zzkeg27

Football manager grows with new young players appearing every year. In my world, a player like John Stones can appear at any time. So I don't understand what you're saying. Unlike in the past, in modern football, positioning play that values space is very important, not a set role such as wide center back and raumdeuter. The current tactical system is rather facing excessive limitations through the compulsory role assignment of players such as wide centre-back and raumdeuter.Clearly, it is very sad that the current limitations of the formation system's excessive rules prevent the formation of tactics suitable for modern football. Rather, it is very nostalgic that the classic tactics of the old CM series were able to form various forms by slide bars and arrows.

The limited structure of the current formation, unlike in the past, is no longer appropriate for the movement of players in tactics in modern football. Rather than eliminating the way to overwhelm ME, I think we need to change the formation system now so that we can implement real football-like movements.

the role of positions in today's football is losing its power compared to the past, and the 3-2-4-1 tactic currently used by Manchester City's head coach is no longer possible to implement in Football Manager. Isn't it time for a change that could benefit from a different formation tactics system, such as the separation of defensive and attacking formations? What do others think?

Even if you don't tell me, I've already posted on the bug tracker

All four choices have no interaction effects And the same is true without having a conversation. The difference in how much a football club wants to negotiate a player in real football certainly affects the weekly negotiations. And if a football club doesn't talk to an agent, they won't be able to sign a contract. This is a decorative system that is not worth existing in the present.

After many restarts, all four options had the same requirements. It would be better if the agent's conversation could present different demands for differences between the four. All four current choices are the same. The difference in how much a football club wants to negotiate a player in real football certainly affects the weekly negotiations. The current agent conversation system has no meaning. There needs to be a definite improvement.

What is the difference between the four options? Regardless of which option you choose or do not talk to the agent, the amount of money you accept per week is the same. I think there's no difference between all four, but why are there four options? It would be better if you could make a difference in weekly negotiations between not having a conversation with an agent and having a conversation and four options. There is no point in talking to the current player's agent.

This is just a screenshot of a moment. Within FM2023, if our players succeed in advancing to the opponent's side, a wide center back moves. (Screen shot is a successful scene.)) Build-up, by the way, is a process of progress. To move like Chelsea's Cucurella, you have to move forward in the process to fight the number of opponents who are ahead.

(chelsea 3-back system) (tottenham 3-back system) Cucurella, a wide centre-back for Chelsea in real life football, has made a lot of headway, using two central defenders at ball possession.But now FM2023's wide centre-back doesn't move forward like Tottenham's 3-back when he owns the ball. Even if you give instructions as a wide center back attack role, there is no instruction to advance when you own the ball.I think a wider range of instructions is needed for wide centre-backs.FM's current wide centre-back role (so that the wingback or fullback can move forward) never creates a build-up structure like Brighton or Chelsea. (This is the same when set to asymmetric.)In addition to the addition of forward instructions and the 3-back system for ball possession of wide centre-backs, wide centre-backs shall be granted when operating two centre-backs.

Current FM2023 3-back systems are less efficient than 4-back systems.For example, managers who use three-back formation such as Chelsea's Porter and Tottenham's Conte are replaced every time. However, it does not mean that the three-back formation should be made too well, but shouldn't it have the same efficiency as the 4-back? Please change the 3-back formation to be competitive

The "dislike" button will discourage other people from giving their opinions. If you think other people's opinions are trash, you don't have to look at them.

I agree. A small mistake is necessary. But now I think there are many defensive mistakes. Especially, I think it's a bug that doesn't respond to long kicks. I think we need to adjust it as you said.

I think the match engine of this series has improved compared to the previous series. However, it is a pity that many of these advantages seem to have disappeared due to the problem of defense. So it was especially disappointing that SI didn't change ME during this official release.

It's something that many people are already giving feedback on. So I think SI should solve it quickly by changing the match engine. The problem of ME can never be solved by tactics unless SI changes it. You'll sympathize with this problem if you look at other people's bug trackers or beta feedback threads.