Svenc

Members
  • Content count

    2,338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Svenc

  • Rank
    Semi Pro

About Me

  • About Me
    Germoney

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Casino Calavera

Recent Profile Visitors

3,701 profile views
  1. Same, it's basically roughly the realistic value you could ask for if you wanted to get rid of a player for yourself, but there wasn't any demand specifically as such. You know, the way that market operates, a truly market value is as high (or as low) as the price somebody is prepared to pay, and "modern" football tends to have obscenely sums going changing all kinds of pockets, but that's a different can of worms. Oh, and it is or used to be a sneaky way of finding value in up and coming Bosmans. Filtered transfers by contracts running out, sorted players by their value and take a look at those who actually were valued something, you were bound to find some decent stuff there. ;-) As the opposite to the Andy Carroll scenario, there is the case of then Bayern's Luca Toni. Van Gaal tried to offload him, but there was zero demand in parts caused by his high wage demands too. Despite Transfermarkt et all listing his value quite highly still then for a player his age, Bayern eventually loaned him out to Roma and after that had to let him go for nothing at all: http://www.transfermarkt.com/luca-toni/profil/spieler/5980 I think FM 2016 saw an overhaul in the values though. Prior for a while the average value was a lot lower to what sites such as Transfermarkt speculate the value of a player to be. The values listed there are fairly optimistic in a lot of cases, and would only apply if there was actually demand for a player either way.
  2. Has there ever been anything posted by Paul directly? Because, as said, I've never experienced it, even back with the sliders set to "1". It's a bias influence to me. If after a couple of a passes interchanged there is just not short option to take the ball upfield, players will pick the options that are available. I rarely have that admittedly, as I don't make like every midfielder rush upfield asap, but setting passing "too short (??)" and then players just aimlessly hoofing it has never happened to me. It's the opposite. It hugely increases the likelyhood of players playing it from the back even if that is very very risky (as in the vid above, where the midfielder immediately is put under pressure and loses the ball, which directly leads to a goal). Maybe I interpret the decisions taken, namely that there will be a direct/long ball if there is just no short option near to finally get the ball upfield, just differently though. Whilst I don't have any authority on this, I know as i use those extremes in combination occasionally, which can completely stall games. In any case, players constantly hoofing it, can never be a passing setting in isolation (unless they're encouraged to boot it specifically), it's how the entire team is set up. I wouldn't overcomplicate that "too short" passing thing. Just not seeing this personally. :-)
  3. I think wwfan who got to know a lot of under the hoodies from communicating advocated a "too short passing setting" as reason for "aimless" hoof balls as well, but admittedly, I'never never seen that personally. If anything, the decision bias towards playing it short with the most extreme settings possible is more likely to become that big that for instance you were far more likely to see a risky short ball played out from the back when the opposition is still pushed up after an intercepted attack, rather than the player doing the logical thing, like clearing it to advanced guys in actually space -- which would put the DM or CM passed to under pressure (and lead to mistakes). Naturally if for some reason players don't find a short option to take the ball upfield, after a while you will see something different, but that's naturally and "common sense" decision making. That's my experience I thought probably worth sharing even if wrong on it, as what's suggested does sound anything but logical from any perspective coding and playing, and I use those instructions plenty of in particular when using possession in a match to "choke it" to see it out. Therefore the most frequent reasons from my book, most already been named: - fielding limited centre backs, which is an issue in particular as assistants recommend many cbs to field as limited centre backs outright and lots of guys go straight with that advice, rather than thinking "holistically" and how they want things to play out. Reason, they're set to clear the lines. To a lesser extent this goes for the ball playing defenders also, as they're inherently set to play defensive splitting through balls - fielding a target man up top, which sort of overrides passing patterns. The ball is encouraged to be launched to the TM from back to front by simply fielding that role, the game needs visual cues for this - players getting under pressure, in particular in the lower leagues. Looking through patch notes