Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About Svenc

  • Rank
    Semi Pro


  • Biography
    "At the end of the day, all we can do as humans is create a tactic which dominates possession, creates clear cut chances and gets shots on target." -- perceived football wisdoms of an eternally to be frustrated Football Manager.

About Me

  • About Me

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Dishonored II

Recent Profile Visitors

5,226 profile views
  1. Well, tbf, added realism always calls for restrictions. If one were to go the 100% realism route for a save, and probably nobody is, you needn't apply, as who'd take you for the job, realistically? I doubt Everton would consider much if PaulC applied for the job now, in all due respect. However one vital restriction in terms of squad development that's always going to be there imo, and it's one up to you, is not treating every club like a life-time commitment. Few if any managers in real football do such, or can afford to do it. If they don't deliver short-term, they're out of a job, and it seems even Wenger is now coming under scrutiny too. It's not how AI operates likewise. If they get better offers, they're off. In comes the next guy with different preferences, which disrupts AI squads all itself. Plus in fairness, I'm not sure I'd agree that older games were more "difficult" here generally. There's much more money around in the game in-game now too (the game has generally never replicated how Spanish clubs had to sell their best players a few years ago to stay afloat or such). But scouting isn't as accurate, same as the AI has seen some improvements likewise. I don't think that "quest marker" design analogy is that bad one, though it's a different genre. The reason of which being that FM too, is a game wide, wide open. You can approach it in any way possible, and it's easy to get lost. Actually, I'd class it harder to get into the game than actually playing it once you're there, which is for a multitude of oft unfortunate reasons. You see, the quest marker is inherently nothing bad. It's a tool meant to guide players. However, in most games these days, it's permanent. It's no choice. Most playeres likely won't even much respond to it anymore, as they've been conditioned into expecting a floating arrow above their player character's head, which ensures they can virtually go no wrong. The designers have decided you want to be permanently offered a helping-hand, and the entire game is designed around it. You won't be able to solve quests without it, you might not even find your way around the landscape without it, as what was initially a helping hand is made a fundamental piece of the design. If you have a marker, you don't need to build landmarks. You have that marker. FM likewise, no matter who it's catered to, designing it from the bottom like that sounds a bad idea to me, AI or otherwise. There's no option to run, to upgrade, in particular if one day after a few seasons you'd wish a game had just a little (maybe not even that much!) more oomph and player agency and richness to it.
  2. Nobody knows whether that is a minority or not. The German community had a recent poll running where the difficulty overall was argued to be "right" to "slightly too easy", however that is indeed a minority, firstly it's an online community, secondly, the game's not even released officially in Germany. The main gripes weren't related to match management, it was transfer markets and AI squad development, which is not that big of a surprise to me, even though I personally also have a few beefs how the game fails to replicate both playing styles as well as match management of at least the few top managers. It then comes down to whether you want to have bits of actually planning required (simply assistant ratings do plenty good on this), or not. I've personally been also always arguing against the notion promoted by SI that picking teams would be a level of difficulty. You start at a lower league, but the level of difficulty is universal. Dafuge's challenge has been called challenge for reason though, these are born out of a desire for added challenge. Likewise I argue against the notion that tactics and decision making (both for AI as well as human managers) would and should be the root cause of gigantic, consistent overachievement (same as outside of blatant errors vice versa for colossal underachievement). Remember that goes both ways, always. The only reason this is possible in past and current iterations is mainly AI and ME flaws. Including that FM has always struggled with proper zonal marking, thus always leaving positionally holes on its pitches that shouldn't exist. This springs frustrations for players against AI also, as some mid-match simple AI formational switches cause match dynamics that wouldn't exist in football. e.g. AI switches to 3 central forwards who in-game barely track back an inch. Don't prepare and you concede easy breaks over and over. This is what happens in the tactical forums also, by the way. If you understand the stuff in there, the AI cannot much cope (the stuff the game has rewarded generally is far simpler). In real football, tactics and match management are an important part, but tertiary to player quality and development, which brings us straight back on the main topic where it should be. FM is scientifically proven "easy fun" anyway. Btw, I don't like if players thinly veil their own agendas by trying to speak for somebody else. It's not "they", it's "you". Nobody knows, honestly. When El Payaso opened this thread, it was to express his thoughts on squad building. I don't agree with the notion too that it should be as hard as it is in actual football to better