Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 "What we've got here is a failure to communicate"

About playmaker

  • Rank
    Youth Team

About Me

  • About Me

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That's not what people are objecting to. There have always been negative reviews and there will always be some who connect with the game one year and don't the next. If he doesn't like the match engine and scores the game accordingly then that is his prerogative as a reviewer. The problem with this particular review is that, while it raises a couple of valid points, it is littered with inaccuracies, poor research and faulty logic. Good reviewers don't push their own agenda or replace genuine critique (in depth analysis of faults and merits) with mockery. The review omits a number of features (such as individual training in FMC) and ignores customisation options (such as turning off the 'Fog of War') and misleads the reader in order to follow the writers narrative. I have no problem with a review that scores low if it attempts to properly inform the reader rather than dictate opinion without proper backup.
  2. While FMC may be a good starting point it is actually aimed at people with experience of football games, not at beginners. As long as people understand football language they should have a decent chance of getting to grips with the new tactics interface.
  3. FM13 and FM14 are noticeably different - in particular the new tactical setup, transfer negotiations, option to take part in deadline day and occasional team meetings via the inbox. The match engine, whilst still a work in progress, is far more responsive to your instructions. You have to make your own mind up on bugs/flaws. One man's ruined game is another man's 'make a cup of tea, press continue and forget it'.
  4. Maybe not quite as odd as it appears at first. You've done well first season with Spurs and Newcastle (2nd time), when you are expected to win games, so it sounds as though your tactic is well suited to breaking down teams who are a little more cautious and not so well suited to soaking up pressure - and possibly lacking pace. It's the second season with Spurs that is the anomaly. After 15 games that could be as little as one or two results and reputation changes/good morale for other teams. Going up with Newcastle morale will be key. If you haven't already done pre-season arrange easy, winnable games. Harder games may test your players and tactics, but they may also damage morale. If you improve the spine of the team (faster centre backs, destroyer type in midfield and a striker who can fashion his own chances) then that could make all the difference. You're going to have less of the ball, so your tactics will not work in the same way.
  5. It is so much quicker to set up tactics in this version than any other FM game. It took me less than 2 minutes. The changes I make during the match can be applied in 5-10 seconds. The amount of effort you are envisaging is nowhere near the amount of effort actually required.
  6. There's two things that are being missed in the discussion of roles - team instructions and the influence of other roles. As such, I think the attention to detail is being vastly under estimated. I have a box to box midfielder with no modifications. The basic role tells him this (using the description): - Support the forwards - Late in the attacking phase get into the box and get on the end of crosses - Pick up anything that falls on the edge of the area and shoot - Close down attacking midfielders - Protect the defence Additionally, my team instructions tell him: - When in possession, keep possession - But keep the tempo up - And take any opportunities to attack on the counter - The whole team is expected to hassle opponents, not just you, and the back line is pushed up, so I expect you to work as part of that system I could also tell him: - Shoot more/less - Run at the defence more/less - Exploit wider areas when running with the ball - Play shorter/more direct than your team mates - Be more adventurous and take more risks/stick to what I have instructed - Get even further forward - You have licence to take up other positions - Close down more/less - Be more aggressive in the tackle - Get closer to your opponents Not to mention: - Work the ball into the box - Pass the ball into space - Shoot on sight - Exploit the flanks/left/right/middle - Use the overlapping full backs - Stick to your position - Contribute to defence/transition/attack And finally: - Get the ball to playmaker(s) and target man/men If I switch him to deep lying playmaker I am in effect telling him (using the description): - Don't get so far up the pitch - Look for space between the midfield and defence - I want the play to go through you - Get the ball to your more advanced team mates - You've got licence to be imaginitive - Focus a little more on your defensive duties Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to illustrate just how much control and information there is already. That's not to say that the system is perfect. There are some restrictions that I find frustrating and the descriptions could be written a little clearer. However, if you fancy yourself as a Guardiola/Benitez/Villas Boas control freak there is a lot more there than I think some people realise.
  7. As football fans we understand football concepts. The tactical instructions now use football concepts and that makes it easier to design a match engine that implements football concepts. The result to my eyes is far more reflective of the choices I make. There's never been a version of FM where you have had more influence. I'm actually finding it easier to manage a small team than in the past, because I don't have to translate my ideas or find the right setting. I get that people have invested time in learning the sliders and understand slider language - years of experience for most of us. It is hard to let go, but if you are willing to invest a small amount of time in getting to grips with the new system, without thinking in terms of slider settings, you will see the benefits and you will exert greater influence over your team.
  8. There's no reason to slate you, but I do think you are missing out and I do think you've judged it too quickly. I have one tactic that suits all opposition and I only make minor changes during the match. You don't have to scout next opposition at all. Just have two or three sensible tweaks up your sleeve and be aware of any formation that might leave you vulnerable. If you do scout next opposition you can read a summary in 10 seconds without even leaving your inbox. From there you can go as deep as you want. Or not. As for training, if you are playing an older version of FM then it will be more complicated than training in FMC. Select it at the beginning of the season and then ignore it. Ultimately, how I or anyone else play the game is irrelevant. If you want to setup tactics and get on with it then there is absolutely no reason you can't be successful and have fun. With the new tactics interface this is easier than ever. Give it a go, give it some time - I don't think you'll regret it.
