Erratic Aspie
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by Erratic Aspie
-
-
As the title says, I have been playing a fair bit of FM22 recently, and struggling with getting a coherent tactical set up. The last thing I want to do is download a plug and play tactic, indeed, I would like to better understand the instructions in game and how they relate to each other better, and how to diagnose and correct issues as they occur. Outside of the more general advice, there are also a few concrete questions/issues I have been experiencing which people may be able to help with.
a) Outside of the occasional exception, I tend to always play with a balanced mentality. Not sure if this is particularly sensible?
b) In systems when ball retention is desired, I struggle with the problem that my outball is reliably a fullback (I know that this isn't especially uncommon IRL). I have on occasion managed to find ways of ensuring that the full-back is in space on the overlap (mainly by overloading the other side of the pitch).
c) In 4-3-3 systems (and to a lesser extent 4321), getting 3rd man runs into the box is something I am struggling to achieve (I appreciate this may be down to the characteristics of the players as much as anything else). If I am intending to do this, I generally go with a CM (A), often with a TM (S) or DLF (S), with quite a lot of natural width coming either from a natural winger or full back.
d) I have little understanding of what 'Pass Into Space' means. Does this largely impact on through ball frequency, does it encourage players to play to unmarked (or at least relatively free) players, does it simply mean play passes ahead of players, rather than to feet. I tend to use the instruction at present only in games whereby I am fairly confident that I will have success attacking in transitions.
Thanks in advance.
0 -
I am starting my first save, after waiting for the patch. Any suggestions. Preferably European, not a champions league club, and preferably not below the second division unless there is a really interesting option there. I had a fun save with Valerenga on FM2021, so I am open to saves outside big five leagues. I also prefer teams with some kind of vaguely coherent strategy and tactical style.
0 -
Hi, Thanks for the reply. I agree it is a difficult task, and that first time crosses themselves come in different varieties, some of which may already be present within the match engine (indeed, even the variety I specifically go on to mention may happen more frequently in the match engine than I recollect). To be specific, I am predominantly thinking of crosses like those found in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7jp-qZuPfI) at 0.13, 0.27 (I incorporate first time cut backs) and 1.36 (even a situation like 2.06 may count, though it is a bit different). In most of these instances, the person crossing has been played into open space against an unset defence. It seems to me that this is a tactical choice being made by many teams at the moment, to attempt a cross first time, on the run when in wide areas, rather than take a touch and fling one in after the defence has recovered its shape. The first time cross seems to be a different (perhaps harder) technical skill, and often comes with fewer bodies in the box, so it is harder to be completed but using them comes with the advantage of a better chance when completed due to poor defensive positioning. About how to incorporate this I am unsure (the last thing I would want to do is unnecessarily mess up game balance for no reason). I instead list a range of options that are all ways of incorporating this aspect of football.
a) One option (perhaps in my view the best) would be to not to introduce a discrete team or player instruction or player trait, but simply to make an ME tweak that increases the frequency of first time crosses in suitable situations. So, you would increase the number of crosses made first time in situations when the ball is played in behind opposition full backs at the relevant pace, if it is felt that the default frequency is not correct (I should add that I have no knowledge as to what the actual frequency is). I would assert that it would also be sensible if tactical instructions would influence the frequency of such events both indirectly (by controlling how frequently players get into such positions- for example, by means of team instructions like overlapping and passing into space-both of which would, all other things being equal generally increase the chances of reaching a position where a first time cross from in behind the full back would be a possibility) and directly (by influencing how likely the player is to decide to take this choice rather than some other when in the position - for example if a player had the instruction cross rarely, is on a defensive duty with take fewer risks). This distinction between direct and indirect obviously admits of grey areas, having higher tempo ought to both increase the number of opportunities to play such a cross, but also ought to mean that players are more likely to attempt such crosses when they are in a position to do so. Further, higher tempo settings with play through the middle, without overlapping, would probably militate against creating particular many opportunities for first time crosses, but such a system should probably still lead to players being more likely to choose to do so when the opportunity arises. Obviously, player attributes and player traits should also have a significant role in the determination of how likely they are to play such a cross, and how likely they are to be effective at doing so. In particular, a player with poor balance, technique and crossing ought to be less able to cross a ball on the run, a player with a poor first touch with high crossing and technique may well prefer to cross first time. Players with higher flair may take on a more difficult first time pass than those without, etc and so on. Obviously, I appreciate this is a lot of effort, and much more complex than I suggest (one would have to do al lot of work on forwards runs as well-to name but one thing.)
b) A different option would be to introduce a discrete option in team or player instructions to instruct tyour team/player(s) to look for these kind of crosses. Obviously, the extent to which this could happen would be determined only in the context of the players at your disposal and tactical system.
c) One could also introduce it as a trait, though to be honest there probably aren't enough players known for it to make it a worthwhile thing to do.
