• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About Svenc

  • Rank
    Semi Pro
  • Birthday

About Me

  • About Me

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Casino Calavera

Recent Profile Visitors

4,197 profile views
  1. In terms of instructions it were probably useful if SI would invite people into the beta testing process that struggle with instructions and look the part to provide useful. No idea how diverse that pool of players called up really is -- but from this forums it is usually the more well-versed that get to participate in the processes, I reckon. This is probably natural to an extent, as somebody who has gone through the process of "getting to grips" with all is less likely to pardon the French, rant (or aimlessly complain about everything and nothing specific, even with better intentions). Yes, FM has its own vocabularly that is... somewhat detached from real football, even post sliders. And yes... I reckon to SI themselves it isn't apparent anymore where additionally feedback would be needed, and where not. Even if it is a fine line walking between spoon feeding everything and giving feedback, depending on the area of the game. It's like that Maths professor back at college who was that into his numbers and algorithms that he had the habit of checking whether we were able to catch up with his on the most obvious topics --- he couldn't tell much anymore what was bloody obvious and what wasn't as to him spending years on his numbers everything was taken for granted. That one post above though arguing the game were being "dumbed down" for the casual folk and and but a paragraph later demanding SI to provide a plug&play tactics (let alone a match engine that were intentionally programmed for such an approach to be viable and fail proof 100% with any possible combination of teams) is pretty special though, no offense. Also the aforementioined assistant advice is bound to confuse if you take it at face value. This is based on match stats. As such your assistant is best to be understood as the guy who points out curious numbers -- whether they impact you is up to you to decide. The aforementioned "retain possession" advice kicks in as soon as the pass completion etc. falls below a thresh hold. What if you don't want to play a possession game? You can be top of the tables with a seasonal pass completion rate of 65% (a bit like Leicester last season). Your assistant would certainly encourage you to retain the ball all season. The problem isn't that it is in... but rather that it encourages to be understood as something that it's never been (and likely never be, as programming an intelligent assistant must be a full-time job taking years itself).
  2. Could be, I don't have any numbers on that. You can get that down to barely much interceptions with extreme tactics, as you can have well over 70% of possession a match and pass completion rates of like 90%, which is down to an ME inherent weakness too. Absolutely no belting of the ball much. Overall, those numbers don't look that absurd to me though. Not encouraging you to bet, but if you got to bet365 and check their live section and click on a running game, you will see the number of "attacks" started by any side (not sure if there's another site doing this for a wider public). It's quite early in the evening, but currently there is say a match going on between Aswan and Petrojet. It's still 10 minutes left on the clock. Each of those sides has started close to 100 attacks so far give or take. Assuming for an attack to start the ball has to be turned over to the other side in whichever way (which is what FM counts), that doesn't look that huge off. Was just saying that there is the engine and play and decisions... and then there is the stats. How they are defined is wholly down to SI. And sometimes they carry similar monikers despite measuring things differently than everybody else. Bloody Brits. All of that is either way a totally valid criticism! Totally backing you on this. In particular... how long has it been since SI have teamed up with Prozone?
  3. Careful not to mix this up. This is the Opta definition of an interception: This is where a player intentionally intercepts a pass by moving into the line of the intended ball. FM counts interceptions+1 pretty much every time the ball changes feet... er teams, in whichever way, not merely intelligent "intercepting" moves of players which are counted by Opta and similar. I.e. lose balls getting picked up by the team who wasn't on the ball before, passes going astray and reaching the opposition, etc. You are correct that any bad decision can lead to an additionally turnover of the ball to the opposition. But the very high number of interceptions is in big parts due to how FM defines an interception, which is different to stats outlets (and needs changing to be comparable). Whilst it doesn't show as drastic, it is comparable to the possession stat. The possession stat on FM is not the same as what you see on stat sites. In FM, possession is measured with a chess clock method, i.e. the time a team has on the ball is counted and measured. Opta et all go by the number of passes, time doesn't factor into it. The definition of tackles, and sometimes even shots counted as such, has also seen reworks throughout the years. Don't get me started on the CCCs, though......