teams, but at the moment, that is barely a contest. FM's never been a game I ever considered to be hugely difficult nor demanding, there's an insanely amount of stuff in the game I don't even look at. Actually, most of the time playing I'm not even fully commited. It's oft something running in the background. But then I had prior experience with other management games before. In some ways, they could be harder, despite being more simplistic. E.g. On The Ball, 1993, Amiga 500. Lose a few matches in a row, game over, permanently -- and no matter what tactics and players you put up, a subpar side remained a subpar side. Excellent point about making a distinction between "realistic" and "Hard" transfer markets. "Realistic" AI would make mistakes a plenty (in particular outside of the consistent top). "Realistic" AI also means that Real Madrid may not look for bargains much. "Realistic AI" would also mean that some clubs would always splash the cash on a star of recent World Cups based wholly on the performance of four matches, same as a bad human player would. Coding a "hard" transfer market could be as easy as making every AI manager aware of any high CA/PA player appearing in the game world (which would be horrible). Taking a time-off personally from FM currently anyways, off to a few different challenges.
  3. It's the other way around. For players who want it easier there is tons of downloads from experienced players, wonderkid lists, training tipps, etc. The AI is the limit for anybody here, as far as competition is concerned. It is tricky though. You can see this culture of "instant gratification" basically in all of gaming, as it is arguably a social phenomenon affecting all of life. To me the better design is to make the game so that it remains accessibly to anyone (there is a caveat, this is targeted at football fans), but remain the optionally depth. Which is why my argument has always been it is the assistant managers and the advice and feedback/UI that is the key to keep this accessible, rather than lobotomizing opponents to "don't hurt me levels" (to exaggerate). This has already happened throughout the years in various forms actually already. It arguably hasn't taken the next step though yet. Games tend to do it the other way around these days. Take the "go here do that quest marker" in your average RPG. Not only is that "hand-holding" taken to the extreme, it is also incredibly silly --- why build all these big open worlds in the first place if you treat players as if they would get lost in their own bedroom? It has also lead to designers becoming incredibly lazy, and building their worlds around such "helpers", rather than them keeping them optionally helpers. I hugely welcome any help that makes games accessible, but not to the degree that the entire design is driven by it. Plus every game has to draw the line somewhere, the extremes are hardly ever catered to by anyone (except for specific niche products). That excludes players who basically don't even want to show up and push continue (Diablo, Kimz type and its successors); but the game can't be specifically catered to someone who writes daily dissertations about the finer nuances of team shape either. This is a game targeted at football fans. If you fail on some basic level here, and if you can't take the occasional frustration inherent to it, you should be burned at least some. Imo, etc. etc. pp
  4. This is pretty much a Miles quote thus when enquired in the Twittersphere why SI don't go 100%: "Our players prefer it that way." And so it apparently is. Doesn't keep anybody from complaining when once in a hundred seasons an actual crisis kicks in, mind. Which is infinitely more likely to happen in the first season because the research has entered all long-term injuries, and thus Dortmund were reported as a bug too (you are guaranteed to be without 6 first team players until end of the year, and whatever FM piles up top, comes up top). Where i go I see more annoyances that injuries are too few now, was recently PMed by somebody again, which causes frustration of a different kind: If reserve players don't get enough playing time, they start bitching all the time. Thus there's already an influx of players who keep their squad deliberately tiny, even when competing in Europe, we're talking squads of 20 players at best. Which is also related to squad building, by the way. That injuries most of the time are really few and far between is "meta knowledge" AI managers don't have. So they spread their wage budgets thin, whilst players don't, as they know they don't have to most of the time. Tipp: There are community files that both try to increase and decrease the rates. Personally I don't "trust" such modifications fully, as the game ultimately has been tested the way it's shelved by SI. @MrPompey Depends on your own expectations plus the way you play how much of an enjoyment you get out of this ultimately. There are players who only ever play with their favorite team for instance, some of which don't advance that far into the save to ever develop a top squad with them. The attraction is to do better than the club does in real football (totally possible, in particular within reasonable parameters), but with the caveat of the core of the same players still intact. Naturally, that can be a bit harder depending on the release and less so, all depending on how real life football goes, as the research tries to replicate that accordingly at the start of the game. E.g. winning titles soon with Pompey may be tough. Long-term development though, that's where my argument about this being a game of patience/persistance kicks in. Individual seasons don't need to last days of in-game time too. See also Dafuge.