I hope all this is useful and constructive and makes sense.
0 -
22 minutes ago, kevhamster said:
Potentially, yes. Seems the i5 you mention is around the £270 mark.
I'd suggest using the PC part picker website which I used to put a suggested build together for you, as you can select the components you want and includes the price as well. It also alerts you to potential compatibility issues as well.
Great, I'll start having a more detailed look.
Once again, thanks for all your help.
1 -
12 hours ago, kevhamster said:
Yeah, that'll be fine for the motherboard. I also imagine it'll be OK for FM but is going to struggle with the other games you've mentioned I'd assume.
Yeah, I can just about manage Borderlands 3 on low settings at a decent framerate, and racing games are fine, but Halo Infinite won't even boot due to driver incompatibility. But when GPU prices are 2.5 times RRP, I'd rather wait until sanity (hopefully!) resumes. Especially given that FM is a constitutes 60-70% of the time I spend gaming.
With all this being said then, do you reckon that a build incorporating my existing graphics card, an Intel I5 12600 or (if on significant discount) a AMD Ryzen 5900X, a motherboard that fits the CPU, some DDR5 (am ambivalent between 16 or 32 GB) and all the other necessary stuff (cooling, case, etc.) be affordable with a £800-£1000 budget?
Thanks so much for all the information.
0 -
2 hours ago, kevhamster said:
Most graphics cards use the same slot on the motherboard so you're probably OK.
Which card do you have?
I have an NVIDIA Geforce GTX 750 TI.
0 -
Just now, kevhamster said:
The thing here is, if you go for a Ryzen 5 5600x, you're going to need a graphics card now as it doesn't have integrated graphics.
I already have a graphics card, so on the assumption it is compatible, that isn't a problem.
0 -
1 hour ago, kevhamster said:
Honestly, I think you'd need to temper your expectations as to what you can get for that kind of money at the moment. As you've alluded to, prices are a bit crazy at the moment. You're probably not going to be able to get the 5900X plus a decent graphics card within that budget.
This is a solid build which should match your requirements: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/zyMj3Z
And this is a very good prebuilt: https://www.box.co.uk/Cube-MSI-Dragon_2995919.html?config=2335908,2472017,2725847,3570396,3857175
Edit: The build I've put up doesn't include a wi-fi card, so if you need wi-fi you'll need to factor that in as well.
Thanks so much for all the information. Yeah, I suspected I may have been a tad optimistic. As I said, I am happy to park the graphics card for a year so the prices reach some vaguely affordable level, since that is eating up a fair part of the budget. The Intel Core i5 12600K seems to have really impressive performance at a accessible price point, but comes with cost of newer motherboard and RAM. I'm hoping that Black Friday Sales might make some difference to the cost of some of this stuff too.
0 -
33 minutes ago, kevhamster said:
Are you looking to build it yourself or are you wanting to buy a pre-built?
I was thinking self-build.
0 -
Hi, I am looking for advice in buying a new desktop PC after relying on other family members used parts for 10 years!
I wish to be able to play FM with a fair number of fully simulated leagues (somewhere between benchmark B and benchmark C on this thread0- in other words, most but not all leagues loaded, but a fair number of them fully simulated) https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/559348-fm22-performance-benchmarking-thread/)
I also play other games, fairly casually, things like racing games (Assetto Corsa, F1 franchise), Halo Infinite (hopefully), Galactic Civilizations series, Borderlands 3, etc.
I don't really know much about hardware costs, but I have around £1000-1250 (ish) to spend. I am prepared to wait on buying a GPU, due to the high prices. If I wait before buying the GPU I wouldn't want to spend much more than £900 on the rest of the machine unless it cannot be avoided. Honestly, I am looking for something that wil allow me to game satisfactarily for 4-5-6 years at the cheapest price.