you'll see that lesser players are tweaked to prefer safer options more directly. Naturally happens higher up too, but should happen less of (likely connected to lower or higher mental traits in particular) - Perception bias, i.e. I ALWAYS lose to a late goal, my keeper ALWAYS fires the ball upfield despite being encouraged to roll it out to the left back. From watching purely highlights it can doubly look as such. You can set things to whatever you like, you won't get any direct balls out of things completely in anything. That said, players have never just belted it constantly even on Vanarama levels if you insisted on otherwise. Connected to this, the first post sounds a bit dubious or a tad exaggerated as far as that is concerned. If you're getting zero shots in 90 minutes, there's more to it than just passing stuff pretty much guaranteed - Stupid decisions and behavior, which is always worth an upload in the bugs forum if you think there's something really not right, and there's certainly always some of
  4. Out of interest, did that by the end of it still involve that wide midfield diamond? This is something I've never picked personally as opposed to the narrow diamond, as this is really a simple thing, what you line up is your defensive shape and you can see the holes it has there right on the screen already, namely that there's two central guys sitting atop each other plus two wide guys opening channels rather than having the entire width of the pitch covered. Not at all arguing this can't work, but I've always wondered. You houve the AMC plus DMC just as on the formation screen literally sitting atop each other (rather than the central guys next to one another as in a flat 4-4-2) and the wide midfielders sitting wide rather than positioning narrow as in the narrow diamond. Op midfielders advance into there on every attack. It's one I personally probably would consider a quite special formation that needs a lot of monitoring as opposed to the more regular ones. Not sure if the AI uses it anymore (it seems very rare if at all). Depending on the op formation alone, could face quite some trouble, probably. Those opposing formations could hugely vary depending on in which country and league you manage alone. If Dafuge uses it though, it must be very much practical and not at all as much of a specialty formation as it always appears to me in action. I think he flies through matches commentary mode. Still take a look at that, that's just insane. :-) As for the OP, "own" which includes some simple in-match decision making. Fm ain't a purely hardcore tactics sim and you can delegate it all to assistants entirelly too if you want, but to me it's a tad extra fun if you get the hang of it and proactively get into the position where you can visibly alter the dynamics of play rather than praying for the best on every weekend, like scoring the late equalizer as your desperation ploys have at long last paid off some. Or completely killing and stopping a game for good. Or conversely employing simple means to kill a game off and hold onto the ball in front of booing crowds to hold onto leads. That action and reaction thing that turns games into games and part of what makes FM differ from Fifa Man and countless others failed attempts, where lots of buttons pretended you could change dynamics of play, when actually you blatantly couldn't. Unlike old iterations (or real life management, for that matter), all it takes is like a click of the mouse.
  5. Always fun when that happens, you can be all over Barcelona's place with bloody Liverpool then (starting squads pretty much). Completely dropping back, as if that'd ever happen. Often those miracle"comebacks" in two legged ties in particular involve weird/drastic AI tactical switches. Talking about switches, a rather satisfying one back from FM 2015... had build up Brisbane over a couple seasons (yeah that's 40 years old Cahill and Tom Rogic some Celtic fans might now, scored just this weekend again) and finally reached the latter stages of the Asian CL where you face opponents from those oil rich countries which pay a million to single players, whilst you barely can raise your entire budget past that. Like Al-Ain from the United Arab Emirates. Purely tactically they kept on attacking from the get-go, after the 0-1 in the return (home lost 1-2) I switched to two forwards. As they kept their backs pushing up and most of their midfield, that would often force their centre backs one on one with those two forwards upon intercepting which is how two goals were scored outright... If you ever "magically" lose to a crap team or dead last, check if they have multiple forwards and if you overcommit. Too bad that in the Club world cub semis we actually (luckily) managed to hang on in there against Bayern. At 1-1 we initiated a similary counter attack via multiple forwards about 15 minutes from time... but it was wasted. Then they scored the 1-2, I played more openly nothing to lose and after that the windfall began and the scoreline you'd expect transpired.