  5. The question always is: by whom? There's a host of reasons for that. From my experience for instance a huge portion of folk who consistently deem tactics too difficult in numbers on this tend to yearn for that Diablo type drawing the completely match day module bust, up to the point that any crap team can win leagues with no effort whatsoever (e.g. not what happens in football in any kind of way ever). SI have it thus made it much easier actually, tactically. It was much easier to create huge holes in there in older iterations, actually, which lead to guaranteed underperformance. Agree that balance is key though plus nobody would play a game where raising from bottom to top was as impossible as it (realistically) is for clubs is in real football. Hence SI said they would never balance the game that you'd need a PH.D in match management or anything. Plus ideally, tactics are only one part of the deal anyhow. A decent match plan may increase the chances of turning a few draws into wins and losses into draws. It would never ever be the cause of long-term repeatedly, major upsets, ever, though. This is jiggling some with a few percentages, not coming up with a plan that draws opponents flabbergasted. Doesn't happen, as this isn't 1954 anymore.
  6. This. Interestingly though, changing this wouldn't affect general difficulty as such on FM though. Any kind of overhaul here, it affects all managers applying, be that human ones or AI controlled. It's the same for injuries. SI are on record of saying that they aim for injury rates that are consistently quite a few percent off the real world of football, 70-80% IIRC, and it's blatant they deliver on that now outside a few odd crisis, if you follow such stats in real football. If they would increasy injury rates, that would apply to all teams. It would add another layer of unpredictability/uncertainty. However, every time you may go hooray for Messi, Pique, Iniesta and Suarez missing out if you come up against Barcelona in the Champions League 1st leg, the same may happen to you. The only way in which the AI would pose a higher challenge here was if it was better at squad building/mainting itself, thus. If it took into account player personalities better (loyal vs journeymen), etc. etc. If you don't lose the players, it wouldn't either. However, indeed, from experimenting at least on older releases, AI managers were much more prone to let complaining players go. Fm 2015 or thereabouts they seemed to transfer list players always as soon as the player request was in, whilst most human mangers would happily sit such out, content on knowing that a further few weeks or months down the save, everything will be fine anyway. Judging from other portions of the game, it's never been that huge a challenge to at least match AI. It's one of the reasons I barely read any more elaborate stuff in the tactics forums too. Not needed. However, as argued, opinions on this can be quite diverse.
  7. Goal keeper ratings have also been part of the bane behind supposedly "super keepers" before. As in: keeper makes a lot of however many saves he was more expected to make rather than the forward scoring, he gets a bump, Man Of The Match. Then again, this seems to mirror football punditry to an extent. In every keeper biography I have read it is always argued how guys on television (mostly field players too) always tend to judge keeper actions wrong. As in, the difficult stuff is often ridiculed, whilst the easier stuff is pointed out as a fantastic save. I've never been much of a rating guy for this reason, in particular not over the course of a few matches. Long-term, an average of 7.xx may tell you something about a) the consistency of a player b) his quality and c) if he's somewhat efficiently used. Short to medium-term, no never. Plus, such ratings in-game are only useful with the slightest bit of context. If you know that keepers don't tend to get that hugely average ratings, whilst top scorers and assist givers do, that's vital context right there. Re: Interceptions. The reason there's more of those in FM is partly match engine and defending related. However SI also call each time the ball is turned over (lose ball, anything) an interception. Opta et all don't do that in any kind of way.
