Vicz
-
Posts
229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by Vicz
-
-
Anybody playing an online save to see if the results changing bug has been fixed?
@Neil Brock I get that’s it’s the full release and there’s no changelist but could you let us know if this major bug has indeed been fixed? There’s been no feedback anywhere on this.
0 -
28 minutes ago, Wavelberry said:
So, having played a full season on the beta and having seen the Serie C fixtures have at least fixed themselves there are a couple of queries and stuff I have mostly regarding in game shouts.
1. So far in my one season of using them it appears encourage and concentrate never work and just overwhelm the players which seems odds.
2. The feedback lasts beyond half-time which shouldn't really be the case as the half-time team talk should override any shout from before half-time
3. If I shout 'no pressure' it doesn't seem logical for the response of the entire squad to be 'overwhelmed by feedback'.
4. Demand More and Praise seem to be the opposite of Encourage and Concentrate as they always seem to have a positive effect.
Have you tried it out with different teams? It may be that the set of players you have just respond better those shouts.
0 -
@Neil Brock any news on the changing result bug on the network games or is that still ongoing?
0 -
1 hour ago, bigmattb28 said:
I have asked this very same question twice on this thread but not seen a definite answer to it.
With regards to them removing that functionality for network games: in FM18 it was discovered that the trigger for a major bug that players were experiencing was the viewing of each other's games. So I don't think it would be too farfetched to come to the conclusion that they've removed that functionality to stop that trigger. That said, the major bug in question has still managed to present itself during the beta (facepalm).
0 -
41 minutes ago, forameuss said:
Because it's very, very unlikely that they would fragment the code base like that. Two different applications to support. Can you not see why that wouldn't be something they'd want to do?
And I never said how you should react in any way. I even said I understand where you're coming from, and how nothing I said would be much solace. But you specifically said you couldn't understand why it was still an issue, so I gave you reasons why it might be. That's it.
And no, I have no interest in the mode. Anyone who shares that opinion and doesn't play it, then it doesn't render anything useless.
1st paragraph - I don't get what you’re saying here. In it’s simplest form, all you’d have to do is disable the online career mode option on the start screen, then release a patch where the option was enabled when that part of the game was ready. You will not be able to convince me that that is a difficult thing to do.
2nd paragraph - Fair. No disrespect but I could have come up with “it’s low priority so they don’t care” myself.
3rd paragraph - I don’t know what you’re saying no to but please note the difference between game and game mode. I said it renders that game mode useless. Obviously if you don’t touch that game mode then then it’s a moot point.
0 -
1 minute ago, forameuss said:
Yeeeah...that just isn't going to happen, is it? Nothing "dishonest" about it.
Just this one, because it affects you? A fine personal viewpoint to have, but doesn't really work for the majority, does it?
Why can't it happen? If the single game mode is as dominate as you suggest why can't they just release that on it's own? There is a shade of dishonesty in releasing a game mode you know has a known bug that renders it unplayable.
You're acting like I'm being self-centered but I'd 100% flip that on you. The bug I am talking about literally renders the game mode useless. It's not a minor bug. You're essentially saying since not many people play that mode (including yourself I imagine) I shouldn't moan about it? Or be flabbergasted that it has been an issue for the last 3 releases?
Disclaimer to all I've said: I understand this is a beta and that finding bugs is what this is all about. It's still alarming that a beta is needed to catch a bug as well known as this one.
0 -
5 minutes ago, forameuss said:
Neither of us really know for sure, I'm only going by experience of doing this kind of stuff, and the fact that it hasn't been fixed. Both scenarios are more likely than just plain "forgot about it lol" incompetence.
And I have no idea on the relative numbers between online and offline play, but I'd be amazed if they were even close. You say you can't understand why they'd release it if this particular bug wasn't fixed, but whether it's hypothetical option 1 or hypothetical option 2, I wouldn't understand the opposite of them not releasing the game until they fix something like this. The fact that they don't usually release online play in the beta should show you that they don't consider it part of the core game. Hence, not as important as the main core. Hence, they'll have "more important" issues to be concentrating on.
They could be honest and just release the single player version of the game. Release the network version when it's actually playable. Nobody's saying eradicate every single bug before you release the game.
0 -
7 minutes ago, forameuss said:
It won't be much solace, but clearly it's one of two things
- It's something that isn't easily fixed, and has never been reliably fixed enough to be a release candidate
- It's been logged (because everything is) but it's considering to be too low a priority compared to everything else that they've never dedicated enough time to fully fix it
My money's on option 2, and I'd also add to that that the longer issues like that hang around without being touched, the less likely they are to ever get touched. That's purely personal opinion though, nothing about how SI will deal with it. I regularly see tickets where I work that were raised years and years previously, to the point they make little sense now. They'll likely never be touched, either because they've been fixed elsewhere or just ceased to be an issue. That's not what's happening here, as it's clearly still not working, but kind of the same thing.
