• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

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
    Casino Calavera

Recent Profile Visitors

4,498 profile views
  1. No those aren't as they are some of the decent shots. The key is in having similar situations somewhat consistently as they will be missed. Outside of tap-ins (underrated) and penalties the keeper is almost always is favored to save, certainly from such angles. One on ones are converted at 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 rates. The Opta data Big Chance/CCC conversion is about 1 goal in 3 CCCs. The above screenshot highlights the tactical issue. Draw a circle around all your players advancing into the opposition final third. Then look where both the full backs are. Not one of them is regularly going forward to stretch the pitch much against such deep sitting opposition likely in parts due to conservative duties, which means too much goes through the middle. This was the screenshot uploaded by me a year ago in one of your threads asking for advice, no reply there either, but this isn't the forum for this sorry. The topic of this is the CCC/HC issue as a stat, not whether they are too ofently scored/missed, oft gifed to situations where it shouldn't be flagged as a CCC/HC (or not given when it probably should, which highlights another issue with the stat, subjective). Looks okay here for the CCCs overall agreed, though 87 that's just a really tough position and imo worth checking, and a few "half chances" were immediately blocked and Sheffields "Half CHances" also highlight that this is even less useful a stat.
  2. Has it ever worked though. As far as you can say, given that the definition is all with SI. I've given up on those stats. They're useless. They're barely used anywhere in football. There's other more simple stats that would tell far more. Apart of that, I'm disappointed to see exactly what I was suggesting to @MHovel a year ago already. Not only is half of his stuff from within range from a set piece (that still remains an usual stat not in the game) or from range. All of his shots are created bang through the middle, with a completely static forward 3 always under pressure on each shot, and little to zero width ever stretching. His backs are minimally involved in wide areas same as on FM 2016, despite this going into extra time, they had attempted at best 10 cross attempts in between the two of them, and the same for any kind of balls from wide positions in general. That's just not stretching opposition enough neither for position nor anything, which is why he finds it harder to score. There's no passing angles opening up. This is all fine if an opponent doesn't drop deep, as that still leaves space to play behind their lines, but such opposition, well it does. Can't do much about the chance categories, no way those in this match from those more difficult angles should ever be "clear cut", easy saves for the keeper, same as most of the stuff isn't that great (imo). This is mostly all at best in the 1 in 5 ranges, but that is for SI to assess, the last I'd additionally want above the CCCs racking up is a keeper getting great ratings simply because of a couple saves, that's be even more misleading. That the post match reports draw off those simple stats is already damage enough. This extents to the penalties, Drogba's was just placed in the middle, though the point of both keeper getting the same score remains a viable one. The other stuff is and remains tactical at the core until it is finally accepted. Just saying and there remains threads for this (unanswered this year, same as last).
  3. Whilst there was a bit of stuff added, it's also seen the streamlined Touch/Classic mode, where there's actually less to do than in 2008. This is optionally one of the more casually playable games ou there. The depth is optional, they've even made it so that assistants optionally take over literally anything (yes, you can be successful that way). Plus unlike on FM 2008, it's not as easy to make really horrible tactics anymore in the tactics modules, as you aren't allowed to fiddle with mechanics (sliders), but are given football concepts. The only people I usually see majorly screwing up on this either have completely unrealistic expectations as to their squads, panic for some reason or think they're Mourinho when they don't even know what a holding midfielder is, etc. This is literally a game where you don't even need to be in front of your computer most of the time to have success. And if that is still too hard or time consuming, the editor is free for all, and there seems enough who still exploit the engine/AI not quite as huge as on FM 2008 with kimz etc. (hit the space bar to win), but enough (hit the space bar to hugely overachieve immediately). That said, if there's a perceived added difficulty to this, it's more to do with some improved AI, though in particular on the transfer markets / squad developments and thus long term developments, it doesn't take much to outperform it either. That's a long-term weakness of any management game ever since. This sounds like a recommendation, but long-term I'm personally actually slightly worried about a few of this. My honest 2c, as 2008 was my first ever. Needless to say my first tactics involved disrupted football where my both intended defensive central midfielders would play the ball endlessly between them before moving it anywhere, as the mentality sliders and all that wasn't as straight forward as it appeared at first, and you could literally make players behave as if they hadn't hugely much kicked it in any team on any level before. Adopting from the sliders is still a learning experience. Best advice: Demo, patched up, free for all.
