Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ktime156

  • Rank

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Mons Thanks for the reply! That's how I've understood Decisions to be coded in the past. However, with the experimentation taking place... with their being a near linear degression in that a team with the lowest Decisions had the highest pass completion percentage while the team with the highest Decisions had the lowest... and with other users reporting that in their saves that players with the highest Decisions ratings in their leagues did indeed have the most key passes over a season, I wondered if that pointed to anything that may actually be useful for users in the here and now. Of course there are other variables at play and to your point, I'd be interested now in seeing what tactical system the AI chooses for each team in the base 36 team experiment as it may give slight insight a small part of the AI programming. Perhaps by looking at how the AI chooses different tactics for different highly rated skills, it may give insight into how the ME has been coded to view said skills? That's the rabbit hole that my mind goes down anyhow.
  2. DECISIONS as defined by SI: The player's ability to make the correct choice both with and without the ball. In addition to the discussions up above, I'm also interested in how a higher Decisions rating may help define the amount of risky passes attempted within the reality of the ME. In the data within the experiment, the higher the decision rating equaled the lower the pass completion percentage and vice-versa. Other users have commented that in their saves, across a season, players with a higher Decisions rating had more key passes across a season. In my mind, this would make sense as attempting risky passes at a higher rate would both lead to the potential for a significantly lower pass completion percentage (if the entire team had high Decisions) and more key passes when those passes were successfully completed in the final third. I know that there are other variables at play but if this were agreeable, it could be informative on how some users design their tactical system going forward... For example, users wishing to construct a counter or overload/switch to the other flank style tactic would know to perhaps target midfielders with higher Decisions as a rating while placing players with lower Decisions on the overload side to maintain possession and make an eventual safe pass back to the midfielder. In turn, the midfielder would make more attempts at a risky pass to the desired flank. Same with a possession tactic. Depending on which area(s) they would like to attack from, they could know that placing the player(s) with a higher Decisions rating could increase risky passes from those positions. Or players with a lower Decisions rating would more likely maintain possession. Of course the question here is why a higher Decisions rating would possibly equal riskier decisions instead of better decisions. Does any of that make any sense?
  3. I think that what @hoppo1982 was saying is that Pep drills his players on offense in the same way that many managers train players on defense. A lot of managers still allow high levels of freedom and give basic instructions on how they hope to break down a defense. They drill their players on defending. Pep trains his players very hard on where to be in relation to the ball and positioning of their teammates. In a sense, it can make certain actions robotic after a period of time. Much like learning to play piano. There's still skill levels to it and the player must still actively think and concentrate, but many of the hand movements would become so well trained that they almost become natural action. So in sense, the player is now focusing on fewer things than in the past allowing for more proficient play.
  4. @Cougar2010 This is what a child does when they're caught in a lie. Please quote where I said that I have widespread knowledge of the coding of Football manager? And in fact I clarified my original post and agree with you about most. Yet you never read anything beyond that. What I've said and clarified multiple times now is that there are some users who perceive this to be a problem. With each version I've seen a lot of discussion about reputation. Therefore, it's worthy of a discussion. You've literally come with nothing but a rude attitude. Your counter-argument has been "Well but uh it wouldn't happen in real life so..." despite this being a game in which several things that wouldn't happen in real life regularly happen. When I clearly pointed you to a post that I'd made disproving another one of your points and showing that I agreed with what you're saying but not the spirit, you gave up talking about that point. I would say that you're twisting my words but you've made it clear that you didn't read my words. And what words did I twist of yours? That's a legitimate question. Please quote me and I'll clarify or apologize? You can't just throw out argument after argument and then drop it as soon as there's push back if you're going to be rude. YOU'VE made this an unproductive thread simply for attentions sake I suppose. Frankly again, this is embarrassing. A) What you've essentially explained is off topic and not conducive to the original discussion in the first place. B) Your "explanation" literally is the definition of banging the same drum. Despite being presented with new information, you've kept the same line. After being proven guilty of not fully comprehending the subject you kept saying the same thing instead of asking for clarification and I'm assuming that you're afraid of proof otherwise you'd have asked for it. You "explanation" amounts to A GAME is programmed to be realistic in some parts but no others. Explain how users are able to then take clubs outside of the top 20 leagues and win five or more CL titles in a row? A big club winning that in today's world isn't realistic. Your first post added something to the conversation. I clarified. You I guess got embarrassed and instead of admitting that you were wrong as I did about using "most" in my first post, you can't admit that you were wrong. And you keep making it clear that you didn't read my posts but just came to be rude for no reason. For everybody else: The original intent for this thread was to discuss why some users feel that there are issues with the club reputation system. A user that isolated the incident did an inconclusive but very curious experiment when cross-referencing these user's posts about their saves. Despite similar or better setups (Success, Players, Facilities, etc) that are said to affect reputation by these users, there have been noted cases in which their reputation actually decreased. In many of these threads they noted that well-renowned teams that had fallen on hard times barely decreased in reputation which would be along the same lines as Halifax who only had a 1400 decrease in reputation despite spending multiple seasons in the non-league status - Football Championship. However, despite losing the majority of their players, having to wait for the reputation of their new squad members to build, and having lesser success than user teams in similar or better setups, Arsenal's reputation not only rose, but rose much quicker at a far more realistic rate. Therefore, I believe that there's something to be discussed. Where as the typical line in this threads is to say that reputation is "broken" or "bugged" I believe that after so many versions of that typical line, it's fair to examine reputation closer. That's all. Sorry if that ruffled some feathers.