I am ignorant of the technology, so am open-minded to any suggestions you give. I have been looking at the new Intel Core i5 12600K for the processor, though knowing that there are new AMD chips coming out next year, if there is a massive discount on a high end AMD Ryzen 5900X, or something comparable, I would also consider this.
Thanks in advance.
0 -
First off, despite the fact that I make a large amount of suggested amendments, I would like to say that I enjoy the Football Manager series of games, and apreciate the effort that is put into making them. It is for this reason that I have written such a lengthy post of potential improvements, since I care about the game being as good as is concivable. Mods, feel free to delete the post or separate it into many posts if this is too long, I thought it would be better to have one thread, since all the suggestions are basically about the tactical interface and how it influences the ME.
1. The modification of several team instructions and player instructions.
I grant, this may be an absence of understanding of the tactics engine in Football Manager on my part. I also appreciate that no player or team instruction operates in a vaccuum, and how the instruction manifests itself depends on the overall tactical set up of a team, and the characteristics of players at your disposal (rightly). Even accepting this, I think there is room for improvement here. To state the problem generally, I think that many of the instructions that appear to have a fairly straightforward definition are in fact ambiguous.
To give some examples.
a) 'Focus Play …': In one sense, this is as self explanatory as it gets, it means as it says in game 'a more intense attacking focus' in the relevant area of the pitch. In another sense, it is not especially informative. Does it mean passing is directed to attacking players on that that side of the pitch? Does it mean that there are more forward runs made from players on that side of the pitch. Does it mean that more players in your team gravitate towards the left to create overloads. Does it mean some combination of all of these things, or none of these things.. Obvioiusly, it to some extent depends on the general team set up (rightly). I think the solution is to introduce new separate team instructions (for example, 'overload …' (whereby the team will shift towards that flank and players who are in the vicinity will move wider to try to cause overloads) and perhaps 'direct passes towards … (which would simply instruct the team to direct passes towards attackers situated on the relevant side).
b) 'Pass into space':
Similarly, in one sense self explanatory, as the game says it 'instructs players to look to make passes into open spaces for their team mates to run onto'. Again, it seems to me, in another, it is considerably more ambiguous than this. Does this mean simply that players should not make passes into feet, and instead play balls in front of their team mate. Does it mean, play more through balls. Does it mean, play to the team mate that is in presently in space rather than somebody who is covered or marked, etc. Does it mean any one of these things, something different, or some combination of all of these things. Again, I am aware that other aspects of your tactical setup determines how this instruction manifests itself in game (rightly).I think that game would be better served by having separate instructions for two of these components- look to play more/fewer through balls and some instruction that gives you the option to play play passes to open players, as opposed to marked players/players in tight spaces (I accept this isn't exactly precise-but there is an intuitive notion here I think is important). I wouldn't have any instructions for simply playing the ball ahead of ones teammates since it doesn't seem to me to be a tactical instruction that is widely used, but simply an aaspect of football that is like pass weight, and ought to be determined by the players attributes.
-
Take more risks/takes less risks:
These two instructions have a more intuitive definition, and my main qualm is the fact that it puts together things that one may want to control separately. Take more risks 'encourages players to play more low perceptage passes and through balls in the hope that one or two of them will unlock the opposition defence in a potentially decisive manner'. Take fewer risks 'asks players to retain possession first and foremost, playing a sensible and patient passing game without unnecesssarily conceding possession to the opposition'. In the case of 'take more risks', I think putting both playing more through balls and more low percentage passes in the same category is a mistake. One may well want to encourage your defenders to to play more line breaking passes when available, without ever wanting them to hit a through ball or diagnoal switch of play, and vice versa. Take fewer risks seems to me to be a bit out of date in description. I struggle to think of many coaches more orientated on possession of the ball than Guardiola, but I wouldn't dream of saying that his defenders don't take substantive risks on the ball, which by and large, his players manage to carry out with effectiveness. But if I were to give defenders 'take more risks' I would be committing them potentially, to play a fair number of low probability switches of play and through balls, which would not be what I wanted (I know one could mitigate this with having a other instructions-but this doesn't leave seems satisfying to me).. One possible solution to this would be to have a separate encourage to play through balls (or at least something more specific than 'takes more risks') and a new PI/TI, look to play line breaking passes (and obviously, some converse PI/TI that obviously, still means your players will play line breaking passes when it is obviously on and risk free, but will not attempt marginal attempts to do so where the risk of doing so is significant). It has the added advantage of aligning with lots of modern coaching speak, and has a fairly intuitive definition.