  6. Wow, nice one!! Out of interest, purely tactically was it one of those dubious cases where their AI manager (whoever it was) "figured" that the first leg pretty much settled the tie, and opted to grind for the draw in the second, going completely defensive to let you be all over their place despite inferior players? Cuz that still happens in FM 2016, where you can completely "dominate" the best of sides then no matter what (naturally, scoring these many goals is another matter).
  7. Nobody knows but conceding first multiple reloads just a minute in points to combination of tacs applied by both sides, and there are some combinations. The last time I saw something akin to it it came off an unusual formation of the human player (i.e. makeshift back three of left back centre back right back) coupled with the fact that the AI's starting setup (by chance) completely exploited that by having three forwards who on FM then completely start to roam in that channels in between those three which are extremely wide. You can kick off the match any time you want under the same starting conditions that are in place (confidence, motivation, etc.), and that's technically what's going on, there is nothing overly esotheric about it, what you see is what you get. At the end of the day as soon as the op kicks off or gets the ball and starts an attack, this was bound to lead to some chance every time. On this one this lead to the first decent shot twenty seconds (real-time) in as multiple forwards were always available for a through ball straight from the kick-off. Giving bad talks, the side being "complacent" or anything doesn't make you concede asap just like that, as that typically involves players gifting space which won't happen just like that. However with the patterns of play that combination of formations/tactics produced, every turnover of the ball saw opposition players gifted oodles of space they visibly sit in, which isn't representation, but second by second what's going on. Unlike this one, the matches are sadly never uploaded though it might actually help both players and the development of the game, as hell yes, AI mans can do curious stuff themselves. They don't crack. I wish the AI was more intelligent, in particular the elite, but it ever gets to that level where it actually proactively spots areas it could target with the overall quite simple tools and means in FM (and there's always some there as you can field but eleven players who can't cover every inch of the simulated pitch likewise), then things might get interesting.
  8. I'm squarely in the "talks are a tad overrated" camp. It's not that they have slight influences, but that's it, slight. You're never ever under pressure because of some magic talks applied by magic AI (who supposedly always says the "right" thing to "make magic happen"). You're under pressure first and foremost as an AI actually goes out with fairly attacking tactics and pushes up upon dropping balls to win it back early rather than dropping off to let you dominate the pitch. Key bit to recognize is that it's a dynamic thing, and changes are made mostly according to current scorelines during matches also. It's comparably easy reading though, simply count how many players are actually pushed up from their default/defensive position, in particular the wide defensive guys, and check how quickly they drop off or stand their ground (right at the half way line) conversely if your team regains possession, there you go. Generally good point about that anything can tip things in/against your favor, which includes pep talks as well. The match play in FM as in real football goes for "90 minutes", and ties are settled in pitifully few key moments, even seconds. Those may actually come off bugged behavior, or yeah, a magic talk tipping the balance slightly. Still remember SI staff coming out with the 'fession that it's hard stretch to attribute any specific action to a talk though. You see the black and white feedback on it and it becomes easy to attribute all that's happening thereafter to it. I.e. the long-term myths that giving praise at HT would be an invitation for desaster in the second half. Must say though that often whenever somebody claimed to have been "outplayed" or their side would "magically" play completely poor after HT (presumably because magic talks off the opposition and vice versa for himself) or anything like that, when the match was uploaded as pkm, I personally saw this quite differently. The actually full-on approaches have hugely more of a bearing on changing dynamics of a match than anything else, in particular tactics. As the instructions on FM you have basically determine positioning, that is they are the key factor which areas of a pitch are overloaded with players during attacks, which aren't, and where there's passing support and where isn't, same as where there's defensive cover or not, this is probably hardly a surprise. Speaking 'bout tactics and overall approaches, I had one match where the AI fielded three of its key attacking key players in the second half of a match when trailing, presumably because they weren't fully match fit. As those were really strong players for the level, and the starters replacing them nowhere near, that in itself made for a hugely different 2nd spell of the match.