  5. @Cougar2010 So the argument that you're weirdly hung up on is that somehow you have a superior understanding because your pov accounts for more than my pov. This is the issue with people like you in this community and why I made the disclaimer. This personally doesn't affect me as I like the challenge and I get a bit bored each year after winning so much. But it affects users who have taken the time to post about it each year. Rather than saying F off to those users and disenfranchising them, I figured that it'd be helpful to say more than what most people say in those forums which amounts to "sorry bruh, it's broken and it's been broken so you're screwed". Your response shows that you didn't comprehend anything about the original post which given your attitude should be embarrassing. Please explain where I asked SI to change their code which would be a pain (as somebody who's worked for a large game studio)? That a manager could take any club regardless of reputation and win the CL 20 years running which I've seen is unrealistic. As I've said previously now, this has be an issue put forth by managers that have managed to build up small sides in very lowly rated leagues and large sides in leagues such as EPL. To further simplify and clarify for you, as I've said already and as I'll have to say again, I'm not saying that it's surprising that Arsenal's reputation rose that quickly. I actually clearly stated verbatim that it's realistic that it would if it were IRL. And again why are you dismissive when FM is A GAME that regularly sees people choose a team that they've never heard of in a division that they don't follow only to make them the most successful side ever to exist. And I hate to embarrass you yet again and again given your immediate combative attitude for no reason, but I can gladly point to users who have played as Arsenal, Tottenham, United, etc. the big clubs and that have retained their players, brought in or bleed in more better players on top of that, gotten better results, but not seen their reputation jump up. In fact the reason that I started this was because I saw a person discouraged by playing Football Manager any longer because he'd won everything but over the course of five years as an already top side but his reputation was going down. This despite maintaining the best facilities possible, having the best back room staff possible, etc. Look person, the fact that you clearly didn't even read my original post, watch the video, or anything else that I said but still felt entitled to be rude for no other reason than to be rude means that you came into the topic with a preconceived notion and you can't let that go. Proven by the fact that your two arguments against me are literally things that I've agreed with you on multiple times. Do better.
  6. @Neil Brock Sorry I don't think that I explained what I was saying very well then. This much is obvious to anybody that follows FM or football IRL. What I'm saying is that Arsenal lost a large chunk of their players in the first few seasons (by force) in the video. Their results and league status dropped. I've never said that the question is about well-known teams being boosted over lesser known teams. What I pointed to was the fact that despite losing so much of what is supposed to go into reputation, Arsenal's rep recovered at a relatively quick rate. This was interesting when viewed against other user's who I've seen manage teams in the EPL, win the league title, Champions League, every cup, etc. for multiple successive years (let's say 5-10) and check on their rep to see it relatively the same or actually drop! If you're asking if I think it's perfectly reasonable that Arsenal would rebound in that manner while playing in the EPL and finishing on those positions than of course. That's what I'm saying. But greater success over a longer period of time doesn't appear to have the same affect on some user's teams. You did bring up where I eventually wanted this discussion to go which is how much do certain factors actually play into reputation based on this. For example, in year's past I'd pick up a Ronaldhino or other fallen and aged star with a high reputation each season to boost rep. I'd also do things like a few pre-season cups with larger reputation teams each pre-season. But if you have user managers that are winning their leagues, Champions League, etc. each season but having issues with their reputations going up, and you have AI Arsenal with many of their players sold, dropping in results, etc. having their reputation shoot up at a relatively realistic rate, I think that there can be questions over why that is.