2. Removing Mentality:
Mentality, as represented in game seems problematic. My problem with mentality is that mentality influences all other team and player instructions. It seems to me there is no need for mentality in the game, since whether a team is attacking or defensive ought to be constituted simply by that sum total of the team and player instructions and duties one has selected, and the players characteristics, rather than being some tactical choice in itself that influences all of these other choices. I know that in real life managers sometimes talk in press junkets and so on about being attacking, or liking to control games, or being on the front foot, or being safety first and secure, but I think that this a description of the totality of their tactical choices, not a tactical choice in itself (which is how I would say the mentality mechanic in football manager presently works).
However, Mentality is obviously structurally important in the game, since it affects everything about your tactic, so to remove it without rebalancing the rest of the tactical engine would be problematic. I think the solution is basically to have more specific TIs and PIs that in combination with duties, allow you to manually control what one has to rely on mentalities at the moment to do (in this sense, the suggestions I make above do quite a lot of the work of making mentality redundant). So if one wishes to play what the game presently describes as attacking, one would look to up the tempo and passing, have TI to play more through balls, have more attacking duties that ensure more players arrive in the box or are situated higher to receive dangerous passes, and instruct the team to recover the ball high (in other words you do things that are paradigmatic of attacking football). Obviously, this comes with all the concurrent tactical risks and downsides. If one wanted to play as if one had a positive mentality, one may instead emphasize ball retention, creating overloads rather than committing as many players forward at once, etc.
3. Modifications to defensive out of possession and in transition instructions.
Before making some suggestions that may improve the depth of the system I would like to say that I think SI have done a really good job in incorporating this stuff into the game, which I appreciate is ar really hard task due to the massively complex nature of pressing traps and marking systems that real teams use (to even represent it in the M.E is a challenge, and one I think that stilll has lots of improvements to be made, e.g - https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/556238-organisation-in-defensive-shape-strikers-tracking-back-and-midfield-positioning/), and that they have created an intuitive system that aligns with modern fotball terminology and is easy to understand. I do think that the systems could be made more detailed, how to do so while making the ME work, and without being daunting to casual players is the big question, but one that can be done, in my opinion.
a) Make a bigger deal out of marking systems.
I know that in set pieces you can choose to defend by man or zonally, and I also understand that you can, in principle, create a man for man system in game by matching systems and/or manually specifying for each player to mark a specific opponent. I also think it would be unwise to simply reintroduce the mark man to man or zonal choice of earlier games, since these are broad terms that don't really reflect how teams are coached now. However, I think players could be given more choices on how they wish their teams to press and counterpress their opponent that fit broadly within the broadly zonal approaches, and broadly man marking approaches.. I have minimal understanding of this myself, but I think that this series of posts (https://spielverlagerung.com/2014/07/29/man-coverage-man-to-man-marking/, https://spielverlagerung.com/2014/07/01/zonal-marking-zonal-coverage/,
https://spielverlagerung.com/2014/07/07/counterpressing-variations/) is illuminating. I can certainly see scope, over time, for there to be at least positional orientated zonal marking and man orientated zonal marking (the first keeps you by and large compact but is worse for pressing high up the pitch, and a man orientated one which is more susceptible to being out off shape, but allows for greater pressing capability. I'd also love to a passing lane orientated zonal pressing. I don't see any reason why you also couldn't have two variants of man marking. And similarly, I don't see any reason why you couldn't have 2-3 counterpressing variants in game. How precisely you incorporate them is an important question.You could do it by having it them as TI options (I think this is the best option), you could perhaps incorporate it into the ME more directly (if you have a higher line of engagement and a higher pressing intensity, but a zonal marking variant, the team will move out of a defensive shape to presss and risk getting bypassed). Personally, I think that this reduces tactical flexibility too much (I would want the Line of Engagement to control how early my man oriented pressing scheme comes into effect, not whether I use a man orientated scheme of a more positionally orientated one). Whatever the precise way of being implemented ., I think it would be beneficial, and possible, over the medium to long term, to add this into the game.
