

The competition argument is similarly pointless when it's quite clear that that is NEVER coming.  They had a competitor in EA, and even with their deep, grubby little pockets, they were beaten so badly in the genre that they pretty much folded (and admittedly absorbed the "product" back into the main game, where it stagnates to this day).  No other developer is going to enter the space as a genuine alternative because they'd be absolutely mental to.  FM has two main technical strengths - their match engine and their database.  Any competitor would start out at a disadvantage stretching to decades on both fronts.  It's why the only alternatives are grubby little mobile games. 

No white horse is coming over the hill.  If you want change, stop buying.  You'll be financially better off, and you can spend that - and your time - on something you might, you know, actually enjoy.  

Obviously completely agree on the best feedback action is to not buy the game as things currently stand as there's no real need or incentive for SI to change otherwise...broadly speaking at least.

I also don't necessarily disagree on the likelihood of a competitor emerging or at least a successful one with the head start and all that SI has. Of course the actual market could become so lucrative that it could entice someone to enter the market with the intention of getting a chunk of it. Clearly they'd have their work cut out to gain traction. 

Re EA's offering...was that part of the fifa game itself or a separate entity. Fifa players weren't likely to crossover exclusively to a management sim within that offering in the numbers EA would want and even more likely FM players were even less likely to crossover to play FIFA management as well given it's likely limitations comparatively.

I wonder what numbers play the mobile games on offer and could that, with people's demands on their own time, eat into people wanting to play the longer format. It certainly doesn't seem close to that yet at least.

Anyway, the points about what competition would do to push SI and the likelihood of a successful competitor for SI makes for a nuanced discussion and both points are entirely valid.

A strong competitor would highly likely mean SI wouldn't be able to get away with or even attempt to get away with things that have gone on in recent years so it's obvious a competitor would improve standards. It's just how the real world works and especially in business where having to strive for better and innovate and drive standards can help grow a business and not doing doing can have detrimental implications.

SI seem to have landed in a consequence free realm for themselves which is great from their perspective and a relatively comfortable place to be and for sure the lack of a competitor can lend itself to this.

It's ok for people to cite this here and it can be a good vent or message to SI in what is a feedback thread after all. People just want it to be better and the point of what competition could do is only a natural one.

The likelihood of success as things stand is another discussion but things can always change.

Overall I 100% agree the best current course of action is to not buy the game but no more than the likelihood of a competitor emerging...the odds of this happening in the numbers required to jar SI into changing things isn't that high against the backdrop of the trend of increasing sales numbers.

So again SI can and will continue to operate in a comfort zone where people feeding back/complaining on a forum only has a small (and arguably decreasing) impact on things...sadly given the state of things this seems to be the case

[akkm]

4 minutes ago, Zachary Whyte said:

We're happy with the internal numbers for goals at the moment, the average goal rate is lower than that of real life.

High scoring games will be more frequent in FM24 than in FM23 but that's because high scoring games are becoming more frequent in real-life.

Is that just based on less than half a current season when the last engine dropped after lengthening games in the real world or based over a longer period. Surely it's not just based on less than half a season as that would seem a very reactive way to build a match engine. Would that mean should the 2nd half of the season's goals per game settle back down to more normal levels we will get a match engine to reflect that early in the summer then

[glenjamin]

I'm now into my third season as Middlesbrough manager and overall I can now make an opinion that the game is simply average. 

The ME is ok. I have no major grievances with it. Some small improvements on FM23 but not a lot. 

The main issues I have that are well documented are the AI squad planning. 

Chelsea have one player out on loan for the 25/26 season. One! City have two. 

I use the in-game editor and the amount of young players with +160 PA but continue to sit in their club's reserves is crazy. 

United have a 21 year-old striker with 113 CA and 170 PA and hasn't played a competitive match in 15 months following on from a successful 6 month loan. His asking price is still £30m for some reason. 

Celtic have a midfielder with similar CA and PA and he has been limited to a handful of substitute appearances and yet isn't loan listed. His CA hasn't changed since he came back from his loan move a year ago.