  4. Massively thread necro. Going through the opening posters history (doesn#t seem to be around anymore), unsurprisingly he has the same thing as almost anybody going through "this". Either by downloading or creating extreme tactical approaches not only does he dominate shot stats plus possession basically every single match (coupled with AI dropping deep anyway often). Despite all those stats he compresses the space this much that he averages like 15 corners alone a match, and at a set piece "created" like every 2nd to 3rd minute the ball is in play, you can take your guess where those shots are then worked from... space it ain't. Somebody of the beta test guys please encourage the lads to include a more detailed shot break down in future iterations. There's only so long you can repeat this over and over before annoying everyone.
  5. Ahem.. I'm convinced that there are many who find this unplayable, too difficult, too easy, to hard, to simplistic, perceive it too ambiguous, too random, buggy, or anything. At a player base in the hundreds of thousands, that shouldn't surprise anyone. It's probably all for a host of different reasons though and depends on the individual. Humans, bloody hell!
  6. Talking about myth, that creative freedom and shape/philosophy weren't linked before 2015 would be -- against all odds -- a myth too. wwfan's talking about a collective effort when researching the specialist/generalist dichotomy in the FM 13 ME thread, which is somewhat ambiguous. I think that's the issue in general, so much at heart still seems TC 1.05, so naturally people link this back to prior editions, even when they shouldn't, or when half of the stuff was interpretation never fully translating into the ME due to the coders never embracing it. But then you'd needed to come up with something improved at the core. Considering that SI couldn't do it back then probably being too close to the code to see it from a different angle but a purely technical/mechanical one, and half that stuff was inspired by community, who should? It's one way knowing exactly how each setting under the hood links, it's another translating all of that into a holistic whole which is a) football and b) somewhat accessible/intuitive, the latter of which not to be confused with dumbed down. Even if you embraced the sliders prior to the TC, the most basic of in-match dynamic decision making was a nightmare if you didn't have a thousand individual slider settings/tactics saved. Bloody awful. Anyway, just tried to outline why that generalist/specialist thing is still going around. Wasn't a hard rule you needed to follow for success before, probably shouldn't be followed by much anymore either (in particular considering that all the guys writing such guides aren't much involved anymore). Anyway, back on topic, sorry.
  7. That wasn't just opinion though, that was all backed by SI and Paul directly. That said, I think it never much further developed past it and took it to the next level, as for those concepts to truly shine, the coders needed to embrace and understand it all. Tactical Theorems 10 et all were directly endorsed by Paul and SI, and the aforementioned was completely in there. Of course if the game/code itself doesn't draw much distinctions, then it won't matter much anyhow. The only issue then is, that the ideas or hints of them as such are still in as there is still roles that simply outline a position on the pitch vs. those who by default assign very specific jobs to players. The latter of which suggesting management/play with a clear plan on what should go on, the former giving the players a bit more heads: "Go out there and play your football". It could naturally be argued that there's precisely a bit of a difference how real life managers approach things right here, and that such could be taken into account by the game, but that's another debate completely.