  7. @Cougar2010 Allow me to clear that up. Each version of FM breeds several posts from users who can't seem to raise their reputation despite winning everything possible. And from my personal conversations and research, it seems that some users acknowledge but get on with it as I myself have done. But you're right not most. A) In this example, those clubs also haven't won the Champions League year after year. If those clubs were to make like PSG and become even Champions leagues Finals contenders each season, then their profile (reputation) would rise globally. We saw this IRL with Leicester when they won the EPL. While it's wearing off now, the stats show that there was a carryover affect last season despite them having a rough go. B) As stated, the experiment shows the affect of having a low reputation. If you'd watched the series you'd note that Arsenal had to sell a good chunk of their players over the first three seasons before getting okay players to come in finally in their fourth. That would mean that a lot of those players that should be making an impact on their reputation is no longer there. Also with Halifax FC, he also didn't change any of those factors. He isolated reputation specifically. It correlated with non-league side Halifax rising up fairly quickly. They didn't magically have the best facilities in the world. Also dismissing the experiment as unrealistic IRL (obviously) is odd because while FM does a fantastic job of being perhaps the most realistic sim on the market, it can't possibly reflect everything about football IRL. The surprise is how quickly Arsenal regained that status DESPITE being forced to sale so many players, being unable to bring in any players for three seasons, and falling to an upper-middle table side.
  8. *** Disclaimer*** First and foremost as always, I unfortunately feel the need to inform anybody that reads this that this isn't a rant or a flaming post. All of my posts are meant to foster discussion. Sometimes, sadly the community turns against one another. Secondly, since I discovered FM, I've had nothing but success at it... The first few versions I lucked into it and everything past that has been about applying real world tactics within the confines of the definitions of Football Manager. I would presume that it's wide spread knowledge that club and manager reputation is considered to be broken by most users. A user can win league, cup, and Champions League title year after year only to see their reputation barely increase and in some cases even drop. This has been observed by users playing in leagues with low reputations as well as users playing in leagues such as the EPL. The reason that this is an issue for most players is that reputation has been programmed such a far-reaching impact on the game. It affects sponsorship money, the level of player you're able to attract, transfer and contract fees (incoming and outgoing), etc. This is effectively shown here Football Manager Reputation Experiment . In this three part experiment, the user gives non-league side Halifax the maximum reputation in the game while dropping Arsenal's reputation to the lowest possible. An overview of the impact is that Arsenal were forced to sell a large majority of their starting players during the first three transfer windows while being unable to bring any player in. Over the course of four seasons they became a Euro Cup tier side. Meanwhile, Halifax stormed up the leagues and made a fair amount of money while doing it. But what's particularly of note for my point is that in four years, Arsenal went from a reputation of 1 (the lowest you can possibly have) to about 5500 (about three stars). That's a massive jump in a relatively short amount of time for a side that lost most of it's well-known players, staff, and only qualified for the Euro Cup here and there. I say massive relative to how a user-controlled team's reputation seems to work. Again, despite user's signing or developing some of the world's most renowned players, winning the biggest competitions in successive years, taking on big names in pre-season setups, the reputation never jumps that quickly in that amount of time. So the question becomes about if there are mechanics in play to artificially influence a user-controlled team's reputation. It would seem that there's a strong possibility that this is true and it would make sense. Many users become bored after they feel that they can buy any regen and basically plug and play. So it would make sense that if users can achieve unrealistic success with minnow clubs, perhaps the developers felt that having a more "realistic" reputation system would lead to a degraded challenge and experience. Basically, by having the AI team's reputation be more dynamic, it allows for a continued and varied challenge for the user over the course of a save. What are your thoughts on this?