  9. Didn't want this post to come off as if it was mainly about (AI) tactics, as the difference with older version also was the aforementioned scouting and transfer markets and AI team slumps and more -- generally by and large the better teams simply win more games (unless they're set up horribly). Been doing the bold thing for years, from my perspective. FM will never be a purely tactics sim, despite what the sub forums suggest (in which, unsurprisingly, people gather and write lots of stuff as they enjoy that and immersive themselves into that part, including writing about it as if it were the "real" thing -- it's probably missing a "playing it simple" thing. As the place is run by tactic enthusiasts mostly naturally, it paints a bit of a wrong picture on occasion). The basics haven't changed in any of the more recent version.. So therefore can't relate to that personally, though I've never been the type who made weak teams sitting atop tables on any version. That's also why I do my test runs each version what would happen if you just holidayed doing nothing yourself whatsoever... you'd be surprised. Still there's another player dichotomy besides what you suggest. You hinted at it, and this incorporates everything else too: 1. The guy who wants immersive himself into a "semi"-realistic football world the game sets up, which includes good and bad teams, managers prefering different things, poor sides oft trying to grind out any luck point at tough away days, big home sides accepting no less than a win when playing at home against the minnows, etc. 2. The guy coming at it from a more traditionally "gaming mindset" in which each iteration should be "beatable" at one point,... like in Hearts Of Iron where guys game the system and take over the world with Luxembourg. There's a decent guy from here. I never understood why he starts saves over and over again and despite overachieving in most of them he never just sticks to it, as he would steamroll most of his opposition a couple seasons in. That seemed like an exercise in total frustration. However his enjoyment has always been taking (throughout the years oft quite mediocre) EPL side he always picks, and taking them to glory straight away, i.e. it's the traditional "power fantasy" inherent to 99% of gaming. That should require at least a modicum of thought (and luck and good runs imo), as if it didn't, what's the point of even starting the thing. There is also no longevity to it if that were the case, do it once and smile, do it for the tenth time and you just quit buying (or you've got too much time to waste). Realistically man management, tactics whatever you engage in may alter the chances of winning or losing by a couple percent, but nothing would consistently make poor sides aiming for top spots. I would even introduce another one going back to the first post: 1. The guy who doesn't enjoy feature X that has grown some in prominence (the oft quotes press stuff, but also the mentioned changes made to the tactics options, team talks, player agents, etc.) 2. The guy who enjoys it or is at least indifferent about it None of this is new, naturally, has been found and theorized about seasons ago already. No one is right or wrong in their expectations. I think the game is catering to an all-around quite casually crowd anyways, in parts as retention of a few "hardcore" isn't commercially sustainable. There's just too much weird and basic stuff done by AI for me to see this differently, and as said, I've never been the greatest of players -- that's just all coming from a couple versions of game experience. It's a game aimed at your average football fan, first and foremost, and whilst that incorporates a bit more detail than your average Fifa Manager which you start and win the CL in no time, it's still not rocket science either (though the documentation or lack thereof can make it look as such, and it can take a couple time to really "learn" the basics). Whoops, sorry that was long. :-)
  10. Fm 2011 is old. Back in the day it was a fun game, it can still be as the core of the gig is always the same. But even though I've never went into massively detail with a lot of things (player development and tutoring, for a start), as a long-term player you eventually evolve your style and game with it, and due to slowly but gradually advances made to AI in particular, older version can become a bit of the game's most "expensive" screen savers: just sit back and watch the fireworks. In 2011 some of the Ai tactics which are suspicious to this day were total gash in retrospect, gifting you goals and added points (frequently no holding midfielders, lol, even the top teams would gift you goals that way). The transfer markets and scouting were much easier to steamroll and master, promising players they'd be "key" only to never deliver once they arrive could be simply abused, lots more. Favorite versions oft depend on the saves you have/had on them rather than the version in particular. Depending on what you want to get out of the series and how long you've been there, it's not much