  8. The problem is that very little what is in the TC is actually at the core off SI's own doing. SI/the coders previously gave you micro-tweaking tools in the form of [oft somewhat] ambiguous sliders. It was the community that translated those into football concepts as far as possible given that there is limitations to it all. Specifically, the mentality theorems forming half the backbone of the philsophies/fluidities, the roles and duties, the strategies (as mentality was called then to acknowledge for that this wasn't simply picking a "mentality", as each of it did and still does assign passing patterns, closing down patterns, and d-line settings across the squad which can be increasingly tweaked by now, but still come with a base default for each of those). Saying that picking a mentality simply is a "risk modifier" is thus as misleading as arguing specialist/generalist roles weren't a thing, because for one of the more influential co-authors of this thing, it absolutely was. That's one of the reasons I was (slighyl) worried upon contacting wwfan whether he is still at all much involved, and Millie isn't either anymore apparently. The generalist/specialist role thing may or may not show much in the match play anymore, but was in concept still something that was coming from the original co-authors of the Tactics Creator. wwfan specifically stated multiple times this was in large parts directly influenced by Jonathan Wilson's theories as outlined in his articles / Inverting The Pyramid et all. There is/was a mechanical link too, in the way that whilst somewhat tweakable, rigid would lower the amount of creative freedom across the team, whilst the more fluid ends vice versa, this was all in right in the first inceptions. Mechanically, under the hood, Paul had confirmed that creative freedom is a flair boost (attribute), which makes players either more prone to adventurous decisions or less so. Whether this translated well into the play is up for debate, but given that the more "specialist" roles by default come with very specific instructions you may expect the players to adhere to their jobs without fapping about, still that was the link. If none of this is acknowledged anymore or understood by whoever is involved, a couple years down the line this may be quite a messy affair, in particular as the concepts themselves still are all in even if given slightly different names/being somewhat tweaked. That said, you could have ignored this specialist/generalist thing before outright. None of it every made or broke a tactics as such and now with wwfan et all apparently out, it likely won't further develop in that direction either. The concept as such is still in. There is roles that are purely about a position (central midfielder), which at least by default without further tweaking don't have half as many specific instructions set as more specific roles tailored to carrying out very specific tasks, such as, say, an anchor man, play maker or poacher. One day there'll likely be something more intuitive anyway.
  9. You can't avoid teams performing some worse than they sometimes would. If this would have a visual cue too, player's would jump on the hidden consistency attributes as the sole root cause of any such happening. I too think there is limitations in showing technical gulfs in class. But from my experience players are oft also suspect at reading the root causes of match play for some reason (i.e. opposition plays like Barcelona when all it is them flooding an undermanned area for easy passing options). For a fantastic example for useful debate, see the current tactical concerns thread, which goes into AI weaknessess, ME weaknessess all rolled into one, without it all boiling down to unspecific "moans", which won't take this anywhere. Though there should be a place for that also. The iterations where you arguably needed a PHD (in sliders) just so that "players would be able to string two passes together" are a decade back. As the opening poster has a history with "moans", I doubt he's going to find much fun into this prior or in the future. Unless he could specifically outline his issues once, which may give a clue at where he is actually struggling. It could even highlight genuine issues with the game. Be it on an ME level, a data level or an UI level. Apart of that, I see no reason in trying to convince somebody of anything. Dead Space is a poor man's System Shock, the new Terminator entries are an insult to the classics (still better love stories than Twilight, mind), won't convince me otherwise either.
  10. Except if you had everybody on defend/hold position, upon which the guys would just move forward/backwards en bloc (not that anybody's doing that usually).
  11. The typical formation here in the BL tends to be the 4-4-1-1, except for Guardiola, here FM 2015. (4-1-4-1), with Lewandowski oft kinda hanging thus because of the duty selection (frequently switching that to a two forward formation during matches, apparently if results didn't meet expectations then). There's also got a bit of a reason why on FM 2016 too he oft struggled to score like more than 50/60 goals from 34 matches... which is precisely the kind of "competition" where I fully agree with Rashidi. The elite should be a tad more competitive. Of course, now that he's in England he's immediately adopted a fav formation where there's a heavy front load (the research seems to have switched it pronto). Apart of that, the German research were the only ones back then who took a thread by THOG on that completely literally. This highlights a couple of issues: 1) Synchronizing the research. One part of it running in one direction, the other running into another [speaking of which, the German research in my opinion is the only one that handles "forward runs" PPMs as they should. Those are the definition of (positionally) illdiscipline imo considering that all of that can be achieved via roles/duties etc., and more importantly, a guy on defend won't stick to his job as much 2) Long-term ME development. Not saying that there isn't but firstly there's got to be a long-term goal, and secondly for any of that stuff rechecking with their football contacts is the way to go. Feedback is vital, also in terms of actual playability from the player base. But to exaggerate slightly, if Paul had too "soft" a heart here, in two iterations there would be 10-10 scorelines universally, as somewhat decent chances, one on ones, etc. are finally converted at rates that don't cause as much frustration anymore 3) This thread runs dangerously close to needing [AI] spoiler tags (I'm reluctant to peek anymore myself, and I've experimented how attributes link to their decisions with data experiments et all before).