Brighton have a 21 year-old striker with a CA of 87 and PA of 156. Again no appearances, no loans (ever), but it'll take £28m to prise him away. 

Evan Ferguson, one of the best young players in the game has made 13 starts in two seasons. 

I get some young players in real life naturally don't fulfill their potential, but what I'm witnessing on FM24 is absolutely pathetic.

Oh, and press conferences remain as bad as ever. Thanks for not bothering to improve that for the fifth+ year in a row despite widespread criticism from the SI community. 

Overall, this game is basically FM23 in a new fancy new box. 

[Gee_Simpson]

9 hours ago, dannyo666 said:

Nice post.The new features SI promisd SI said were in the game and are not its what's really getting to me like mentioned in your post…These new features do not work,like say AI squad building....and than we get a  post from si saying "They are happy with AI squad building?Either everyone who bought the game has lost the plot or SI have again not delivered on the game...Payed hard earned money for this game we have....It crazy now,it really is..I mean scouting is broken along with a host of other things..how did that happen and is a patch going to fix it?Scouting is kinda at the core of the game and that does not work correctly on 24... the list goes on and on and its all been reported now....so where do we go?

 

What's wrong with the scouting?

[forameuss]

3 hours ago, dannyo666 said:

Yup-That database is where the moneys at-Thats one thing thats exceptional here.....no one can come close in database terms what with all the local scout/researcher's around the world and 25 years of doing so.........

I'd put the ME above it.  I think people discount just how much work has gone in to making what we see today, and instead just point to its flaws.  

The database is probably less insurmountable.  PES/ISS proved that you can just thumb your nose at licensing and get away with it as long as the game itself is entertaining enough to play.  But without a decent enough match engine, it falls apart quite quickly.  Having neither is the default position of anyone entering the market, and that's suicide.

4 hours ago, Rodrigogc said:

I agree with everything you said, the point about the competition is that people want to play a manager game, and they can't find no alternative that comes close to FM, so they buy FM. I've been playing manager games since CM 01/02, it's the only game genre that appeals to me, so if I don't buy FM, what else am I going to play ? The alternative is playing older versions, which is still FM.

Competition is key. Henry Ford used to say "You can buy cars of any color, as long as it is black", because he sold the Model T only in black color and was king back then. Then came General Motors and started producing cadillacs and chevrolets and Buicks.. in many colors, took over the low price cars market and the only black color Model T by Ford was finally beaten. People adore and buy FM because it is still a good game, what everyone argues is that it could be way better.

I understand the argument, I just don't agree with it.  Competition isn't coming, I feel comfortable enough in saying that.  So you have a choice on a product you don't enjoy - you can buy it or not, but mindlessly buying and then talking about how it's the same for several versions is just so, so pointless.  Of course it hasn't changed!  By buying you're implicitly telling SI their direction is valid!  

[stevemc]

Prime example below of the AI just not being logical in regard to transfers.

I've agreed a deal to leave at the end of the season so in January I have zero control over transfers, however, the Director of Football, who is Luís Campos (one of the best!) has accepted two low offers for two key first team players. It's annoying, but from a club point of view it's just bad business - bad in terms of money and bad in terms of selling two first team players mid-season. We are Real Madrid.

Orkun Kökçü is worth £50m, he's accepted £24.5m:

 

Aurélien Tchouameni is worth £90m, he's accepted £52m:

 

So one of the best Director's of Football in the world has accepted two low offers for players that are key, not unhappy playing in a team that are flying in the league and Champions League, and the club are not in any financial issues. There's no logic to it - if there is, I cannot see it.

[alian62]

6 hours ago, forameuss said:

That argument is always so weak in my mind.  The equivalent of that comic strip of the guy riding a bike and shoving a stick in the spokes.  If someone wants things to change on a product they're not enjoying, continually buying it has to be the worst way to go about it.