  9. I know that this topic has been discussed ad nauseum but as with many topics I think that those discussions have lead to unreliable information becoming canon. A few quick searches will lead to many forums that state that the only way to raise a club's status is to win and win some more which is perfectly logical. However, of course FM tends to have a problem with the dynamic reputation system in that a club can go years without winning anything and still maintain it's reputation while a user or other club can consistently win the most reputable trophies without seeing a realistic bump in rep i.e. Leicester City. What seems to never get mentioned is signing high profile free agents and possibly even nagging high profile transfers of likely older players and then winning with said players. Perhaps I'm in the wrong, but I've always assumed that consistently signing players from a region and then building a reputation in that region would raise your reputation. So say you manage in Portugal and decide to sign a lot of African and Asian players. Then you consistently do pre-season tours in both regions for a few years. You would gain a large following in both regions which would then raise your reputation. And that seems to be reinforced more than ever with FM17 as they include where a player is popular in the bio. I know I'm being lazy here as I could probably do a test save for this especially as I'm in my yearly only sign FA to become a financial giant save, but I figured that maybe a few players or mods who've explored this area of the engine more extensively would be able to clear up information for me and perhaps the community at large. The information would also be helpful for a FM based project that I'm doing. Thanks
  10. You hit it spot on. haha. As somebody said up above, what's worst is that there becomes these massive threads in which other users claim to have more insight based on their experiments with the ME that particular year. A) Right or wrong this becomes accepted as fact and regurgitated when it's often not accurate. B) The ME will have evolved since the original post meaning that those opinions could be more or less valid but people are still treating it as gospel. And I completely agree with this. @Svenc has made countless helpful and insightful posts. But he's done so from digging through the forums to find bits and pieces of official information from a number of years. I view this game on the same level that I view say Rome Total War. They're both complex games that rely so heavily on the developer's interpretation of how things should be interpreted by the game's engine. But Football Manager doesn't provide yearly official documentation. I agree about not making assumptions that edge on the level of conspiracy. But I think that over the years players have had to make a ton of assumptions. And there's more player to player interaction about how the ME interprets something than official game developer to player interaction. I'm not saying release the ME documentation or anything like that. I'm saying that treat it as a physical game at least in the sense that it needs a game manual specific to to each version that gives everybody the same working knowledge. I don't need to know why say a role behaves one way or a different way than it did last year... just that in this version the base role behaves this way with the ME... From there obviously players can then try to make a more accurate interpretation of how stats, PPM's etc will affect the role and how those things either enhance or take away from what they want in the role. And while I'm not silly enough to think that SI doesn't have software to track this already or know their own bugs, I do think that if you take away the dramatic outrage because of false presumptions threads you'll get clearer and more consistent feedback from the users themselves. Which features do they view as lacking? Is there are a consistent bug because everybody knows that something should be behaving differently instead of assuming and reporting it as a bug (like transfers when a team doesn't want to sell a player)? I just think that it's a fairly simply thing that could potentially have a big impact.
  11. Again the ME is wonderful and a programming feat. I honestly do think that it just comes down to there not being info about how versions of the ME interpret things. Or how SI interprets it because really we're all working on the interpretation of certain things based on a few people's ideas. So going back to the inverted wing-back. People had an idea of how it should play based on real world examples. When it didn't I saw post about the position being broken, bugged, etc. And that turned to people claiming that SI was just putting glamour features that were pointless or broken and cash-grabbing. If SI had come out and explained how the role was played within the ME I think a lot of that would go away. Or take when a team demands an outrageous sum for a player. A) People think that transfers are broken when this is meant to be the new way of telling players that the target isn't for sell. B) People want transfers right away. I've gotten a fee set at $200+ million before targeting the player in public and negotiating over the course of a full season (think it eventually fell to about 70 million). Yes players should maybe know those things and there's countless threads that state them but I find that fewer players know than know. And it shouldn't continue to be a it's the player's responsibility to educate themselves type of deal but rather "how can we give everybody the same concrete detailed base knowledge". Players will still fail and complain but at least there will be more identifiable ways of explaining this to themselves than "The role is broken" "The transfers are broken" "The ME cheats because my playmaker misses the easiest passes" etc. And thanks. I'm new to this.