  12. Minor note: I usually hate it when the amount of time being pumped into a game is regarded as value for money in itself (i.e. RPGs full of filler copy/paste quests rising the play-time to 100+ hours plus even journalists seem to be impressed with all by itself, whilst more focused games always seem to be getting a short shrift or are approached with caution, which also rubs off on designers, sadly). But naturally, that is also one of the assets of management games, in particular FM, and is more down to its open ended nature, so I understand why it's touted as such and advertised too. However the time spend on this even by the most "casually" playing styles typically (outside of the extreme way of holidaying, which is possible and still be successful long-term btw), that is also one of the reason why this draws this as a fairly specialized thing by itself. No FMC mode is going to hide the fact that this is, at the core, quite a "geeky" past time, and it also one of the reasons why it's never been hugely successful on consoles overall (connected to the TV, which in a typical household isn't blocked for hours on end for gaming). How many hours on average does the average FM'er put into this a year? Miles has the numbers, and they are... special. Barside calls the aforementioned reviews ill-informed, and to a degree they may be, and it's good that the IGN one got taken off the site. But they represent what the average video game population -- at least initially -- would react to to games like this. There's a thread/post on Steam or anywhere each year how somebody is wondering how this could be one of the most popular games on Steam etc. The above posts rises a couple of interesting dilemmas. If the AI stuff gets much on an overhaul, that is inherently going to be perceived as a fairly minor thing likely by the most who play this, even long-term, as it's something that may not at all be immediately apparent. Take Rashidi, who notes now how the in-match AI manager decisions to his has become more clever, and due to his micro commitment to match days in particular, he can spot exactly what they are doing, something that the average player isn't even going to notice much, except maybe in an added comeback or two. Any new feature, and may it cosmetical (nicer skin, etc.) oft takes much lesser ressources / time than an overhaul of such core mechanics / AI, or ME changes that takes thousands of man hours of beta testing to balance them out oft even if they are minor likely, but is immediately noticed as something new and shiny, so is a must to have in for the thing not being perceived stale by the majority of the player base. If this wasn't under commercial pressure, I knew where my priorities would lie, but that's one personal preference amongst millions.
  13. That was the point. The reason FM goes far beyond any management simulation game, is in parts because it is based on football. Strip that away, and you get an idea why this is tough selling towards a really hugely mass market audience. Without changing those games massively, I don't see it happening. Ask former guys working on Fifa Manager, LMA manager, and you'll get exactly those answers. These are highly complex games with complex AI and match sims -- for (comparably) limited appeal precisely because of that complexity, unless you strip it massively down. There is likely still some growth left (China, Germany, some other untapped big markets), but FM growing into this huge big phenomenon, well by the standard of such games, it's already happened. Any start-up would have a massively job to do, which is why nobody's been trying (and it's been long abandoned by the big publishers who could put in massive money into this -- what for?). Unless SI would be the first to bring this successfully to consoles... talking about the main PC/Mac release mind. It's oft forgotten that whilst this may be the main game, there is the mobile versions too, which are fittingly stripped down for those experiences. Fifa is the to-go game for casual footies, and I think EA have realized that too, expanding their "Career mode" experiences. Unless FM would strip down from its "simulation" cores to something closer to it -- would you want it to? -- I don't see it. Loki cites the immense database of players and attributes as one of FM's core assets, pages of pages of data you'd never pick up anywhere outside of FM except if you actually had access to databases professional football clubs use. But as amazingly as that is to anybody who's ever been drawn to this, that's precisely the thing that already builds barriers right there. The other question is, does it need to massively expand to further improve. One criticism, deserved or no, in some quarters seems that FM was adding too much fluff (managar avatars*), which whilst hardly taking much resources away is certainly more of the "cosmetic" kind that try to broaden the appeal*. Given that one trend of the last couple years is specializing on a specific experience/niche, rather than going "all in" and trying to please them all (Kickstarter reviving long-dead genres, even big studios dedicating smaller in-house teams to more specialized games whilst the big teams work on the AAA stuff), needn't be the case. That's a question only Sega can answer, and how they expect this to perform. If they don't see that this a massively thing for a management sim game, they need to get their numbers and genre history checked, in my opinion. That *is* a nice shirt! *