of an option to go that much back from my experience. I didn't mention any specific engine stuff as each version has and will continue to have those based on history -- I personally stopped playing FM 2015 for weeks until the stuff that got me was patched out too and can relate though. It's really rather simple to outperform any AI pretty much across the shop still (many do without realizing), and will likely always be as SI need to bring in fresh players and can't rely on solely retaining the old guard, some of which will stop playing anyway, but FM 2013 or thereabouts would be just about the cut-off line for me, perhaps FM 2012; it's much similar to FM 2011, but had the morale streaks fixed that had entire squads riding on either "superb" or "abysmal" morale waves for prolonged periods. Some AI entered this much of a slump coupled with their tactics mind (it can never be morale alone that causes all the fuss) that even on shoe-string budgets I never remember ever entering a relegation battle in FM 2011. There was always a number of AI sides in any league that once in a slump they never got out of it, collecting miserably few points by just sitting back and letting the attacking waves come until it was just a matter of time until a typically below average side completely lacking in confidence conceded every week every match -- and back then I was poor and did suspicious stuff.
  11. General rule of the thumb, the more exotic/experimental your formation (and roles) the more likely a simple formational switch by any AI completely rips it apart. Not that they would spot such, but AI managers prefer different formations. A back line of left back centre back right back for instance will face big problems as soon as it comes against an AI either starting with or switching to 3 central forwards. If you watch from overview, those happily sit into the two gigantic channels created in between those three. There's a reason such formations aren't edited/used by AI. What you field on the tactics screen is pretty much the shape your team retreats to when your attacks break down / your team loses the ball. Therefore there is a lot of stuff possible that can be a tad risky, same as the no wide defender/wide midfielder setup above, with the only players "covering" the flanks being attacking MR/ML. No matter how good those players are, there is gaps in there that can be exploited by the poorest of sides.
  12. Not such much the one one one, though those are often overrated, but the supply. The narrower you play, the more no angled balls you'll have to provide assists. Simple laws of physics, any angled ball unleashing a forward he can change the direction of the ball massively, giving the keeper little chance, whilst a centrally ball straight through the middle that's impossible and the keeper has "just" to rush straight out of goal to worsen the angle and deflect the shot somehow. This will be always modeled in some way or another into the game, flawed or no, as it aims to be a sim. Same that you can make it harder to score for finishers of any class and vice versa easy for weak ones. A realistic conversion for your top forward should be 1 in 8-9 shots and 25-35% of his shots on target, if you want to have a check whether it's a general issue or not. Finding instances showing bad finishes isn't hard, finishing in general isn't an issue, you can convert up to 1 in 6-7 total shots provided you're still playing against attacking teams exposing themselves. Whether in FM players miss too many one on ones through on goal is debatable, though. Same as whether there are too many and the way they are "missed", and there's some recognized issues I think anyhow. You won't face opponents that push up but also those who immediately drop deep when they lose the ball, so the narrowness has been an issue with many ever since FM 1787. If the fullbacks are manually tweaked to sit more narrow, or not getting much involved due to other reasons,this makes this more severe. Unless an AI manager has a huge bias or plays defensively, he from my experience won't play that narrow, so every time his team has the ball he may spread play and conversely pull your defenders all over the pitch, plus will have balls coming from all kinds of directions rather than straight through the middle exclusively. Best visible from an overhead view too, in motion the ball actually going out wide will push defenders there, otherwise they have a super small area to cover and always get a foot in. Maybe you can succeed overloading centrally areas with multiple players, but having it all coming off no angled through balls to a lone forward are the hardest to convert and probably should be. FM 2009 or 2010 or thereabouts had a big bug which caused the mostly two central backs to split, which some exploited by through balls played centrally in between them to an unmarked forward. However as he was immediately closed down, the keeper came out of goal too and due to the narrow nature, that was a harder chance to convert than the ccc+1 count suggested leading to frustration.
