Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

serif

Members
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About serif

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Clearly the excuses are going to line up, and if they're selling well enough they apparently aren't going to care. The year to year quality of the game doesn't appear to be their top concern, the money does. You can't try to appeal to the sense of merit of people like this. Start buying FM every other year or even at longer intervals. I went from FM14 to FM17 and didn't miss that much. I bought FM18 on the heels of 17 and the overall changes are laughable. Played the game for like 50 hours and might not return to it, we'll see. Doubt I'll buy the game for a third consecutive year. But again, these people only care about numbers. Disappointed as you might be there's not too much more you can do than express yourself with your wallet. If that's not enough, let people enjoy the financial benefits of utter mediocrity. Consider, by the way, that EA is now thinking about not releasing their far more successful games annually. Eventually customer dissatisfaction might affect SI too, although they may be too small and content and ignore it.
  2. My first impression was that the 3D engine or whatever you want to call it was a significant improvement. I've come to a different conclusion since. A number of things continue to look disappointingly unrealistic and I'm not even sure what they actually improved besides altering the look. I think with this franchise you need to be satisfied with marginal improvement year by year. The development is disappointing in my opinion but we all have our reasons why we're playing this game, whenever we bother. Certainly competition would be nice but there is none and sales appear satisfactory. That leaves it up to the drives of the people behind the game, and they appear satisfied. It is what it is. You could say that football really isn't that complex of a game but the thing is members of this forum/community have pointed out things that are realistic but aren't in the game, like different defensive styles, and they have done so for years apparently. Instead the game gets a mezalla or some other delectable breakfast item that may not make sense for you to use in general, and there's your FM18. In my experience it's kind of futile really trying to go after game developers. And I can guarantee you they roll their eyes at threads like this, if they even acknowledge them. It doesn't help that a lot of idiots play games and make threads like this too. I roll eyes myself at some of the threads you'd find on the Overwatch forum for instance.
  3. I don't have a reserve team and see no option to establish one so a friendly in the middle of the week is kind of necessary. There is no overlap between the players- it's essentially a normal one-match week so I do my training and rest accordingly. Yet the game appears to count a second game for injury risk. Even from FM 17 I've noticed sort of a discrepancy with official two matches per week. With no overlap you'd think you're essentially having a one-match week for your players but more injuries occur.
  4. So it's a summation of how well the attributes of a player fit a particular role, you'd assume with different attributes being weighted, but we're supposed to be looking at individual attributes to come to much different conclusions? Really? And as others have pointed out in this thread, it doesn't take looking far to seriously question how true that claim is. To such an extent, in fact, I assumed the dot is an attribute in and of itself indicating some sort of natural affinity and experience in a role that comes with penalties. Pretty sure we can quickly debunk your claim that players with decent but not great level/even attributes will just have a bunch of non-full-green-role-pies, whether you realized you made such a claim or not. I'm not really asking for a way you understand things but for something that makes sense.
  5. And what does that "guide/starting point" signify? Why does the dot have different colors? What are they based on?
  6. This response is unbelievable. The brightness of a dot... wow. What is the brightness of the dot the game developers put into the game supposed to signify, chief? The brightness of the dot didn't randomly find its way into the game and it doesn't sound like you were the one who came up with the idea.
  7. I have a very good prospect who's 19 and playing in my senior squad in league matches. His determination started at 13/14 but has consistently been dropping and is now down to 11. I don't see any news items about him and everything about my club has been positive. Wtf? What am I supposed to do about that? The only thing I can think of is criticizing his conduct but that comes out of nowhere and could lower his morale.
  8. I'm on a dual monitor "set-up" and have the fps displayed through Steam. When I have just the game opened or the game and a browser with non-video content running I get 70-80 fps. When I have the game running with a Twitch video/stream on I get 165 fps. Here's the kicker. There's a huge difference. Without video on the browser the match stutters quite visibly to go along with the much lower displayed fps. With video on the browser matches run quite smoothly to go along with the maxed out fps.
  9. I've noticed that the morale of players improves if they agree with what you're saying. I think it's a pretty bad feature. Worst case scenario a waste of time, best case scenario a very awkward and artificial way to get a bonus or two. Yes, let me reiterate that I have chosen a certain option for our next game and boost your morale because you agree with me and/or you play it somewhat better just because I told you once again how we're playing in a tactical briefing. A waste of time and clicks. And keep in mind if they are not likely to agree with you you should probably say nothing as their morale drops, and that's with results proving you right. It's a strangely bad feature in my opinion. I figure it's supposed to allow you to improve something like morale, giving you more control over it, and guide less experienced players in how to approach matches but good golly is it boring and dumb.
  10. It's not the analyze. Others have started to bring this up in the feedback thread as well. At this point, with the scouting finance stuff in addition, I'm not sure whether I should continue playing until I would hope imminent fixes. The open player outside of the penalty box on free kicks also hasn't been fixed.
  11. How is it that people are trying to defend this when the team is clearly overperforming but he's getting sacked for underperformance. It's not difficulty, it's not the person, it's poor game design on whatever level. Some people will find an excuse for everything.
  12. I don't know what they're called, lines or arcs connecting players in Tactics who have played together indicating improved performance. Prior to release they changed, now they are static, one has disappeared on my main squad, and everything has disappeared for my b squad.
  13. You manually set assignments to look for certain positions when in control of scouting. I'd imagine a short term focus should also allow you to search for a position but I don't know.
  14. The team obviously wasn't underachieving. If your players are going to conspire against you like that the game shouldn't allow low rep managers to start at certain teams.
×
×
  • Create New...