  4. Which can be a data issue, a match engine issue, but also simply random chance (or a combination). I hope the latter is taken into account (not saying it isn't), but similar to injuries, there's only that one extreme end ever getting reported, as the other extreme doesn't lead to frustration. I'm personally not happy the way injuries are treated admittedly, as this is a far cry from Paul Collyer's old rule of the thumb of 3-4 first squad members out on average during any time, but then this isn't "my" game and my wish come true [if only people would realize that all that "balancing"goes two ways.... opponents barely much miss out on their key players too ]. Back on pens, there is teams that convert down to 1 in 6 every other year. Doing a "Leverkusen" if you will, who in the current season with almost the same takers as before suddenly miss like everything (not converting 8 in 12, to be precise). One of the reasons why researching penalty related attributes must be the most unthankful tasks in player research. The sample size is just absolutely tiny -- and that's for the regular takers! To simplify, if the average conversion were about 80%, that is an average chance of not converting it of 20% for every single attempt. Would be interesting in which way FM treats shoot outs differently exactly... and how scorelines/match states are taken into account during normal time. Historically, it seems the shoot-outs that were more prone to crazy dynamics, like the endless ones going into the 10-20 kicks each range with some regularity, and for FM 2017 the opposite was reported too.
  5. Shape has been a bit modified and can give you a slightly benefit, but really... everything that is taught you on this in the tactics sub forums is 99% totally beyond any AI opponent and how they utilize it -- let alone like 99% of FM's player base, who don't visit the forums either way. It's fantastic stuff but I am a rigid no fancy guy 99% of times, I never change it, and neither do I run into trouble all the time, nor do I have a problem overachieving most of the time. AI does worse with the same teams again and again. If you have the balance in jobs and duties, you are fine. It is still assumed that the core issue would be primarily tactical. You don't underperform consistently unless you're misfiring on several cylinders, or your core tactics would be horrible. There is other areas impacting matches, see the "game is rigged" thread where the player selection didn't meet the team instruction conundrums in place at all, the squad selection left better players out of the starting eleven, and who knows what is going on in matches and how often things are chopped around at totally panic, let alone how the team is treated in the dressing room and media modules. He could pull a "caption obvious" here and praise them for every barely win against worse opposition where a confident win was no less than expected, and slam them on every loss, which can make him run into trouble, encourage point drops, then losses leading to slumps and further extending those slumps almost all by itself for all nobody knows. Dieu may be on the other extreme end, but there is totally room for a "keep it simple stupid" guide rather than in-depth essays on team shape and encouraging players to start with micro-analysing match sequences (both stuff beyond any AI scope). This failed with others before. Dafuge may be one to write it, as he goes through match days on commentary, and once he has his core sussed, doesn't chop things around either. Naturally, players like his won't be much around in the tactics forums, precisely because they keep it simple. Going that route won't make you drastically over perform immediately, but there is other areas where you can outperform AI, in particular long to mid-term as their squad policy and bang for the buck on the markets ain't exactly Cloughie. More importantly, sticking to such basics won't let you underperform all the time. Naturally, arguably not any AI should be ever programmed to be master class in all areas either way -- though personally I sure would at least like the elite to get their act together. In my opinion you need to seriously stretch some to be as inconsistent as AI Guardiola. The issue the OP has is he is struggling with the absolutely basics, or else he wouldn't run into trouble every save. That is, and will be, an easy fix. Provided he would stick to the basics and start with those!
  6. You may be demanding a bit much, as nobody is psychic. There's that "save match" button if you take a look... :-P Taking a guess, in those matches the other team were awarded a couple of cards likewise. Referees have attributes (only shown in the data editor), suggesting the specific refs in the specific matches are pretty strict/disciplined. You could check their records to see if that is the case. As you are suspecting tactics could contribute too, you have the box to box player on the side where the aggressive FB is, rather than the other way 'round, meaning as the b2b will push up he won't be able to cover the runs by the aggressive attacking fb and force others into additionally last ditch tackles. Whether that contributed to bookings in those matches... see above.