  12. I think that I have a lot of issues with your statements. A) I resent that you keep implying that I correlate stat dominance to actual meaningful tactical theory. Especially when I'm relating that that's how others view success. As I've already said I don't try to have this dominance like other players. In fact I tend to play more defensively and play with formations that I think more accurately represent real life. So my 4-4-2 "formation" will look more like 1 striker that holds up the ball, a CM with attacking duty, a line of wingbacks and defensive mids that can get forward, and a line of defenders. This offers a more accurate depiction of defensive positioning. As somebody who has far more tactical theory and knowledge than most football fans (and I know that sounds extremely cocky and annoying) I understand that it's more important to understand how to create attacking patterns and how to cover defensive areas that the opposition could exploit. That's how I measure the match. Am I consistently able to create this attacking pattern to stress the defense? Am I consistently able to cover the ares that I presume that they would most likely try to exploit? B) My girlfriend, best friend, and his girlfriend are all within the psychological field. I understand this phenom and I think that we're saying the same thing. That more direct information and more concrete definitions would help the understanding for other players about what's going on. Which is what this topic is meant to be about and the point that I originally was trying to make. If SI says that their definition of an Advanced Forward is that he runs to the half-line and defends when the team is attacking we'd say that it was crazy but people would have a concrete definition of how the role worked and how to best utilize it instead of some Wikipedia writer's definition which may or may not fit the way the role is programmed. If AI said that the visuals are meant to accurately portray the percentages and or likelihood or certain actions happening in real games such as a perfect through ball I think players would be more understanding about what they're watching and why a player keeps passing it directly to a defender instead of the incredibly wide lane where only their Striker is positioned. Also I don't think that we need to tear down other games to build up an argument for FM. The issue that people will have from today until they stop playing FM is when people tell them that they're simply wrong. Why? Because the developers say so. And that's not me coming close to saying that they're lying or anything but the argument goes that they have incentive to say such things and if a person believes it not to be true (and there's several) then it will remain a standoff. Most people wouldn't be able to understand the code even if it were given to them as evidenced by when I show code to even other programmers. What I'm saying, and what I think you're saying also is that there needs to be more info, faster info, and SI specific info. And I think that people would love the game so much more and praise instead of hate if that were the case.
  13. Well I've no reason to lie. As I said I've been successful with my own tactics (never downloaded or tried anybody else's) and I get the result I want more often than not.. I'm willing to play practically and pragmatically after taking a lead unlike most players. I've rationalized it in my head as being connected to something in real life. I understand this which is why I was sure to note my praise for how massive a programming feat FM is. I think that people sometimes take it for granted especially now that it's on a yearly cycle. But I guess that's why I found it strange. It wasn't just happening here and there. Like I said, I can be dominating when watching a full match but when switching to highlight mode no matter when the time, things will almost start to... I can only describe it as balance out. So say that my tactic is a contain and possession as defense against a much more talented and attacking team. During the full match this will work and I'll say have 70% of possession and the team will have zero shots. My players will have more stamina, all the right stats for concentration etc. No matter where I decide to switch to highlight mode, suddenly the team is getting corner after corner, breaking though the defense with ease, taking shots, and going much closer to their usual possession percentage numbers. I try to rationalize this by saying that the ME places more onus on talent level than talent and decides that much like in rL a team of vast superior talent is likely to eventually find a way through (Real, Barca, Bayern for example when teams play hyper defensively). And I don't mind that being the case but it still feels strange.
