Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PG41

  • Rank
  1. I wouldn't trade professionalism for anything. Even if the tutoree had 12 determination I wouldn't do it. Determination is overrated IMO. Unless I'm mistaken it has nothing to do with player development. No, I wouldn't sign a guy with Determination 2, but I'll accept 9 or above.
  2. I've just bought a player because he has the same name as my newborn son. I couldn't justify not signing him and developing him as well as I can. At least he's somewhat good. I also bought a Goalkeeper with the same name as me, but he was absolutely terrible. That's probably about right though.
  3. I win about 50% of my games, with the rest split evenly between draws and losses. That's exactly the level of challenge that I like. I want to generally win, but not go into any given game completely confident that I'll win. I am good at developing players, but I'm wrong a fair amount of the time. I think my tactics are solid but they're far from game-breaking. I'm happy with that. All of it. I'm a good player, but not an all-conquering juggernaut. I recognize that if they made this game really realistic I'd become crap. Because if the game was ultra-realistic and I didn't become crap, I'd actually be managing a real football team instead of working a low-level IT job. And I don't want to be crap. I'm not going to pay $50 a year to be crap in a virtual world. I'm crap enough in the real world thanks. I'm not interested in too much realism. Like board sackings after a takeover that have nothing to do with performance especially tick me off. Board interference in general ticks me off, actually, even though it doesn't impact me very often. I'd turn all that off in two seconds if I could. TBH I don't even understand the logic of people who argue in support of things like that... realism at the expense of fun. Also, I'm currently managing Bristol City. If I had taken them over knowing that no matter how well I played, I'd never be able to get them higher than the level of a top championship team/occasional premier league relegation fodder because that's all that their finances would ever allow... well, how could I get fired up long term about playing a scenario like that? Like I said on another thread, I wish all of the 'realism' features could be turned on or off with a series of checkboxes instead of essentially dividing the game in two with FMC like they did. I don't like Board interference. I'd like to be able to play in a sandbox setting where I couldn't be fired sometimes. But that's me. Maybe you don't want the above but you might not like team talks and want them out, and so on. No one change will make everyone happy... customization is the best way to go long term. Gotta add this: I hope FM never tries to move away from single player as the core. FM has been a great enough franchise that I've stuck with it through Steam, through a few changes that I didn't really like, but I've got no interest in Multiplayer and would drop this game if it started turning into Call of Duty with a ball.
  4. It seems that people, and I'm not necessarily talking about the OP here, feel a constant pressure to 'like' the latest and greatest version of FM at any given time and that pressure lessens the fun. Just because a game is newer than a predecessor, more advanced with higher reviews, that doesn't mean that the game is better for you. Perhaps you're happy winning 65% of your games instead of struggling in a more realistic fashion, and that's fine. Perhaps you're happier without all the jibber-jabber and just want to buy players and watch them play football, even though the jibber-jabber is more representative of what a real Football Manager does, and that's fine too. Perhaps you're really into a tactical approach and a team you built on an old version and you don't have the time or desire to shelve that and learn a new style of play, even though you might not really want to admit that to yourself. My point is that every new release of FM doesn't need to trigger an existential crisis. In the end it's all about what's the most fun for you. If you can't get excited about FM 2015, why not skip a version and see what SI's long term plan is? I only buy a new version about once every 3 years, but I enjoy the game overall as much as anyone. And because I'm buying the versions less frequently, I can really see the improvements that have taken place... like if someone loses 20 pounds but you see them every day, it's hard to notice the weight loss... but if you haven't seen them in 6 months and they lost 20 pounds in the interim then you recognize that they look great. On an aside, I think the complaints have subsided because older players have developed a tolerance for Steam and the non-football interactions on the newer versions... the older players that didn't adapt have said their bit and are gone, and were replaced by newer, more accepting players. I also think a lot of complaints would be eradicated if FM were more customizable... a bunch of checkboxes like Board Interference? On Off... Morale? On Off... etc. FMC is nice, but I think SI makes a lot of assumptions about the things that people want and don't want in their game.