The competition argument is similarly pointless when it's quite clear that that is NEVER coming.  They had a competitor in EA, and even with their deep, grubby little pockets, they were beaten so badly in the genre that they pretty much folded (and admittedly absorbed the "product" back into the main game, where it stagnates to this day).  No other developer is going to enter the space as a genuine alternative because they'd be absolutely mental to.  FM has two main technical strengths - their match engine and their database.  Any competitor would start out at a disadvantage stretching to decades on both fronts.  It's why the only alternatives are grubby little mobile games. 

No white horse is coming over the hill.  If you want change, stop buying.  You'll be financially better off, and you can spend that - and your time - on something you might, you know, actually enjoy.  

Don't think it's pointless . Any competition is good but yes they would very starting from scratch . EA wasn't a bad game as I played it up until the last game in 2014 but EA itself was a bad company . Certainly not saying the Football Manager series are bad though as I get my monies worth out if it but in needs to take a big leap forward because it's been the same game for many years . I guess this is what FM25 will bring,  Hopefully 🤔

[alian62]

5 hours ago, akkm said:

Obviously completely agree on the best feedback action is to not buy the game as things currently stand as there's no real need or incentive for SI to change otherwise...broadly speaking at least.

I also don't necessarily disagree on the likelihood of a competitor emerging or at least a successful one with the head start and all that SI has. Of course the actual market could become so lucrative that it could entice someone to enter the market with the intention of getting a chunk of it. Clearly they'd have their work cut out to gain traction. 

Re EA's offering...was that part of the fifa game itself or a separate entity. Fifa players weren't likely to crossover exclusively to a management sim within that offering in the numbers EA would want and even more likely FM players were even less likely to crossover to play FIFA management as well given it's likely limitations comparatively.

I wonder what numbers play the mobile games on offer and could that, with people's demands on their own time, eat into people wanting to play the longer format. It certainly doesn't seem close to that yet at least.

Anyway, the points about what competition would do to push SI and the likelihood of a successful competitor for SI makes for a nuanced discussion and both points are entirely valid.

A strong competitor would highly likely mean SI wouldn't be able to get away with or even attempt to get away with things that have gone on in recent years so it's obvious a competitor would improve standards. It's just how the real world works and especially in business where having to strive for better and innovate and drive standards can help grow a business and not doing doing can have detrimental implications.

SI seem to have landed in a consequence free realm for themselves which is great from their perspective and a relatively comfortable place to be and for sure the lack of a competitor can lend itself to this.

It's ok for people to cite this here and it can be a good vent or message to SI in what is a feedback thread after all. People just want it to be better and the point of what competition could do is only a natural one.

The likelihood of success as things stand is another discussion but things can always change.

Overall I 100% agree the best current course of action is to not buy the game but no more than the likelihood of a competitor emerging...the odds of this happening in the numbers required to jar SI into changing things isn't that high against the backdrop of the trend of increasing sales numbers.

So again SI can and will continue to operate in a comfort zone where people feeding back/complaining on a forum only has a small (and arguably decreasing) impact on things...sadly given the state of things this seems to be the case

It's like the Twilight Zone 😊

[2feet]

5 hours ago, RDF Tactics said:

just to play devils advocate...how are you personally judging who's some of the best set-piece coaches in football?

And to the original post, I don't think the upset is just about conceding goals purely because he has a good set-piece coach. He has what's necessary to be good in the air as a team. And one of the issues the set-piece coach is doing is leaving a free man.

I don't know the average height of the current Chelsea team...But it's not a team I'd bank on being aerially dominant (of course, not just about height). I don't think Chelsea was a good example. And a team like that, who have to constantly chop and change their team, they're not going to be familiar as a team with their set-pieces

id judge them based on the fact both teams are very rich, and chelsea have brought in pochetinos coaching team, and he comes with an elite coaching unit.

on that basis chelseas set piece coach will for my money probably be equivalent to 4.5 stars in the FM game. Not 100% but I think its a fair guess. villa have emery, another elite coach, so same thing?

the fact these teams are joint fifth in conceding from set pieces, along with luton, says to me morale is a problem for chelsea in real life, and id guess its part of the problem for the FM player who posted too.

im making the point that although your set piece coach may be good, theres other factors. 

concentration? tiredness? positioning? marking?

plus leaving anything to the coaches to do themselves is always a risk.

any ideas why the fm player is conceding so many set pieces?