  14. By management game standards it's off the charts and had been when there was different options already. As outlined on the last page, Fifa Manager and the ilk in their home markets sold 150,000 - 200,000 units at best p. annum, and their respective chief designers are/were well aware of it, hence in parts the German markets are still dormant despite this being the 2nd biggest market world-wide for this. You can bet that's also one of the reasons why EA wanted to can those in 2005ish already, when they shifted their focus on console exclusives (and the formation of Bright Future saved it for another couple years). If you want to gauge the "mass" appeal of this really you need to look at management games of other sports. Out Of The Park for the first ever time in its history has breached the 100,000k units with the 17 edition, and Eastside Hockey Manager is a far smaller thing. Those games would need to change complete, not merely become more accessible, which is the lesson learned from Electronic Arts. Loki paints this a bit simplistic. It's not as if it wasn't tried before, on consoles too. I think the "casual" markets are already taken by browser games, oft free to play, too. Or all these mobile apps. If you go more complex, you're immediately approaching Fifa Man levels minimum and at that point it doesn't matter if you go fully fledged Fifa-style presentation, most would prefer Fifa outright (which has incorporated a lot of management stuff over the years too, in more accessible / arcade ways). Need some proof?
  15. They don't really. There's no fully proper way to react to this outside of changing formation outright, as when transitioning is over, anything with a severe man disadvantage in the middle is easily overloadable, even against a severe disadvantage in class. It is a repeat but here's why: The forwards don't provide compactness as they eventually retreat to the half way line from up front, and wide, well that's been covered. As a result, initially the deepest guys are free to recycle at will, which pulls the undermanned central midfield out of shape, making the other guys available for the passes etcetc. Hence all this season's exploit tactics. Hence matches were lower league opposition (AI vs AI too) not merely plays keep ball, but draws superior defenses out of shape with relative ease, until the point the centre back steps up (d-line is exctinct). And also why exploits report back with 50 shots no goal matches on the occasion when that obviously weak area is plugged some... by chance as the AI opponent stuffs the middle with its formation of edited choice/s dropping deep, and manages to hang on in there so never is forced to push up as it never concedes. Still looking for a couple of more pkms of that, as that is the most curious kind! Bear in mind there are always weak areas and thus exploits. Same as different teams defend differently, and it isn't that clear cut. But that the AI would really "adapt" here isn't much the case. I can understand your position westy, as I wasn't all that hugely sussed about the "wide area" issue off previous, or the old corner bugs, or what have you -- in the grander scheme of things. I mean you could focus on it if you wanted to and then give them hell for it, or be annoyed some that arguably the AI late match overload played directly into this, when it overloaded the flanks with bombing full backs then not getting fully tracked proper. But it seemed as if the engine were at the core completely broken, which in fairness isn't in this case and wasn't before. Just think this has a far deeper impact than many things before, so worth monitoring. Plus this has raised some interesting new points about AI in general, thanks to @Rashidi... there's still two questions to consider: Does the ME overall provide a balanced experience? Secondly, does it play out like a football match would? I think in the former, overall more often than not, it does. In the latter, that is debatable, depending on which. There is also a very important third one, also in terms of overall robustness, and feedback for SI: Is there any current obvious weak area into this that leads to such highly effective exploits and (random) rage quits? Resulting off it, wide-spread user impressions that the difference between a simple switch to another tactic would make all the difference between Champions League and relegation fight. Serious doubts whether it would be at all worth wile to consider basic football/team sports logics, considering that "illogical" tactics prove to be precisely making that difference. Plus the inevitably impression that simple patches / version switches would destroy "Perfectly valid" tactics. From my experience, a high amount of frustration is connected to this in some way or other on any version, and the feedback they get can wildly differ depending on how anybody would approach the game, which must make this difficult to filter, address and take the next steps. With any such obvious flaw that can be targeted either deliberately or by chance, any user feedback/review on anything ME related is at first to be approached with massively caution.