Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Shi Xiansheng

Members
  • Content count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shi Xiansheng

  • Rank
    Amateur

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Curzon Ashton
  1. Matches postpones due to weather

    Playing FM16. In my sixth(?) season, started in the Vanarama North and now in the Vanarama National. I have at least one home game each season postponed on the day due to a waterlogged pitch. But, as others above, I've never seen mass postponements due to rain or snow. Possibly more than one fixture hit on the same day but that'd presumably be pure chance rather than an "event" that groups postponements. Can we get confirmation that the mass postponement is simply not in the game?
  2. Player name's

    I, too, would like this option and can't find it. Numbers might be even better. I'm playing FM 16. Anyone?
  3. Injury lengths are inaccurate.

    Okay, that's not particularly surprising to me. But do you have any more information on it? Is it possible the bug was fixed by a patch I don't have? Is it a known issue others have commented on? Is it a bug with my save specifically, while other FM 16 saves report injuries normally? Is it possible I'm simply misinterpreting what these numbers mean somehow? It's nowhere near game-breaking, just... you know, annoying.
  4. Injury lengths are inaccurate.

    So should I post elsewhere, or what?
  5. [Originally posted in General; advised to post here.] Please let me know if this is the wrong place for this. I have noticed that in my FM16 save, the reported times players are sidelined through injury are far, far longer than the actual times. This can be seen in two places: 1) the injury report given at the end of the season, in which players who had been out a few months are reported to have missed the entire season, and 2) the "Injuries" screen under a player's "History" tab, where injuries keeping the player out a couple of weeks are reported to have kept him out for 8 months or longer. Now, in a way this is not a problem, because players are generally out for about as long as estimated when injuries are first sustained, and those estimates are relatively realistic. It's not like my players are missing longer than they should be. But it's a bit annoying because it would be useful just to be able to refer to these histories and get an idea of how injury prone players are, whether they're suffering the same injuries repeatedly or different ones, how much their output and appearances are related to injury, etc. Any way to fix this, or find the real injury lists? Bug? Something I'm not understanding?
  6. Injury lengths are inaccurate.

    Yes, injuries sustained during a save. As I said, the estimates given for how long a player will be out are far shorter than the reports later of how long the player was out. Will post at your link. Thanks.
  7. Injury lengths are inaccurate.

    Oh, they're nothing special, of course, but surprisingly, 2nd-best in the Vanarama National League: Physiotherapy 14 and 13, respectively. So you seem to be suggesting it's the latter, the "something I'm not understanding" explanation. I can imagine how poor physios wouldn't be great at predicting how long a player's going to be out—though as I said these estimates tend to be good—but I can't really understand how they would then present an inaccurate account of how long a player was out. I can do that just fine in real life due to my astounding proficiency in reading calendars (though the Gregorian leaves much to be desired), and I have no training in physiotherapy. Can you explain?
  8. Please let me know if this is the wrong place for this. I have noticed that in my FM16 save, the reported times players are sidelined through injury are far, far longer than the actual times. This can be seen in two places: 1) the injury report given at the end of the season, in which players who had been out a few months are reported to have missed the entire season, and 2) the "Injuries" screen under a player's "History" tab, where injuries keeping the player out a couple of weeks are reported to have kept him out for 8 months or longer. Now, in a way this is not a problem, because players are generally out for about as long as estimated when injuries are first sustained, and those estimates are relatively realistic. It's not like my players are missing longer than they should be. But it's a bit annoying because it would be useful just to be able to refer to these histories and get an idea of how injury prone players are, whether they're suffering the same injuries repeatedly or different ones, how much their output and appearances are related to injury, etc. Any way to fix this, or find the real injury lists? Bug? Something I'm not understanding?
  9. I apologize both for this question being somewhat off-topic and for posting it multiple times in the forums, but I'd really like to be able to do this and don't know where to ask. If someone knows, please advise. Is there a way to be able to see player numbers (NOT names) in 3D? I prefer 3D (though the 2D option is nice to have for post-match analysis) but I find it hard to distinguish the players. The floating names are too large and would obscure the action, but numbers would suffice. Oh, and I'm playing FM 16. Anyone?
  10. LLM Question: Contracts

    Low-profile players in the lower leagues often want NCs (that is, it's the type of contract suggested when you Approach to Sign). I've even had players I've wanted to tie down to part-time contracts refuse them, insisting on an NC. I'm not sure of the mechanics behind this, though.
  11. Player names in 3D Mode