  13. The match stats of the reload (?) I reckon still suggests they may have found curious space, so if you want to have a look, upload, it's just the match no more. Those tweaks all have visibly effects asap, however if the structure isn't there (formations and roles!) that won't fix any holes, and pushing higher up also has drawbacks, such as that they can now pump through balls in behind your visibly much higher defensive lines, etc. It's mostly quite easy stuff, this match-up sounded like a particularly curious case and may have made for really good explaining. Do you remember your formation and roles and duties you started with? And what formation do they field (starting one usually doesn't change on a reload, mostly).
  14. I have my nemesis formations personally and some rare more creative player formations not used by AI can come up against AI manager formations that puts holes into it all all of a sudden (not by cracking which is a myth); the most curious combination was a two legged cup tie where in the return tie (first match was won by a big margin) a creative back line of LB ---- CB ---- RB was exploited big time by the AI manager fielding 3 central forwards, his prefered attacking formation apparently in an attempt to get back into the tie, which makes the outer two roaming in between those players and sitting into all that space between them. Not saying whether that's the case, just as an example. If you want an opinion why you were getting "outplayed" against that opponent, you would need to click on the result, hit save match and upload. Else it's 100% guess work as different AI managers do different things. You aren't to get seriously outplayed against weaker opposition (assuming it was) just cause though, never seen that personally, provided the team was fit etc. anyway. For what it's worth, FM 2016 can have a bit curious dynamics in particular if your team is still considered "one to beat", as AI managers can expose themselves big time, in particular if they go behind (just or unjust), so beating or at least scoring additionally against the big guys away can be easier than beating the mid-table teams at home, on occasion. Seen plenty of reported stories where freshly promoted sides immediately competed for nice spots the next seasons, in parts fueled by this, imo. Would be also nice to roughly state at what point of the match you made that "push higher up" change. Maybe it's an easy explanation and fix. It not always is, but judging by the stats and the unlikely scenario (table leader vs mid-table team) it may be.
  15. It's a given innit. And yet Fifa Manager's announcements were also taken for granted, on its home market anyways, until they didn't come anymore. It's tough to compare as CM/FM has always been an established brand across Europe, and the publisher's treat these games differently (Sega has cut down and restructured for the mobile / PC market significantly, at least for the time being... and as such Total War or FM franchises are some of their European mainstays). However that series too wasn't axed because the sales went massively down from what was publicly available, the series always had its main market by far in German speaking territories as Fussball Manager as sort of the de-facto successor to the Anstoss / On The Ball series with the main dsigner of that in behind. Still manager games are a niche in the grand scheme of things, in comparison to Fifa it's tiny, and there's a trend towards mobile / MMO or browser kind of stuff, it's also cheaper to develop. Fussball Manager used to sell around 200k copies each year in Germany and there hasn't been anybody yet to invest there in another management series proper (licensing issues, I know I know). It says a lot that FM is pretty much the only traditional commercial management series left, some indies or small-scale projects excluded. Plus in marketing speech FM xx / PC may have entered what Sega's portfolio honchos may treat as one of their cash cows now --probably not planning for significantly investment as there's little massively growth to expect for them looking at Sega's annual reports of the latest years' that are released each spring, but something they may milk for as long as profitable. Which, can well go for a long time to follow mind as long as there isn't another massively restructuring in the works. One of such saw EA almost axing Fifa Manager in 2005ish already, as they had shifted their focus on consoles, that they never got the growth targeted into European markets which where taken by CM/FM probably didn't help. At their numbers there would be some life for SI even after Sega though and they are branching out into mobile markets and MMO too. Ok Sega, now please green-lit Alien:Isolation 2, please (don't I wish, sigh). Any death threats for MilesSI so far? If somebody receives those over 30 bloody bucks, you know what a messed up world this is. ;-)