  9. You complain that no-one is giving you advise on how to test the effectiveness of tactics, but we have... repeatedly. You have to consider shape and use of space before you will be properly testing the match engine's response to tactics. You have consistently chosen to ignore this and devise ever more extreme tests. You have also been advised that because the match is played out kick by kick you first need to observe the impact on style of play to further understand how you can influence the result. Again, this has been repeatedly ignored. We are also trying to show you that your tests are flawed. Your last test tested a scenario outside the normal bounds of reality. You may have proved that the match engine does not deal well with an unexpected input, but that doesn't anything about it's ability to cope with a reasonable input. The previous test (with the 3-3-4 formation) failed to produce results because you had no full backs. It's like having a hammer without a handle - the end may be heavy but you've got no leverage. Your wide forwards are pushed hard up against the defensive line, which means they are easy to close down and force back into midfield. Without full backs you have no-one to change the angle of attack. Which was reflected in the lack of goals. Instead of proving the ineffectiveness of tactical changes you merely proved the ineffectiveness of that tactic, which is not the same thing. The last piece of advise is that good tests observe behaviour with impartiality. You have started with pre-conceptions which no weight of evidence can shift. You need to create a basic tactic with no tweaks and watch a full match so that you can understand how players behave and what their normal patterns of play are. Identify where they are failing and identify where you can exploit space and make changes. Accept that there is no guarantee your changes will work and your players may not have the attributes to succeed. Keep observing your pattern of play and see how you can affect the small things. Ignore the score. Ignore statistics. When you can affect the small things, only then you can then begin to consider how you are going to use that information to win games. Judging success is subjective - success may not be over-achieving it may just be maintaining the team's natural level.
  10. This line of thinking has been failing since the first England v Scotland international in 1872. You're 141 years out of date. You'll have too many players beyond the ball and a bunch of static targets all standing in the defensive comfort zone. Overloading relies on luck instead of maximising your players abilities by exploiting space. It's percentage football that will fail the majority of the time. However, when you have been tactically out-thought and have no other option left, with five minutes to go a 20% chance of success is better than 0% - which is why it is sometimes worth the gamble. In your first test, you improved your results when you switched to Very Fluid. In your last test, you were simply looking to get more players further forward. In other words, when you improved your shape you won, when you prioritised territory over shape you lost. Until you understand the value of shape and space in tactics, any test on the effectiveness of tactics is flawed.
  11. The following has been confirmed a number of times over the years on this forum by SI, so I am just paraphrasing without any assumptions of my own: Every kick of the ball is simulated from start to finish. The simulation doesn't know the final score until the final whistle is blown. Where confusion arises is that the whole match is simulated before you see anything so that highlights can be chosen. This leads some to conclude that the result is pre-determined. However, when you make a change everything is newly simulated from that point. Every time you interact with the match engine it will re-calculate every kick up until the final whistle.
  12. And just to point out the difference in goals scored over 15 games of the test: Overload scored 28 and conceded 14 Contain scored 12 and conceded 17 Two of those tests were played with a fluid style, so in my opinion the goals conceded with the Contain strategy is artificially high. In terms of goals scored though, tactics clearly made a difference!
  13. You need to look in terms of results and points, as well as goals scored. Overload with no tweaks + Dynamic Changes: W0 D4 L1 Pts 4 Overload + Very Fluid - Dynamic Changes: W2 D1 L2 Pts 7 Overload + Very Fluid + Dynamic Changes: W4 D1 L0 Pts 13 That's quite a trend! According to this, overloading without considering the team's shape is a bad idea. Making the shape more fluid and being prepared to make changes has netted more than 3 times the points. And double the goals. I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss that 9-1 either. You designed a tactic to get goals - it got goals! Contain scored 2 goals twice, Overload scored 2 (and then some) 5 times. Contain with no tweaks + Dynamic Changes: W2 D2 L1 Pts 7 Contain + Very Fluid - Dynamic Changes: W1 D2 L2 Pts 5 Contain + Very Fluid + Dynamic Changes: W0 D3 L2 Pts 3 And here we see the exact reverse trend. Total Football and Conservatism don't go so well together. And your AM clearly doesn't know how to make it work!!! As Ackter says, if you use more balanced tactics the differences will be more marginal. Then again, the difference between West Brom and Wigan last season was 0.34 points per match (roughly an extra win every 10 matches). West Brom finished in a comfortable 8th, while Wigan got relegated in 18th. Spurs missed the Champions League by 0.05 points per match!!! Marginal differences can make or break a season.
  14. You have a valid point about attribute masking and I agree that it should be an option from the start, without paying for it or earning it. However, you don't understand the word 'exploitation' and that kind of overreaction is what derails any attempt at decent debate. There is a simple workaround - scout any player for whom you want to see full attributes. The scouting process is pretty quick in FMC, so the attribute masking is not that big a hindrance.
  • Create New...