  5. Great thread.. I usually lurk but I'll play this. I won't guess PA as I never use editors, but if I was managing a top side I'll give my opinion on whether I'd take them or not. 1.Albert Lamour: No I don't have much use for attackers with no vision. Personality is bad. Handles pressure badly. I'll pass. 2. Ander Iturraspe: Yes Great price and personality. I like the high reflexes. Cheap signing, too. 3. Lothar Schuster: Maybe... I hate the low decisions and concentration but you can get by with that somewhat as a wide midfielder. Pricey. I like him otherwise. 4. Ourdy Kitoko: No Doesn't have the physicals. Low bravery. Too slow for the wing, not physical enough for the middle. He's 16 but resembles a 33 year old whose legs are shot. 5. Steven La Rosa: Yes Skills are OK. I'd like more concentration but Determination like that overcomes that weakness for me. Great personality. 6. Eduardo Inglese: No I'd like more speed and composure but I can train that up. Tackling ability stands out. Good personality. But I can't get past the injury rating. 7. Frank Rober: No I like this players skills, though I'd like his jumping to be better. The 'volatile' can be tutored out. It's great that he's two footed. But I don't think he's going to adapt to the move... those kinds of players never work out for me. 8. Seb Geyer: No Looks like a terrific prospect except he's going to get hurt all the time. That kills it for me. 9. Roberto Alinovi: Yes I like the physicals, which even with no training are premier league level. I wouldn't let him near the full back position with such bad positioning and marking though. I'd only play him as a wide midfielder. 10. Michele Desideri: Yes The one footedness is bad but other than that he looks like a tremendous player. I'd train up the dribbling and off the ball though. 11. Guus van Grinsven: Yes I'd like better jumping and heading but really like the high bravery. I usually like aggression but with an 18 I'd be worried about him getting drawn out of position by it. Resolute is my favorite personality type. The fact that he can't handle big matches is a concern, but I think I could make him into something worthwhile overall. 12. Jason Durand: No The low vision is a concern, so is the extreme one footedness. I don't this acceleration is going to raise enough for him to become a great poacher, and his passing and vision are too low to be anything else for me. 13. Kevin Schmid: No Marking, positioning are way too low. Can't jump so he doesn't belong anywhere near the middle. Not even a good attacking option with that dribbling and crossing. I like the personality but he's just not very good. 14. Mercel Harrer: No Can't pass, can't really shoot. Not very fast. Can't dribble. He's never going to become anything. 15. Marius Augustin: No I think he's a potentially good attacking player but the lack of adaptability and inability to handle pressure wouldn't work in my team. With him, I'd give him a shot if he were really cheap but he's really expensive. 16. Lars Barth: No I'm not letting a guy like that anywhere near my defense. His skills are never going to develop enough to make him worthwhile. All he can do is run fast. Kind of a crap personality, too.
  6. I don't think I've ever been more than favored personnel on any save in any version of FM. Often, I don't even become that, despite being pretty successful most of the time. I've also seen players put up 6,7 seasons of strong ratings and also not get any respect from the fans. On the flip side, I've seen other players put up a couple of good, not great, seasons and become icons. Wingers seem to be especially well-liked by fans in my experience. The way favored personnel works for players makes sense to me. But the way it works for clubs feels way too random to be useful in any way. Can anyone in the know tell us what the game looks at when working this out?
  7. Thanks... the demo is still out there so I'll check it out when I get home from work. Herringbone, the most modern games I own are OOTP14 and FM 2012. Everything else is either pre-2010 or a tiny indie game like Qvadriga, so I'm probably a few years behind with my perceptions of DLC and what kind of programs use it. I've only just started to trust Steam.
  8. I was worried about the morale, but then I realized it wouldn't really be any different of a system than the old games had, where you'd manage it indirectly by winning, giving playing time, and sending out new contracts instead of talking. TBF, these unlockables don't help the image of FMC (not sure if the fat version has them too). Unlockable features are something I associate with a FPS console game or one of those crappy games on Facebook that my aunt plays, not a management sim. Yeah the old games are pretty easy. I don't know if that's inherent or if we've just played them so much that we totally mastered them. Early on, I spent a couple of seasons in FM 2012 mired in the middle of the Conference North and I didn't mind that. If I can deal with finishing 13th in the Conference North when it takes a month to play the season out, I'll be good with doing it when seasons only take 3 days.