  7. That's not a way of testing a tactic, which, by the way, is also a questionable style of playing for the reasons you brought up, as no OP is playing exactly the same way. It is a test what would happen if you let your assistant take over entirely. Because he then does the exact same thing as any AI at the core. Whether that is a joyful way of playing is another matter. That's merely a reply to the argument always brought up that you would need some degree in real management to get any success. I find the opposite, it's players thinking that they had had a degree on management and then go all wild who constantly underperform. The entire point of the tactics creator, as it was previously was brought up, was that anybody would be able to get something going within a minute, provided some fundamentally basics were present. If they are, you would never constantly underperform like that, as it's not merely a game of tactics, but also contests of worse and better players. There's still a frequently misconception that not clicking on a dozen TI/PI for instance couldn't possibly be a viable way of approaching things. The way the thing is set up, the entire point is that by chosing the roles that players already would have instructions compared to how the game worked previous, for instance. That is the tactics part. It's not a game of but tactics, however. It is still wholly assumed the core issues would be severely tactical, i.e. severe issues with the core tactics applied. It could be completely panic decisions made during matches, it could be teams not up to snuff in any way, wrong selection of players... terrible man management. This is from experience. As when such saves are provided, things often look like this, and applying totally basic things would sort out like everything. There is something to be said about how tactical downloads can give off "wrong" impressions too. There was already a talk about a mate doing well playing super aggressively apparently getting fantastic results, to much bewilderment of the guy apparently. Not sure if that mate engages into downloads, but they can give off the impression that a difference in tactical choice would be one that enabled sub par players to do fantastically well. That's a viable way of playing, but it is the nature of the beast that there's still two distinct playing cultures for as long as there is engine and AI issues left to exploit up to the point that the most mediocre of sides start flying by hitting continue. For some that is a incredibly fun, or a contest between SI and the creators of those. For others, not so much. Nobody is right or wrong on this. It's just the way things are and worth enquiring that mates about, depending on which. Because those tactics, quite indeed, look anything but logical (which is also why they oft stop bringing results when patches are applied). The idea that the AI was some entity out to get you is, in any case, false. As is the notion that you would a degree in management to get something going. However, on equally parts I would find it disturbing if there wasn't players who were setting themselves up to fail. Despite opening a lot of threads, it is clear to me that the OP has never read any entry level step by step guides pinned in the tactics forums. Reading those takes like ten minutes. Following some of them to the letter would also ensure decent movement to prove a challenge against the defensive teams you described -- if that is contributing.
  8. I play exactly the same as on FM 2015 I don't worry about shape in iota I barely use any player instruction conundrums This overall plays pretty much completely the same as FM 2015 to me, despite the AI improvements talked about, reason of which may be that AI managers still cause top sides occasionally to underperform (depending on the AI's traits), and that they still go as low long-term to needing 20 shots on average to score a goal if you go through the team reports of each side. I am familiar with the most newbie advice there is though, such as considering that a lone isolated forward posted as Target Man might not be a particularly grand idea. Firstly he will not provide much in terms of play, more importantly, who's next to his to support him once he gets the ball as fielding a target man up top will see players looking to pump the ball towards him from back to front. You've got so assume this is tactical in the first place, which is just assumed. Whether it is, run a simple test.... holiday during match days and let your assistant take over. The game can actually played that way, has been that way for years. It's not that he can't fail but so can you. FM is as casual or as commited a game as you let it be. It's the only game I've ever had where you could get "results" and success whilst not contributing anything yourself, actually. Things get more complicated though when things either aren't kept simple (in particular if there are some understandably struggles with the tactical UI), unrealistic expectations are applied in relation to the squad's quality, or when players think they are Mourinho in general and know everything about football when they struggle with the basics (or at the very least, how it's translated into the game, which isn't spoon fed and nobody would love to hear). I know this post is going to frustrate, but I run the, "how would the team fare when I just applied to the job and holidayed doing nothing" test every year. It is, either way, not the tactical forums, this was clearly a rant, and I have just seen that rant was already posted elsewhere.