  14. Well this is part of the reason that I made this post. I've heard similar opinions from other several FM players so the perception is there. And as I've said, I've experienced a similar phenomenon. I don't think that it means that the ME is "cheating" or anything but rather that it's calculation for the outcome changes. That it becomes more about the likely outcome based on player stats, familiarity with role, familiarity with formation etc and less about things like tactics. But I guess my hope in discussing this outside of gaining more insight from other's opinions is that perhaps it showcases a need to be more transparent about things such as SI's definition of roles, of what we're seeing in the ME, etc. To highlight this, SI gets their definitions for the roles from Wikipedia so it's more of a universal definition. So take the inverted wing-back. People expect for it that role to behave differently and the Wikipedia definition reinforces it so they then begin to perceive the ME to be broken or tactics to be meaningless. Or when my amazingly talented passing playmaker misses 9 out of 10 easy (according to the visual) and wide open passes into a lane that's acres wide and should lead to a clear-cut opportunity, I've come to perceive that as the ME translating that in rL the player may only make 1 out of 10 passes that open up the defense completely. But if that's not your perspective, then it's incredibly frustrating to see it happen time and again and it may very well feel like the game is "cheating" you. So I think that there could be a lot more info about how SI views the roles, how what you're seeing from the ME translates to rL etc. And I guess I get that from a post that I randomly saw a few years ago. Some guy was complaining about always missing seemingly open headers. His player wasn't even putting it on target. However, once he provided the stats, another person compared them to rL stats and said that while it's frustrating to watch, the percentages actually add up between rL and the ME in terms of how many headers are put on target. Maybe I'm wrong and you can provide further clarification
  15. I apologize for the long post. I'd originally tried to post this and had a weird problem. Unfortunately I hadn't saved it in a processor so this version is significantly less methodical and more scatterbrain. Firstly, I would like to say that this isn't me saying FM sucks or anything. I think it's a wonderful programming feat that allows players to approach the simulation from multiple angles. I personally like to think of it as a financial and tactical simulator. And I might be one of the only people (from my readings) that enjoys watching each full match and making real time tweaks. Secondly, I should say that I've actually been wildly successful in every FM version that I've played (only started in 2011). For the past few additions I've setup a challenge for myself to become a financial dynasty by way of signing very cheap free-agents, transferring any expensive player, and investing in youth.. essentially having an extremely low wage bill while competing and Europe and selling players for vast profits (think of it as the Portuguese model). So this isn't me complaining but rather me reflecting on what FM could do better because I care. I think that reason that so many people are disgruntled with each annual edition of FM is because of the physical interpretation of the programming. When looking at posts over the years by extreme veteran players, the thing that I notice is that they tend to prefer playing without the 3D graphics and they also seem to be much more happy about the product. So I started to read more of the disgruntled player's posts and the correlation seems to be with the ME physical interpretation of the programming. In years past, if you played FM and read that a world-class dribbler easily pass your defender(s) you could visualize that happening in real life so you said fair play to the AI. Even when following the 2D visual it amounted to the same thing. However, when a player watches the 3D visual they may see a world-class dribbler easily pass their defender, but not because the player performed an amazing move but because the programming simply told their defender that they should stop. There are other examples of the ME poorly interpreting the physical programming such as: When a player randomly dribbles out of bounds with no pressure on them, a player heading the ball out of bands multiple times a match instead of simply controlling and trapping as they would in real life, players not running after a free ball because it hasn't entered their programming “zone”, players making a good dribble to open acres of space only to slow down to allow the AI to get in front of and tackle them, an exceptional passer missing an easy pass etc. We've all experienced these things so I need not continue (I hope). What I will say is that it even frustrates me to see my winger with the same role, stats, mentality, etc not dribble when I watch the AI's perform the programming the way that I would expect. I've even created two identical players with the result being the same. Now I understand that these actions are meant to be an interpretation of the mistakes that professional footballers make throughout the course of a match but they're almost a discredit to the pros. And I think it's what breeds the “FM is cheating” “FM sucks” “FM is too hard” crowd because watching a realistic mach and knowing it wasn't your day is completely different than watching programming and being left to wonder why the programming told your player to miss that easy through ball, stop dribbling, etc. Yes, players could try to go back to non-3D but A) once you've seen something it's hard to un-see it and B) FM keeps promoting the 3D visuals and physical interpretation of programming with each release. As an aside, during my test saves where I test different tactics, I've noticed that when watching full matches they tend to be more realistic and competitive. But as soon as I switch to only highlights (after I've seen what I want from a tactic) the other team will tend to start relatively dominating... meaning just doing far better in general even if I was destroying them 7-0. Suddenly they'll get open shots and clear cut chances. I say that's strange because I've read that the matches per-determined based on the variables we present so maintaining the same variables (no new players, dramatic AI tactical changes, etc) shouldn't suddenly alter things dramatically. Has anybody else experienced this? This is why I watch every match in my serious saves. TL:DR – Players that don't watch the match in 3D tend to have a more positive opinion of FM because they're visualizing real life matches and thus certain actions make sense. Players that watch in 3D tend to have a more negative opinion of FM because they're watching an unrealistic interpretation of football... obvious programming. Because of how the ME interprets things such as roles, programming zones, dribbling/passing in open space, etc. it can make it seem unfair to these players. And though I've had a ton of success in every version of FM that I've played, I think that those players at least have a legitimate gripe from that perspective. What are your thoughts and opinions.
  • Create New...