  8. There's another factor, in that it's not that hard to keep your best players. In real football, in particular if an "underdog" has a stand-out season, it's talent is being poached by anyone. Generally agree though. It always boggles me how anybody who reads entry level guides we have on this consistently fails on the game, for instance. You put in some halfway balanced tactics, even looking at the "star ratings" of players will do to improve the squad long-term (and thus average results), and off-you go. Don't have the game on my HDD atm, but FM to me is a game of persistance after a while, rather than hugely much "skill". I always, always tend to set myself other goals than "getting promoted" or "winning stuff". For instance, putting to the test if the pub talk a few years ago was correct, and that the German national team was lacking "leaders" and intimidating types and was supposedly to full of "undetermined yes-men" to still win any Cups, as opposed to prior years (Matthäus, Effenberg,etc.). Or trying to get Thomas Müller to break the scoring records of Gerd. etc For the first I deliberately even leave out the technically most talented players oftenly, and replace them with players of inferior skill, but those who supposedly have that "bite". That feedback on difficulty can be so divisive highlights though how SI would be damned if they do, damned if they don't. Even if it was as simple as that... really great AI must be some of the hardest things to code in the game. As genre history shows, next to a believable match day simulation, transfer AI is probably the hardest thing to code in management games. It's probably been the main reason why after a while most of such games become a bit of a "routine". To be honest though, you can cheese the AI even in complex grand strategy games such as Hearts Of Iron. Which is why players can take over Luxembourg and end up reigning the world with a nation of initially zero resources. And in FM, a balance must be struck. I think nobody would play a game where it was virtually impossible to take a smaller club to better spots.
  9. He also posted this ten years ago (second part of this post, the bit about dominating stats without creating much quality chances). And he's still pretty much completely correct, except for that it doesn't merely affect just players who look to "beat the engine" or "download tactics". It's pretty easy to dominate FM's simplistic stats without really consistently creating quality openings/chances and decent play. It's down to some of FM's inherent issues in defending in one part, and the lack of decision making (human thinking) of AI managers on the other part. In a purely online environment, that weren't as much of a thing. Provided both managers knew what to watch out for. Consistently dropping points in statistically dominated matches, that is more oftenly than how team do it in real football (and some players always have this!!), is down to a domination in all but FM's (too simplistic) stats. I'd love for the current generation of tactical mods to pick up on this. And for SI to add at least a few simple stats totally missing from the game. It was brought up as another example, but when United dropped their points against Burnley last season for instance, they did so despite regularly not only getting into the box, but also creating their stuff from actual PLAY. On FM in such matches 9 times out of 10 I categorically rule that out. Not going to post all those vids, graphics and memes again though. I'm on an FM hiatus for a further prolonged time being.