  9. If you were playing brilliantly you'd win a lot more of matches. The assessment that your side would be playing fantastic footie can be based solely on statistics, which is the point. It's super easy to have a lot of possession, in particular if you switch to "defensive", it is another to actually challenge and wrong foot opposing defenses (in particular, if they're better man by man, unlike at Arsenal). If you switch to a more cautious mentality, you won't challenge a thing with your inferior players, as your full backs would just stay back on auto duty which links the mentality to duties. Likewise, it is also arguably too easy to get a lot of shots purely in terms of quantity, though with such records, it is unlikely that you actually dominate the shot counts regularly that much (which is the more common complaint). Likewise, none of any of those stats show how easy you make it for an opposition to score, which summatsupeer also hinted at. Maybe you didn't get ripped with Arsenal just throwing bodies forward and wishing the few remaining defenders well when you were on a more aggressive mentality. But that was an established top side in their division, not a freshly promoted team. You may have a point! Namely: Neither you should go unbeaten with this for 69 matches at Arsenal. And that it's that easy to keep possession with far worse players is a game issue. However, neither should you expect similar results with completely different (and far worse in relation to the level of opposition) teams when playing like that. Taken from your thread, your were promoted with rank outsiders, which hints at the gap in player quality at play here: Unlike at Arsenal, any interception of any of your attacks which sees multiple players out of position would see far inferior defenders trying to cope with far better attackers on the counter/break. If you wanted somebody show how this would be possible in detail you could upload some matches. It is just vital to realize that's just not very balanced much on either end, and big time risky / exposing depending on which. And due to the auto duties and switches, your team looks completely different just because of those switches.
  10. Narrow 4-2-3-1 (three AMC) or wide one (AML/AMC/AMR)? There isn't some magic code or anything, why would you "like to know" how the AI does it when you could simply hit pause and replicate it anyhow? 4-1-4-1 has three men in the middle of the pitch and 4-2-3-1 (wide with AML/AMR) three too. The 4-2-3-1 narrow is a totally different beast though. I remember I think on previous that the downloads you engage in often have all the central midfielders on support, you will never be able to control a midfield with that the way an AI would. They all push up, it's the guys staying deep (think Busquets) that makes them control the pitch. AI almost always has a player staying deeper, as he will be in less pressure. This is like 100% about the role and the duty, very very simple in the game, actually. About not noticing a difference in width, depends also on what job/instructions you have your backs / generally wide players on, and/or manually tweaked their Player Instructions, but there is a massively difference encouraging everybody narrow vs wide. The pitch isn't stretched any, which can naturally differ depending on how wide the pitch actually is. You should also in generally see AI adopting more aggressive stances in their home match, which influences things all by itself (they may sit back away giving you a bit more space and do vice versa do so at home). As for general results, in real football only a few top teams in any league have a balanced or even positive track record away, which at the end of the season the game has always had surprisingly accurate. If you go through the tables IRL you will find a lot of teams that have lost at best 1 or 2 matches at home so far, completely vice versa away, in the EPL Burnley obviously being the extreme example, whilst away matches should be harder, significantly so... how the game does it is another matter. :D). Initially this thread was about a specific issue, or well two (sides down to 9 men being able to keep the ball, a side apparently encouraged to just retain it scoring a couple additionally goals) so it's a bit hard to keep track by now as it covers a bit of tactical stuff, a bit of ME stuff, tactical UI stuff, everything. I guess that was inevitably to happen anyhow, but if those two matches initially talked about were uploaded, this could have been steered into something more focused... after all, ME and also weird AI tactics can cause weird stuff, as argued by previous. If SI would only ever make those available, imo they'd 100% get accused of watching exclusively Premier League football (and lord knows that's happened before). I personally wouldn't like that really, in particular as the ball is moved too quickly out of the back line as is already (you will never see the centre backs as involved as they are in Guardiola teams... once they play it forward, play rarely moves back, so no Italy 2016 Euro football style either, with the ball moving between their back three until one of them launched a ball forward). That's always been a traditionally FM weakness. The above "time wasting" issue is not one of mentality, it's one of generally defending that will hopefully see some fixing. If players are pushed and covered proper, they can't dawdle onto the ball for so long. The thing is that during the brief spells where you see central forwards tracking back and putting a foot in, you can see how effective or helping this would be.