I have all sorts of other minor qualms, such as the fact that duties sometimes come with obligatory instructions that don't seem to me to be necessarily part of the position on that duty (for examples, all attacking wing backs being automatically instructed to dribble more frequently, which seems confused to me. More generally, I think duties ought to be first and foremost a designation of how advanced in the field they play, and the kinds of off the ball movements that are made.
Anyway, I appreciate this is a long post, so I'll stop there.
Any suggestions or feedback or suggestions would be most welcome. If I have been in any way unclear, please say, and I will attempt to make myself more clear.
2 -
-
Football Manager includes team instructions and player traits that encourage a player to hit early crosses. I also think that the game should include an option to hit crosses into the box first time, without taking a touch. Early crosses seem to be associated with getting the ball in at the earliest possible opportunity, even if they are from deep, relatively unpromising crossing positions (possibly why it is an incompatible team instruction with 'Work Ball Into Box'. First time crosses are not necessarily associated with such strategies, and bring distinct advantages (crossing against a defence that is less likely to be set), and disadvantages (seems likely to be a somewhat harder skill to hit a first time cross accurately).
I am ambiguous as to whether they should be a team instruction, a player instruction, a trait, or some combination of the three. I certainly think that there are some players who excel at first time crosses, and some who are poor at it, and prefer to take a touch to get the ball out of their feet, which means that having trait(s) might not be the worst idea. However, it is also the case that a manager could clearly instruct his team or particular players within it to prefer first time crosses.
Would welcome any thoughts on this proposal.
0 -
On 26/08/2021 at 09:56, Jack722 said:
The other two things I have to add is that
- Perhaps the line of engagement could be linked to inital striker positions? I feel like that, for a tactic with much lower line of engagement , for example, could see completely different positioning of forwards, where they work harder to block off passing lanes into the midfield, whereas higher line of engagements would see them step up and press centrebacks. Currently all the line of engagement does as far as I'm aware, is decide when players step out of position to press, which doesn't directly affect compactness.
I've realised that strikers generally take up poor positions, such as below:
Here no.8 can easily pass the ball into midfield to no.44 without much challenge at all, basically leaving me playing with 9 men.
Whereas using shadow strikers, such as above, they take up much more compact and intelligent positions to block off the pass into midfield. Now No.8 has to go wide or back to the keeper. So I'm thinking that all strikers, on whatever duty, should take up positions such as the current shadow strikers do, if you are using a much lower line of engagement. This way it would actually be possible to play a mid/low block without conceding far too many shots or completely sacrificing your attack.
2. All players in the same strata should take up positions on the same horizontal line. The only time we see that 4132 shape as mentioned above should be when you select a DM. Obvioulsy attacking players may take longer to track back, and a defensive player may hold their position for longer before decided to step out and press, but the general settled positioning should be along the same horizontal line.
I completely agree that strikers positioning should resemble the shadow striker picture. To be honest, even on a more aggressive, higher line of engagement 442, there should be far more of that kind of positioning. They should be more willing to step out to press the centre backs when appropriate (while also covering the holding midfielders as the ball side winger comes up to press the centre back while covering the the pass to the full back)). The risk should be, that the opponent is good enough to find the full back or that there is clever movement from the holding midfielders ahead that outfoxes the strikers covering job). and hence they can initiate a quick attack or progress the ball upfield. However, in that case, in the second or thrd phase of opposing pressure, you should still see the strikers doing some defensive work, probably blocking an easy circulation back to the centre backs.
(I think this provides a fairly good description: https://spielverlagerung.com/2014/07/15/red-bull-salzburg-under-roger-schmidt-2014/)
2 -
On 29/07/2021 at 12:41, engamohd said:
I like this!
I feel mentality is a bit out dated from the times of the old sliders system. I can imagine that the Team Mentality and Team Fluidity are part of the Match Engine which is being developed incrementally over the years, and is hard to drop, but in my opinion, I believe the time to evolve and liberate from it has come.
I believe the only real use at the moment for the mentality is risk taking, everything else can be set by the TIs and PIs. If there is a way to decouple mentality effects from the rest of the tactic, this would be a great step forward.