  10. Totally agree AFCBeer, in particular over "just" ten matches it might have simply been a tad of bad luck and confidence too. What is identified in football by general "pub wisdom" over such short to mid-term as form is oft little to do with form. It is the nature of finishing in football, as most attempts are simply missed by anyone. Shots that expect the forward to score and be in a favored position over the defense/keeper are very rare. The so called "big chances" in football analysis therefore start at about a goal expectancy of around 20%, no more no less. Guys who consistently score every match on average, consistently, throughout their career, they average also at least 3+ attempts per match (Ronaldo up to 7, Messi 5). Longer term however, it would be really curious how many shots Cavani actually took in that 26/0 season. Did they take out that screen from Touch in his profile where it displays how many shots he takes? It should be under "reports". I have never seen a guy deployed in a central forward slot on the tactics screen with zero goals over 26 matches in-game, I think, ever, no matter the role, no matter the player, unless he struggled to at all get shots. The overall shot conversion rates in-game are pretty in line with football, and have been for a few years. The exception being if that forward consistently has too many bad shooting positions / scenarios, but 0 goals that is a stretch -- typically forwards convert about every 4-6th shot they take in-game currently. Unfavorable shots lowering that some is always, always tactical (which is why you have always one AI side also in the league who needs an average of 20 shots to score -- 5% shot conversion in their team profile screen, completely related to AI tactics). Or if there is a bug not picked up. A few years ago for instance, it was acknowledged by the coder that there was an issue with a certain type of one on one. This wasn't picked up in testing, as no AI tactics created as many of such one on ones some human tactics did. In general, if you look at general finishing stats between forwards, there isn't that huge a difference either way, my point about finer margins. Neither should there be in-game. In particular long-term -- even seasonal stats can be quite a few skewed, as that's "just" 30-40 matches, over which one or two freak results can influence the numbers hugely (Lewandowski scoring five goals in 9 minutes even for his is a rare feat). Still at 26/0, consider me intrigued (it might actually reveal a big flaw in the game). tldr; agreed, short to mid-term (10 matches) there are other factors. Longer term or repeatedly however, this is going to be tactical. It's always been.
  11. Forget about the players at least for the time being. Bringing in players will never be a fix in such situations. It's the type of chances first and foremost. A decent players will on occasion put the additional difficult finish away. If he's the type who creates space for himself regularly (dribblings) he may also create space for himself for added shots -- and goals. This isn't merely like that in the game. It's how football works too. The margins between players are fairly small. Clubs spend millions in attempts to go a few extra percentages at best. I'd be genuinelly interested in a profile screenshot of Cavani "Not being able to hit a barn's door", though. A few relevant numbers are under his /performance/ report tabs in the profile, where it shows how many attempts he takes, how many are on target and how many goals eventually resulted off all those shots. It's certainly possible to have very low conversion rates in FM, lower than almost any player in football. That will also relate to tactics though, as they influence the type of shots he gets. I'm no guru whatsoever, but the best conversion I oft have with the most average players. Which also relates to tactics -- except for the opposition, naturally. There's more AI managers that play a fairly open attacking game when they come up against side they deem "inferior", thus leaving space behind. The key is always that space. Unfortunately FM has very limited stats on that. Doubly onfortunately when going possession-based players frequently don't realize how what they are doing to get there oft completely makes play bog down in front of the opposition goal, rather than stretching them. It's also the key component of the frustration of one of FM's most legendary players: GarryWHUFC aka Gazhammer. His pursuit in dominating possession by all means possible always leads to repeat matches where he dominates the stats in huge ways, but drops points. He dominates stats, but not where it counts in those matches: consistently creating space for better openings. Alternatively, whilst FM ain't football but may take the research of it into account, I propose the following, as it's still just a run of 10 matches. It is and should be possible to have decent chances, but still struggle to win. For anybody who knows anything about finishing in football it should be fairly obvious that finishing streaks can transpire in and on themselves due to the nature of most finishes. Most of the time, the forward isn't expected to score even with the better of them.
