Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


pauly15 last won the day on December 3 2018

pauly15 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

280 "I mean, funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you?"


About pauly15

  • Rank

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Waiting for the patch...

Recent Profile Visitors

2,153 profile views
  1. I'd say 1-2 points drop in some cases (repeat injuries) and nothing in others would be appropriate. Giggs for example had hamstring injuries throughout his career, as did Kewell... Neither dropped their pace dramatically despite the increased susceptibility. Eventually age caught up with them and their pace dropped rather than the muscle tears effecting an instant drop. Torres is an example to the contrary. Benítez destroyed him with hill training and recurring tears, but he didn't drop 5 points imo. He is an extreme example where the recurring tears perhaps took 3 or 4 from pace and acceleration. Something like a knee reconstruction (depending on whether they take ligament from the hamstring or use something from the patella) can definitively/factually/inevitably cause a 10% drop in hamstring power). 2-2015_3_Baur.pdf
  2. Clarification would be great. @Neil Brock you said that 'you've ever put out', i.e. past tense...
  3. The public beta we currently have?! If this isn't restrictive, if you think it's the best ME you've created or that it represents football well... we're in dire straits.
  4. Everybody understands it is complex, that knock ons are unpredictable and that you're not omniscient. What they aren't clear on or happy with is... How has the final of those 63 match engines contained the unintended or unpredictable knock on of severely exaggerated crosses, little striker movement and no central play? That's why people worry when the release ME and subsequent patches still contain huge issues at this stage. If a tweak late in development can cause the above... Well...... I hope you can fix it without similarly problematic knock ons. There have been numerous tactical/ME developments for 19 so a longer teething period is to be expected. I just hope you recognise the problem and the justified reaction and take specific steps to improve it. Which I'm sure you are.
  5. How has it happened in your summation that after this process, 6 weeks post-release... less than 1/100 passes from AMCs go forward centrally, and strikers barely move when the ball is in central attacking areas? The result being the crazy passing maps and crossing/set piece exagerration. Are you doing anything specific to address the fact that this is the state of the ME despite the process you have in place? It's only natural for people to feel at this stage that these type of issues are problematic. The public beta is great, and it's great that so many people are keen to participate- that's not the issue.
  6. FM is routinely in Beta for the first couple of months post-release, it's been like this for many years. Of course 'beta' is subjective (many people are playing/enjoying the game as it is), but for me the nature of the current issues merit the term. The reason for an imperfect ME on release is that it's extremely complex and SI are not omniscient - I don't think anyone doubts that. By buying it you prove that the game in this state is acceptable to you, and you consent to participating in a period where the ME is still evolving (as have I). This is the case to different degrees with many games nowadays (look at the unmitigated disaster that is fallout76), and can hardly come as a surprise to any long-term FM/CM fan. In short, by now you should expect the game to be in this state for the first couple of months after release. If you want to make the statement that it's not acceptable, you can monitor the state of the game on these forums (or play the demo) before buying, and if the ME is in an unacceptable state for you, refrain from purchasing until it's not (which is what I plan to do next year). Apparently the issues around excessive wide play, lack of striker movement and central play etc were known by developers pre-release, they just weren't able to get the ME into a better state when it was due for release in November. The thread linked there (RE suggested improvements to pre-release processes to pick up ME issues earlier) was quite abruptly locked because apparently it's not an issue of picking up issues before release, but rather an issue of fixing them without all the data that a vastly increased playing pool provides. The implication is that the ME is extremely complex (especially when new features are introduced) and that you can be part of this 'improvement period' in the early months or not, but that it is necessary for the coders to get things to a level of ME which subjectively you or I would call good.
  7. It's fairly obvious that it all comes down to lack of striker movement, which causes a total absence of central play, which means the ball ends up out wide all the time, which means more crosses, more corners and more set piece goals. The turning issue may also play into it. If players are unable to turn and face forward often enough, the consequence is obvious.
  8. Ah ok, good to know. Other suggestion RE CBs stands, I'll remove that one. Thanks:)
  9. You can't train it as far as I'm aware. It has to already exist / be passed on by mentoring.
  10. I'd also be curious to know what the dev team think of this. Also, I've made a few suggestions RE other roles here:
  11. 1. Add an ability for central defenders and BDPs to make forward runs. Example, Conte's use of Azpilucueta at CB last year: This instruction would also allow you to play more Dutch / Latin style of football. 2. Remove the cap on advanced playmaker's pressing. A very typical idea in the 4-3-3 (as in, I've coached 13 year olds to do it as part of our National Curriculum) is for the 3 attackers and one midfielder to play an advanced role in a press. Here is a 49 second video I made for a national youth team last year. Take note at 0:32 of the positioning/pressing of the #10. It's not just something that happens in a 4-2-3-1. 4-3-3's don't just press with 3 attackers and the midfield sitting deep. With the 4-3-3 AP in CM capped at standard, this very simple football idea is unworkable: This is the probably the best you can achieve, and it makes it easy for them to play out: The only way you can get a CM to play a part in a more advanced press, is to use him in a BWM(s) role, which is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, there are probably some global TIs that can get you slightly better than that, but you shouldn't be stopped from playing a slightly lower line of engagement and having the AP in CM join in. As the video I posted above shows, the first thing the striker does is WAIT - note the head-check- for the correct support from the #11 and #10 for when he choses to start their press by arching his run, blocking the central passing lanes and attacking the ball carrier. 3. I've noted several locks on striker that prevent idiosyncratic play and prevent you from setting things up the way you want. Here and Here. 4. Wing backs should not have "dribble more" (attacking role) and "dribble wide with ball" (all roles) locked. There are limitless examples of attacking wing-backs who play simple football. There are different styles: a Latin American wing back may dribble often, but an Italian or English wing back? I wouldn't say Kyle Walker or Trippier dribble often or dribble wide with the ball, they play simple but aggressive/attacking. I wouldn't say Marcos Alonso dribbles often... Victor Moses played as an attacking wing back last year for Conte, often arriving on the far post to score goals, he certainly wasn't instructed to dribble often though. The problem with roles at the moment is that it's always a compromise. If you want X player to position themselves like an attacking wing-back, or target man, or whatever, you're forced into a particular style and set of instructions which completely goes against two things: - Culturally, football is be played in many different styles. The definition of "attacking" varies. An attacking Dutch player and an attacking Argentine player shouldn't be expected (forced) to do the same things, even if they occupy the same areas on the pitch. - What has always been the core joy of FM, is being able to define your own style. Excessive locks like the above make that more difficult to achieve. They make you feel like you're locked into someone else's interpretation, because you are. What I'd suggest as a solution for the above is a blank role for every position. You have already removed sliders and wibble-wobble, so utterly ridiculous settings that break the engine aren't going to be possible. Blank, or more blank roles will shift the needle a bit further back to being able to define things for yourself, because I think the locks have gone too far and detract from what was great about the game.
  12. Agreed, unlike with trequartista moving wide, the current locks for target men suit the core idea of the role. So it's not a definitively poor one. However you may want a player to position themselves like an attacking target man but dribble if they have the ability. Can you achieve this with another role? - If you use a CF you've locked "move into channels" and "dribble often" which is not what you want. - If you use a DLF you can pick occasional dribbling and hold up ball, but you've locked move into channels and fundamentally changed the player's positioning on the pitch. - Advanced forward and pressing forward must move into channels... and so on. So there's no way to get the player to play in an idiosyncratic way... or even the way you want, which I maintain is the very core of what is (was?) good about FM and CM. You could do it with a PPM, but why should you need to wait months for that when in reality a manager could just say: "play as a target man, but dribble occasionally if the opportunity is there"?
  13. There are far too many locks on most roles. You would be better off introducing a 'recommendation' rather than a lock. Target men can't dribble on atttack or suport: Trequartista must move into channels. When you think of Totti, Baggio, Kaka, Rui Costa... where is the first place you think of them? It's not moving into channels. Much like with the false 9 being previously forced to move into channels, this is one possible interpretation but it's not a forced part of the role and not the central idea of it. Presing forwards locked to move into channels. Do you want Diego Costa in the channels by force? There are other interpretations of the role rather than just Jamie Vardy... Deep lying forwards on support and attack must hold up the ball. There are a number of good examples of this, even for smaller players: Zola, Bergkamp, Mancini, Del Piero etc despite not being strong had the technical ability to defend the ball with their body positioning. But should it be recommended or locked? There are plenty of examples of players who play the role and don't / shouldn't do this. Locks on roles are a problem all over the pitch as they have been thought up by people who aren't omniscient. Different playing styles are hampered by those locks. An example that stops you executing a really simple pressing idea is having advanced playmaker's pressing capped. A common pressing idea in a 4-3-3 in to have your #10 in CM join in the press and mark deep lying midfielders coming to get the ball. This is currently very very difficult to achieve. All defensive roles locked from moving further forward is a really annoying one. Look at how Conte used Azpilucueta in a back three. There are dozens of these. And no, there are NOT too many roles. The core joy in FM has always been able to set things up in line with your vision. If you're going to lock roles, removing some of them would be a disaste IMO.
  14. Agreed. You can't play a through ball if there's no movement. Strikers need to respond to AMs with time. And space by making appropriate runs.
  • Create New...