I think this could be achieved by scrapping the mentality completely and replacing it with the following:
1. Improving Passing Risks and Off the Ball Runs Risk TIs and PIs. This would give us the ability to make the team take more risks on and off the ball without the need for any nebulous mentality concepts. I am aware that "More Direct Passing", "Take More Risks", "Pass into Space" and "Get Further Forward" instructions does increase risk taking, but it is coupled with Mentality. Any one of these instructions is interpreted in an Attacking mentality differently than Defensive mentality. Allowing these instructions to function independently within a dedicated spectrum (such as the passing slider or the pressing slider) will give us much more ability to create specific playing styles without using mentality.
2. Allow all tactics to begin in an absolute clean slate, no default settings based on mentality. Everything is set at the standard middle defaults. Our TIs and PIs will be then interpreted absolutely, not relatively. This would be a more realistic interpretation, and is MUCH easier to anticipate the effects of my instructions. A 2 notch up direct passing instruction should mean the same to any team, not be construed differently in the context of Mentality.
These changes will make implementing style like a deep quick transitioning side (similar to Jose's Real Madrid) more intuitive.
However, I am aware this is very difficult to achieve and probably is not going to be considered seriously. Therefore, a more conservative improvement would be as follows:
1. Limit the effects of mentality to on and off the ball risks only. Things like width, compactness, defensive line, pressing, tempo etc. should NOT be changed by mentality. I may want to play a high risk football and defend in a deep block, doing so by going on an Attacking mentality would have lots of unwanted effects, while Defensive will not see us be sufficiently forward thinking. Removing the rest of the mentality effects (other than risk taking) will allow us to adjust everything from the TC and will make the player anticipate any changes he makes more accurately. Why should I play two attacking duties strikers on a defensive mentality to compensate for lack of risk taking, while I go with a support and attack duties on a more attacking mentality, if I want to achieve the same play from both strikers? I believe everything in the TC (TIs, PIs, Roles and Duties) should be absolute and not relative to mentality.
2. Update the description of mentality to EXACTLY describe what mentality is affecting.
3. Update the PIs and TIs related to risk taking so that it indicates the level of risk taking. At the moment, we do not know the frequency of forward runs, or is the player playing risky or not.
4. Place some distinction between Direct Passing, Tempo, Pass into Space and Take More Risks PI. All these instructions affect passing in someway, but it is not intuitively clear what each of them do.
I happy to elaborate further and would really love to see the ME take a giant leap forward.
I am very happy to see a thread where this kind of stuff is being discussed. Completely agree that mentality is a relic of the old system, and ought to be replaced as soon as possible by better refinement and specification of exactly what the relevant TIs and PIs do (while I understand and sympathize with the conservative demand and think it would be a considerable improvement on the status quo), I think we really need to get rid of it completely (or at least making a solely descriptive term with no actual effect). Creating an absolute scale is vital. I also think it is crucial to, as you make clear, specify what many of the passing and creative freedom TI and PIs do. I am in the process of writing a suggestion/series of suggestions to SI about some of these, because it seems to me that something like Pass into Space, (this is just one example I note in the post I intend to make) which has a superficially clear meaning, is in fact substantively ambiguous (in my view, between passing in front of a player, making an increased number of through balls, or passing to players whom are in space, rather than marked-or indeed, none of these, or some combination of the three). The game, if nothing else, needs to be more specific about what the instruction does (obviously, I appreciate that in the context of any given set of tactical instructions, the instruction will manifest differently). It also may need to add the team instruction, for example, to look to play through balls, or to look to pass to unmarked players, if this is not contained within the present instruction. I think you can say the same kind of things about team instructions like passing directness, tempo, creative freedom, focus play ..., etc.
1 -
Haven't really got into a save on FM21, having had a couple of really fun ones on FM20. Any suggestions for good teams. I am open to anything, though preferably European, and a team who a) don't have a big budget in relation to competitors and b) have something approximating a distinctive tacticacl style. I am intending for this save to be a journeyman save, so it can be lower league (though preferably not in Britain).
0 -
On 11/04/2020 at 09:46, oze07 said:
this thread not happening anymore? was tempted to start a bmg save nyself?
I had a very enjoyable save on the first patch, and am planning to do one on this patch. So I'd start one.
0
Historical stats should not disappear at end of each season
in Reviewed
Posted
I wholly agree with this suggestion.