    I just stumbled across this thread, which seems to be asking a related question to mine. Not trying to hijack the thread, just don't know where to ask this; if I should be asking somewhere else, please let me know. I would like to be able to see the players' numbers (smaller than names) at all times during 3D mode. Not necessary to be able to see the condition bars, but I want to be able to identify players easily, as they mostly look the same. Anyone know how to accomplish this? I'm playing FM16.
  12. As I've chronicled in this thread, I've had limited success with the 4-4-2 and the 4-4-1-1, but adding a defensive midfielder in the switch to a 4-1-4-1 is what really got me promotion, I think. (And the defensive midfielder in question isn't even any good!) This, like your suggestion, relieved a bit of pressure on the central midfielders. The two in the 4-4-2 just got overwhelmed. I can see the Christmas tree working just by crowding midfield and controlling the space right in front of the area. If you find you're scoring a reasonable amount but conceding too many, I'd suggest pulling a midfielder back into defensive midfield and going for a 4-1-3-1-1 or even 4-1-3-2.
  13. Although the 4-4-1-1 gave me a decent enough start, I eventually came to favor the 4-1-4-1 and stuck with it for almost all matches except where I really thought I should try something different based on the opposition or when chasing a goal. The defensive midfielder ended up making a world of difference, and I found that with a CM(a) getting forward and a WM(a) cutting inside, the AM just wasn't necessary. He performed better in a deeper role anyway. Though I did tweak throughout the season, my tactic usually ended up looking something like: DLF(a) WM(a) CM(s) CM(a) W(s) DM(d) FB(a) CD(d) CD(d) WB(s) G(d) Control/Flexible Now, although I previously erred toward the "simpler is better" approach with TIs and PIs, I was inspired by VinceLombardi's excellent thread here: American Football Although I was doing something much different from what he was doing, and I certainly wasn't following his TI/Mentality/Shape and PI combinations with any precision, I took a lot of the ideas and applied them. It worked. Maybe I'll strip a lot of this away next season, but I used: TIs: Prevent Short GK Distribution, Use Tighter Marking, Play Out of Defense, Pass Into Space PIs: G(d): Distribute to Center Backs FB(a): Dribble Less, Close Down More, Mark Tighter both CD(d)s: Close Down Less, Pass It Shorter WB(s): Dribble Less, Close Down More, Mark Tighter, More Direct Passes, Cross More Often DM(d): Mark Tighter WM(a): Close Down More, Roam From Position, Sit Narrower, Cut Inside With Ball CM(s): Close Down More, Tackle Harder, More Risky Passes CM(a): Close Down More, Tackle Harder, Roam From Position, Move Into Channels W(s): Close Down More, Roam From Position DLF(a): Dribble More, Tackle Harder, Close Down Much More Overkill? Perhaps. But it worked. There will be tinkering in the season ahead, but I think I'm going to start at least with this same basic tactic. I'll likely keep the 4-4-2 and 4-4-1-1 as backups, but we'll see. The four attack duties and the WB(s) may also have been overkill, especially with the FB(a) behind the WM(a) on the left. But those mostly worked too. I didn't score boatloads, but I scored fairly consistently, and I didn't concede as many as the look of the tactic might make you think. Still, I will probably dial back the duties a bit next season, because... I got promoted! Yes, I won the title against the odds on the last day. Boston United more or less collapsed down the stretch, while all Harrogate had to do was beat Fylde on the last day, but they lost 1–0, while I bested North Ferriby 1–0 (my third 1–0 in a row) to finish 2 points clear of Harrogate and 3 clear of Boston. Whew! I anticipate the need to be a bit more conservative at times in the National League, but I will at least try being still positive overall. Parking the bus is likely to be a recipe for disaster, I imagine, so I'll need to grab goals where I can. It will presumably be a building year as I seek to avoid relegation and hope that more fans are attracted to my ground for more revenue. Thanks to everyone who chimed in in this thread.
  14. I actually had considered starting a thread on this topic, but I suppose I'll put the question here. Just to be clear, the instructions More Direct Passes and More Risky Passes are using the word "more" to refer to quantity, not quality, right? That is, they mean "MORE Direct Passes" and "MORE Risky Passes," not "MORE DIRECT Passes" and "MORE RISKY Passes." I'm assuming this must be the case because obviously you can't telepathically move the intended recipient of a pass farther from yourself, meaning you can choose to select more distant targets and hence make a greater number of direct passes, but you can't make all your passes a little more direct. Plus, if it were degree rather than quantity, it would be "Riskier Passes," I suppose. So if this is the case, it must be that a certain type of pass is labeled "Risky," rather than all passes being relatively more or less risky. How do we know which are risky? I mean, yes, I understand that through balls into space are risky while short balls into the feet of an unmarked teammate are not, but what kind of percentages are we talking about here? Is it the case that some small subset of attempted passes are "Risky" (kind of like how a small subset of completed passes are "Key"), or is the game defining a much greater part of passing as "Risky," including balls not into space but to a marked player for instance? Are aimless long balls "Risky"? Does More Risky Passes by necessity increase passing distance too, despite the possibility of short through balls? Forgive me if this sounds pedantic, but I'm curious how More Risky Passes especially works exactly, and accordingly what exactly its effect would be on top of More Direct Passes (as well as modifiers to passing length and risk from Mentality, Shape and TIs).
  15. Weaker foot: avoid or train?

    I think learning neither PPM is the safe play, and you need a good, considered reason to learn either. Coaches will constantly advise you to encourage Joe Jumpersforgoalposts to avoid the use of his weaker foot; ignore them. What I've generally read is that avoiding the weaker foot may be a good idea ONLY for players whose weak foot is "Very Weak." Even if their off foot is "Weak," the advantage gained by their not hitting a ball out to touch with their off foot is offset by the opportunity cost of constantly shifting the ball onto their strong foot. (That is, Weak is good enough for many things.) Even if one foot is Very Weak, avoiding its use is probably more advantageous for certain positions than for others (for example, wide men who tend to stay glued to the touchline). On the flip side, developing the weaker foot can obviously provide an advantage, but as already noted, it consumes CA, adds to training workload, possibly precludes you from learning a more useful PPM or tutoring/being tutored, and is more worth it when the player is young and will have time to actually undergo that development. Also, two-footedness is more beneficial for certain positions than for others (for me, I would say strikers and non-defensive central midfielders).
×