  12. IF this happens time and time again your shots (even inside the box) just aren't good. You may dominate possession, and even shots, but you struggle to create space. You are also either using a) manual man marking options that cause your defense all over the place or b) have a totally leightweight midfield. Both resulting in every time your opponent goes forward, he has it much easier to score. As for own shots, heavy spoiler, would love to see it otherwise just once (as Herne brought up Bayern already, here's another, and FM doesn't even deal in such simple, but utterly telling stats). If it just repeats and repeats, this will have limited to do with players anyway. Even the worst ones (in football and this game) regularly put the reasonable stuff away. It's all to do with hugely overrating your chances overall. One on ones are converted at about 1 in 3 rates, which is real good as almost any type of scenario sees the keeper in the advantage and a 1 in 2 chance is rare. But they're no sitters either, and easily inflated by any of the below, even "on target". (Think of the amount of pressured headers from indirect free kicks and corners when parking into an opponent's half. Doubly so if you struggle to create space, which is primarily tactical). As FM doesn't have these simple stats, corner counts of 13+ish and up are always suspicious.
  13. A cry for help

    Speaking about old threads, I was pointed to this by somebody else, but this has been going on before registering here. For me that was the "final straw", as also the only difference between his supposedly "one successful" FM 2017 save and all the others was that I talked him out of quitting due to a bad run of x matches into the second or third season. That's it! See also his most recent thread where he announced to quit the game as he had another bad start result-wise into a season. That's like Allegri calling it immediately quits at Juventus in 2015 when they struggled to win a match in the first 10 matches. He still quit the save further on as after four years, despite regular appearances in the CL, he was still struggling to crack it into the top spots with a side that was mid-table at best when he took over. This sums it up, finished 2nd with a fairly struggling Milan side on FM 2016 long before getting advice on here, but starting over. http://www.fm-base.co.uk/forum/football-manager-2016-tactics/354676-tactical-problems-2.html#post2950299 http://www.fm-base.co.uk/forum/football-manager-2016-tactics/354676-tactical-problems-2.html#post2948569 The above therefore sum it up for me. Even when successful, things are restarted at some random point. Looping was also doing reasonably well before, all things considering. Trying to help him is a lost cause to me also because his football expectations are all over the map, and it's not purely connected to anything tactical at all. That said, good luck (and I mean to both parties involved). I echo what Herne said though. I haven't properly played a save since about April/May. I actually recently deleted the game from my HDD (FM down time is a good thing). The amount of saves (re-)started to me have always been an issue itself either way. It's been an unbelievably outrageous amount.
  14. I'd say his main problem is that he both doesn't understand the game nor football and until he fixes that, he will always open threads on everything. - Expecting a side that hasn't won in x games to suddenly not even turn up anymore against his mid-table at best side - Considering a forward from a mid-table side, who likely doesn't get that many attempts full stop per match, to score at bad rates when he scores just 1 goal in every ca. 3 matches - Expecting sides to win just because they have more shots - Expecting sides down to ten to be pushovers - Never even seen him enquiring anything tactically, which already raises suspicious as you can easily make a side play on this how even the worst manager in real football wouldn't let his side play ever This goes on. On the topic of this thread: Some of the game may have been influenced in such a way you described, though it's never a root cause for repeat losses. AI doesn't win most of those games because it has some magic formula. It's also because Bayern, Juventus, Barcelona et all simply have superior players. Much, much superior. The likes even an improved Torino may struggle to overcome for a further few years. However we're still back to the point bolded first and foremost.
  15. See above, Andrew, see above. Guess from whose matches that match video linked to was from. What's killed his that apparently he also tended to modify them a bit. See, Gary's football outlook after watching a lot of Match Of The Day can be summed up as follows: If a side has more shots and possession, it must be playing well. Hopefully the introduction of Expected Goals statistics to his beloved MoTD will shake that belief a little, because even with FM's many flaws, until then he has no hope. If guys like his aren't beyond all hope, that is, considering the lawsuits lolsuits Barside mentioned. @looping are you suggesting all of such losses happen that way? He never once was top of the table, as can be seen from any thread prior. Therefore, barely any side in the game world / league would class him as a top side, against they would keep things increasingly tight. That happens every other week if you're Bayern, Barcelona, Juventus perhaps, or are about to getting there (surprise surprise, they still win everything). Andrew's issues are something else all together. The signposts for this have been all over the place in multiple threads.