  9. I'm mostly a lurker who has been reading a lot about FMC lately. I had a great save going on FM 2012, left it for a while, but now that I'm back in the mood for football management, I don't want to play that save because the idea of getting back into the flow feels like too much of a hassle. It takes me a month to play through a season on FM 2012, and even that speed is only when I'm really into playing FM. So I've gone way back and am now playing Ultimate Soccer Manager 2, where I can finish a season in a day. Great old game, BTW, if you can prevent yourself from using the training exploit. It sounds like FMC might be a fit for someone like me, but all of the comparisons I've read so far are between FMC and the fat game. Something that I'm not seeing asked here is: Why should I play FMC at all instead of just going back to CM 01/02, or one of the USMs, or something like that? A lot of the things that were removed from the main game to form FMC were considered to be main features in the newer releases. FMC doesn't even seem to have attribute masking unless I pay for it, and it looks like there's an emphasis on selling Playstation-style DLC which allows you to cheat or do weird stuff - that stuff doesn't interest me at all. I don't want something that feels arcadey or like an app. So those of you who have been around a bit and really played the old games as well as FMC, is it worth me dropping the old stuff and getting into Football Manager Classic? Thanks.
  10. I think the DMC's are more important - but it depends on the personnel you have. IMO you could have 2 AMC's AND 2 DMC's as long as their roles don't leave too much space in the center. I'm not a tactical guru though... if you use a 4-6-0 and get pounded, I apologize in advance. But for me, it put a stop to my rage cuts - trust me, I've been there. My 'Loyalty to Players' rating is pretty abysmal.
  11. Dude, I'm telling you. If you have the people to run it for a short period of time, 4-6-0. You won't score too many more goals but you'll concede fewer, control the ball a lot more, and your remaining players will look much better because they're not trying to hit crosses and passes to guys who won't receive them. An out of form striker is almost completely useless. An out of form midfielder is still a somewhat helpful body in the middle of the pitch. I am a Sunday league footballer. Nearly all my players 'Have trouble motivating themselves to play for me', but I punch well above my weight ever since I switched. Try the 4-6-0 for 2 games. If you're at the point where you're rage-terminating people, what difference does it make if it fails?
  12. I don't know exactly who on your team isn't performing, but my biggest problem was caused by my erratic strikers. I tried everything - fast guys, brave/aggressive/strong guys, veterans with high mentals and good passing... they were all terrible. Once in a while one of them would score 2 goals in a game, and the rest of the time they'd miss crosses hit their way, shank penalties, get offside at crucial times, lose every single 50-50 ball they came into contact with, and hit shots that were closer to the corner flag than the goal. Damn, my strikers would make me mad... Everything else about my team other than my striking was fine, but my results because of them were mediocre. How do your strikers perform? Are they getting on the end of crosses, getting shots, getting them on target? Anyway, I solved my problem with a random burst of rage. After one particularly bad game I cut every single one of my strikers and switched to a 4-6-0 philosophy right in the middle of the season. Since then my team has been much better - even while learning a completely new formation, they were much better. My DM's cut down on conceded goals, I'm holding possession a lot more, my midfielders contribute much more to my overall play, and my wide midfielders, playing as inside forwards, score more goals than my strikers did. IMO it's easier to find a good well, rounded AM in the lower leagues than a striker. To make a long story short, try a 4-6-0 for a few games and see how it works for you.
  13. It might be a bug. I had a player once who demanded a raise. He was a good player, so we talked it out and I agreed he should get one. Then I went to his screen and got the same message, except it was something like, 'I'm not currently interested in negotiations', because he had no agent. The story ended a week later with me sending him out on a free transfer - if he doesn't want to talk to me, he can go see what salaries look like in the Isthmian Premier League.
  14. Are you talking about the BSN/BSS? I've never been able to sell a player at that level - anyone who would want the type of player I'm selling is as broke as I am, and it's not like you can develop youth and sell them in the BSS/BSN either. In my current save, I'm in my second year running Bishop's Stortford. My wages are at around half of what the board would allow me to spend, I have always exceeded expectations in the cups, and I was in the promotion playoffs last year (I lost). And with all that, I'd still be losing money hand over fist if I wasn't constantly scheduling friendlies against bigger teams.
  15. Ultimate Soccer Manager 2. I liked the game overall, but developing young players was way too easy. I could take any 17 year old talentless goon off the street, and within a year, make him a solid division 1 player. In 3 years, that goon would be among the best players in the world. No exceptions.
  • Create New...