 

[chris72]

I have no doubt before you go into a match the result is already made and this is what plays out in the game My tactics, team instructions training don't have much impact on the game  my team can look good for 2 games win them then the next game away against a smaller team unable to score any goals. this game is unplayable 

 

[The About Average Jake]

Transfer values are just broken. 

 

27 million for an average league one player

[alian62]

54 minutes ago, chris72 said:

I have no doubt before you go into a match the result is already made and this is what plays out in the game My tactics, team instructions training don't have much impact on the game  my team can look good for 2 games win them then the next game away against a smaller team unable to score any goals. this game is unplayable 

 

Often wandered how much the match is influenced by the changes we do . Tactic changes , opposition marking and Subs at crucial times seems to be the only options. Not sure Shouts have any influence to be honest . In real life a manager can yell as much as he wants but if a player or team are not playing well then shouting won't change much . But then that depends on how well you are respected as a manager .

Maybe someone from SI can tell us more

Edited January 12 by alian62

[Mst82]

On 09/01/2024 at 18:52, TOMetz said:

How do I get my team to be as OP as the AI is after you've just scored a goal?

But now to cut the cynical message: I'm actually enjoying this years FM thoroughly again.

Did you get a response to this from anyone?

[Mst82]

11 hours ago, glenjamin said:

I'm now into my third season as Middlesbrough manager and overall I can now make an opinion that the game is simply average. 

The ME is ok. I have no major grievances with it. Some small improvements on FM23 but not a lot. 

The main issues I have that are well documented are the AI squad planning. 

Chelsea have one player out on loan for the 25/26 season. One! City have two. 

I use the in-game editor and the amount of young players with +160 PA but continue to sit in their club's reserves is crazy. 

United have a 21 year-old striker with 113 CA and 170 PA and hasn't played a competitive match in 15 months following on from a successful 6 month loan. His asking price is still £30m for some reason. 

Celtic have a midfielder with similar CA and PA and he has been limited to a handful of substitute appearances and yet isn't loan listed. His CA hasn't changed since he came back from his loan move a year ago.

Brighton have a 21 year-old striker with a CA of 87 and PA of 156. Again no appearances, no loans (ever), but it'll take £28m to prise him away. 

Evan Ferguson, one of the best young players in the game has made 13 starts in two seasons. 

I get some young players in real life naturally don't fulfill their potential, but what I'm witnessing on FM24 is absolutely pathetic.

Oh, and press conferences remain as bad as ever. Thanks for not bothering to improve that for the fifth+ year in a row despite widespread criticism from the SI community. 

Overall, this game is basically FM23 in a new fancy new box. 

Some small improvement? Are you playing the same game as me? It’s the only reason I’m looking past all of the bugs and non-ME flaws, it’s absolutely beautiful, in my opinion. 

[XaW]

7 hours ago, chris72 said:

I have no doubt before you go into a match the result is already made and this is what plays out in the game My tactics, team instructions training don't have much impact on the game  my team can look good for 2 games win them then the next game away against a smaller team unable to score any goals. this game is unplayable 

 

6 hours ago, alian62 said:

Often wandered how much the match is influenced by the changes we do . Tactic changes , opposition marking and Subs at crucial times seems to be the only options. Not sure Shouts have any influence to be honest . In real life a manager can yell as much as he wants but if a player or team are not playing well then shouting won't change much . But then that depends on how well you are respected as a manager .

Maybe someone from SI can tell us more

SI have explained how the game works (on a higher level anyway, as I'm sure they don't want to give out trade secrets), but I'll paraphrase here, but I think it's mostly correct:

After both managers have decided their tactics and selection and pressed "Submit team" and you see the preview of the game, at that point the game (not the opponent AI!) knows what will happen in the game, this needs to be done to know when to show highlights to the user based on their preference. So at this point the final score is known to the game, and a lot of factors are set in stone, morale, fitness, weather, attribute variations based on big games/consistency etc. And the game starts to play as it is supposed to. Let's call this STATE A.