  11. Aye, still goes back to the more input thing. If it was tactical at all (on both ends), it would be visible in the match play. Assuming against Bayern this really created some masses of space, that should be something to pick up. Can you spot the difference between high lines and low lines in the game? Can you spot players being on defend duty vs. pushing all up? Differences in formation? I think that on that basic level this is easier to pick up than in real football as argued, in parts because of what was said above, but also because unless you are there on the ground, TV cameras focus too much on what goes on immediately around the ball, but don't let you see the pitch/teams in entirety. That is rather basic stuff, if you can't every random switch will feel totally random by definition [the only thing I watch stuff in detail personally is when something curious is going on or struggle to get chances, or when such curious matches are provided to have a look at in general... because by and large, the better equipped side typically wins most of the time, the only exception being nonsense tactics or "super tactic" downloads, i.e. going all the way with mediocre sides]. Possible scenarios: As soon as the 1-0 was scored against Bayern, they switched to something more aggressive, leaving more space to exploit. Windfall followed. Watford may have never left that from the kick-off, being content with a draw or not losing too big (both possible AI routes for years in the game)? Second possible scenario: First match a total fluke with two own goals and two penalties (unlikely, as the football was said to be brill, but possible, I had a match with 3 direct free kicks getting converted) Against Watford likewise. In a DM-CM-CM setup without an AMC, the lone forward may have been easily taken out of the game against Watford (they play a narrow formation packing the middle at the start at least?), against Bayern playing differently perhaps not so much. It might be connected to some unfortunate ME inherent stuff in 2017. This is endless. If you aren't into tactics much or struggle don't overcomplicate. I generally actually don't to that too! However such a black/white thinking and looking for "winning formulas" will always be problematic, except if SI forces opponents literally opponent lining up the exact same ways every match, with the same players too. Don't think that's going to happen. There will be always some who appreciate that as the ME becoming more robust, as sides can win big in one match and then struggle to create anything the following match against worse sides, whilst others thinking along different lines (typically looking for that universally "winning formula") may feel alienated. Not everything is tactical too. :-)
  12. That... plus some may realize that paying full-price and then not accessing half of the details that go into the game's development may be a bit of a waste in money -- and time invested. That's at least it for me. But things used to be different! On my first management game on C64 you could abuse a totally unrealistic simulation of crowds attending matches. Take a big loan and build up your ground up to the capacity of 50,000, set the ticket price down to 5 bucks and that placed was always PACKED -- in the 4th division. After that it was an exercise in patience to rise from bottom to top, but a fun exercise it was. The "On The Ball" series which came next allowed you to cheat literally -- bribing the refs, doping the players, so sure did! Admittedly I'm not suspect to rage-quitting games in general... so no broken screens or mice from this one. The "flipside" to all of that is that winning trophies doesn't trigger me to cry and rent a bus for a celebration tour around town and propose a gay marriage to the apparently exclusively male makers either! I do a couple of fantasy edits to the db on occasion. But in total there has been no management series that aims to replicate what CM/FM have been aiming for all along, which is why I stick to playing to the "rules" in saves proper. It's not hard to access means that break the intended sim and game world though (if that's your fun). Whatever makes your virtually footie team afloat, and to end that on a light-hearted note.