The view from the fence, I'd imagine network game player numbers are far, far dwarfed by single players. It's easy to see why network game bugs don't get concentrated on. Isn't really what you'd want to hear, but I imagine it isn't far from the truth.
I think you underestimate the amount of people that play network mode but ok, let's assume you're right. The 1 out of the 2 of those that makes the game really unplayable is the changing results bug. SI manage to fix that bug every year. I really don't understand how they just can't release a game where that is fixed.
Funnily enough I actually think it's more likely option 1.
0 -
I'm in the EPL and I've had an acceptable level of injuries so far.
The bug(s) that I am quite disappointed to see that have clearly reoccurred are the game-killing network game bugs that (if they are not fixed) we would have had on 3 consecutive releases (minimum)! Getting to be a joke now. I'm sorry it's just very difficult for me to understand how you can have the same major bugs for 3 releases in a row?
I really hope it can be fixed by release.
For those who don't know what I'm referring to:
0 -
Just now, Seb Wassell said:
How would you individually train someone's tackling? It isn't realistic for this to be available via individual training but the attribute can be trained during sessions.
Fair
1 -
Game’s looking good so far. Are you really not allowed to give a player individual training for tackling? If so, what’s the thinking behind that?
0 -
7 minutes ago, Smurf said:
True. But others would say that the training and the tactics need to be vastly improved, and I am one of those that think that way.
But then again, you think the other way and want the online mode, which is something I'd never use, but I wouldn't say never to develop it further in lieu of working on other aspects of the game.
Fair enough, everybody wants different things. However there's a difference between wanting something improved because you want it to operate better and wanting something improved because at times (often on release) it actually is just unplayable.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Smurf said:
I'm the opposite - I don't play online game - and prefer them to work on managerial aspects of the game, given the games name.
But then again, that's why they work on both.
Haha, well you know in the Online mode you also manage a football team right?
Fair enough though. The managerial part of the game is at a good level, hence why people buy it every year. The Online part could be vastly improved. Which is why I'd prefer them to improve that.
0 -
I think these are the biggest changes on a new version to FM for a while not exactly sure why people are hanging on smaller UI changes. Don't like the UI then download a skin, like always... I would have preferred they spent more time on ensuring the Online game mode works out of the box but I commend them on the Training and Tactic changes.
0 -
16 minutes ago, Carninho said:
BUT will the ME create a poor decision so that it has one to over turn? or just randomly pick one out to VAR check?
if VAR is not in your league will the ME create act any differently?
do you think we will get the answer to that? or are we worrying about nothing
Surely they should use the real life rules where the video referees deem the referee on the pitch has made a "clear and obvious" error.
However I see what you mean, are we suddenly going to get more referee errors compared to other FMs just so that VAR can come in and save the day...
0 -
Just now, Neil Brock said:
Referees (like in real life) can sometimes make mistakes. In leagues with VAR there's the possibility of the decision being correctly overturned.
In leagues without VAR, you're on your own!
So there's a second decision process. That's quite cool then. Thanks Neil!
0 -
2 minutes ago, Totalfootballfan said:
Unlike in real life, in FM referees are always aware about everything what happens during matches and they are able to make correct calls all the time because they aren’t humans they are just a part of the game code
but SI coded them to make mistakes sometimes in order they can look like referees from real life and let’s say in FM a good referee is coded to make 90 correct calls of 100 calls and a bad referee a coded to make 70 correct calls of 100 calls and so on…
So unlike in real life, in FM the VAR introduction might be just an additional animated even during matches that many people would like to skip and nothing more than that and there might be no changes to the code that is responsible for referees’ decisions but as I said it would be logical to if SI slightly increased numbers of correct call from referees in the leagues that support VAR compare with the leagues that don’t support it.
Would be lovely if somebody from the development team could shed some light on this...
1 -
I think the real question is what is the actual process that's being introduced here? Which, even though that sounds like a simple question, requires a understanding of the basic referee decision coding in the game. Is there actually variance in how a referee can judge a call in the game? Assuming there is, does the addition of VAR introduce a second decision phase? Where maybe the referee makes a decision with more accuracy? If this is the case then it shouldn't be a turn on/off feature because it does simulate real football. If the whole thing is cosmetic and the referee will make the same decision with or without VAR then yes please allow it to be disabled.
1 -
4 hours ago, Neil Brock said:
Fantastic stuff, just hoping those aren't the FM19 starting stats for those players they've had no upgrade at all!
0
but SI coded them to make mistakes sometimes in order they can look like referees from real life 
Football Manager 2019 Official Feedback Thread
in Football Manager General Discussion
Posted
I actually don't see much wrong with this. The first pass is the most contentious, however it could be that the player on the ball expected the player he was passing to to come more towards the ball. The pass from Havertz to Bailey, I see nothing unphysical or unusual about that, it looks like a good old fashioned ball in behind + pace mismatch