HOWEVER, if either manager makes any tactical changes, subs, shouts, etc. The game will from the point it is put in effect, recalculate the rest of the game. This is STATE B. If there is another change later on, the game is once again recalculated from that point to the end, STATE C. And so on for any future changes.

So what can we take from this? Well, if no manager made any changes, the end result will be STATE A. Let's say 3-0 to the home side.

However, at 1-0 to the home side, the away side made changes to counter it, and the new end state is then STATE B. Le's say 1-1.

Even later, the home side made a new change to counter the counter, and then we have STATE C, which is a 3-1 win to the home side.

Of course, this is simplifying it, but I think you understand it. Now, how can we know this for sure, other than taking the developers words as true? Well, there is a bug that can happen sometimes in online saves, where two players see different things happen in the same match, so player A sees it being a 2-0 win, while player B sees a 2-2 draw, but when the game returns from the match, the result is 2-2 as player B saw and player A is unhappy. How can this happen? Well, this is a bug called match deviation, where on an online save the recalculation is not done for the non-hosts for some reason. It's quite rare if I understand it correctly, but it can happen. And it demonstrates how changes in matches actually have an effect on what happens. That' s not to say that EVERY change a manager makes will change the scoreline, but it will trigger a recalculation of the rest of the match to match the new variables set.

I will say again, I don't have any inside knowledge of this, I'm not employed by SI, nor have they given me a detailed description, this is just what I've summarized from read this forum over the years, so take it with a small grain of salt, but I still think the overall explanation is good enough.

[diLLa88]

1 hour ago, XaW said:

SI have explained how the game works (on a higher level anyway, as I'm sure they don't want to give out trade secrets), but I'll paraphrase here, but I think it's mostly correct:

After both managers have decided their tactics and selection and pressed "Submit team" and you see the preview of the game, at that point the game (not the opponent AI!) knows what will happen in the game, this needs to be done to know when to show highlights to the user based on their preference. So at this point the final score is known to the game, and a lot of factors are set in stone, morale, fitness, weather, attribute variations based on big games/consistency etc. And the game starts to play as it is supposed to. Let's call this STATE A.

HOWEVER, if either manager makes any tactical changes, subs, shouts, etc. The game will from the point it is put in effect, recalculate the rest of the game. This is STATE B. If there is another change later on, the game is once again recalculated from that point to the end, STATE C. And so on for any future changes.

So what can we take from this? Well, if no manager made any changes, the end result will be STATE A. Let's say 3-0 to the home side.

However, at 1-0 to the home side, the away side made changes to counter it, and the new end state is then STATE B. Le's say 1-1.

Even later, the home side made a new change to counter the counter, and then we have STATE C, which is a 3-1 win to the home side.

Of course, this is simplifying it, but I think you understand it. Now, how can we know this for sure, other than taking the developers words as true? Well, there is a bug that can happen sometimes in online saves, where two players see different things happen in the same match, so player A sees it being a 2-0 win, while player B sees a 2-2 draw, but when the game returns from the match, the result is 2-2 as player B saw and player A is unhappy. How can this happen? Well, this is a bug called match deviation, where on an online save the recalculation is not done for the non-hosts for some reason. It's quite rare if I understand it correctly, but it can happen. And it demonstrates how changes in matches actually have an effect on what happens. That' s not to say that EVERY change a manager makes will change the scoreline, but it will trigger a recalculation of the rest of the match to match the new variables set.

I will say again, I don't have any inside knowledge of this, I'm not employed by SI, nor have they given me a detailed description, this is just what I've summarized from read this forum over the years, so take it with a small grain of salt, but I still think the overall explanation is good enough.

Makes sense.

This does however not consider that State A could be heavily influenced negatively against the player due to previous overperformance to make the game more "challenging", where no matter how much you change it to State B or C with tactical adjustment it will still be a loss for you because it's just so much skewed towards a positive AI result changes cannot heavily impact it anymore.

Not saying it's that case, but it does sometimes feel that no matter what you do a result is set in stone which is what the previous comments refer to.