  13. Tongue in cheek you could ask the reverse. Worst pass completion in the league, worst possession, champions of England, how? (Leicester last season). It indeed is (too) easy to sport high possession and pass completion counts in the ME -- it's still not your job to have the best possession, that is a route to never ending frustration. There is several players obsessed about these stats in ways that contrary actually decrease the chance of scoring each time going forward due to their obsession (and making it so that on the opposing end during whatever brief spell of possession, the opponent has a much higher chance of scoring on average). There is flawed logics behind, as they infer from those stats that they would be "playing well" -- AI tactics don't give a hoot about dominating possession, quite the contrary, they gladly give it to you to lure you out on occasion. Think of United under van Gaal, except with barely half of the penetration. Some extreme, but apparently popular ways to do that would be: playing ultra narrow by default, having each wide player manually tweaked to come inside narrow, activating all the possession based TI's and PIs there are in instruction conundrums reducing the number of crosses flying in, through balls played from deeper areas, diagonal balls stretching the pitch, and more, in short taking out everything that could possibly challenge a defense. Not in a bid to hold onto a scoreline, but as a default, as it bumps the possession stats. Each interception during those spell of fruitless possession leading to weak shots (or set piece clearances) can lead to a counter that immediately may ship a higher quality shot against. And you must have had a ton of shot against, looking at those -32. Either that, or you have accidentally shredded your defense when going forward, so that every spell of possession for any opponent is bound to result into a decent jab at goal (are you utilizing manual man marking, by chance?)
  14. Players will have more time on the ball visibly. This is parts tactically (lower opposition may try to shut up shop and drop off), but also related to attributes. Not sure if things are still as extreme, but this is a sequence of f FM 2012 recorded with all the Bayern players work-rate, determination, aggression and similar attributes being nerfed to "1". You will also see players being in more space in general, as there will be more marking and concentration issues seeing your players in space [to generalize], and opposition players won't be able to cover as much space in time due to lesser physical attributes, etc. Whilst I personally think the ME does a limited job of showing gulfs in class in the technical range, anybody ought to look decent if he's given enough time and space, which both are and have been simulated visibly. In particular as this is football players, not pub team levels the game simulates (i.e. the guy with "1" in long shot" oft expected to be a muppet player and not get a zero shot on target, which is not how things work... and heck, I got a few strikes volleyed on target back in the day from time to time... at least in training and under no pressure ).
  15. FM is one of few games where you don't even need to sit in front of your screen most of the time and have success, as the makers had gradually introduced all kinds of helpers and assistants who can take over like everything. Anybody who ever suggested to you you would need to spend hours and constantly change stuff is terrible advice. About why AI / mechanics are improved / made more realistic. In parts because AI managers are still doing weird things that sees their team needing up to 20 attempts on average to score. Doing things that can make the best of sides underperform, which hurts the game experience in general. There is another angle to consider, which is player frustration in parts related to remaining unrealistic extreme AI match management. Like AI initially sitting half a team behind the ball for 85 minutes making it harder to convert our shots as they tend to be in no space at all and weakish (super keeper conspiracy incoming), only to push some players forward for the remaining act and get some shots of its own when previously it was zero (the "AI converts from its few shots / suddenly becomes like Barcelona /cracks my tacticz whenever it wants" conspiracies.). That's the tactical side of things, and that is only a part of the game anyhow. Improved transfers and squad management may also mean less squad shenanigans. No matter how, it's likely aimed to improve the game for everyone. The yardstick may differ, but popping things in and hitting continue (for an unhealthy amount of time likewise, depending on how long of a button mashing slog the save may become) and win-win with average sides may not be particularly compelling gameplay to some. Not arguing that the curent editions necessarily are, mind. There has been the ongoing notion that due to "weak AI" the game had to rely on "cheap tricks" for it to remain competitive in general, which may make improving stuff worth it all by itself. This is a hilarious post still worth it despite the XXL length, and that was from years back (but still -- to lesser extent -- applies).