Barside

Members
  • Content count

    17,621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

About Barside

  • Rank
    First Team Squad Member

Recent Profile Visitors

8,025 profile views
  1. That's harsh, it's not a deliberate attempt in the way you seem to be portraying it.
  2. The internet is full of idiots but that doesn't mean it will be fun or wise to have that in FM, worse when that level of context is not portrayed by having something like a thread develop off that post where everyone else calls out the person making the clearly baffling comment as an idiot. There's also the question of whether a real life manager would even pay attention to fan comments on social media & if the mechanic deserves its place out front or if it's more of background function that factors into NPC personalities, behaviours & decisions.
  3. I have to disagree to a point, personally I'd have preferred SI to have continued developing the feature internally & release it when there is more depth to it.
  4. The unofficial review thread is the feedback thread & the Steam reviews are an unreliable metric due spamming from Chinese language speakers.
  5. Close to a decade of development means FM17 is the better simulation but that means there can be a lot more to do to get the most out of the game which might not be to your liking, try the demo to get a feel for it.
  6. There are two possible replies here; 1. That's what happens when you leave your strikers back in defence for an attacking set-piece, the coded player behaviour of recovering to their formation position at the breakdown is an issue within the ME logic but I'd expect a seasoned FM'er to have identified this behaviour & to not leave their strikers back like this. 2. That's the drawback of using specific man marking, the player's first move will be to pick up their assigned opponent & then defend. Just like answer 1 this is an issue within the ME logic that I'd expect a seasoned FM'er to have identified & to avoid using specific man marking or if they do to not put the man marker in a position where this weakness becomes a problem.
  7. We're you as tactically inept as Tim Sherwood?
  8. Standard pitch dimensions for Premier League clubs have been in FM for 3 or 4 versions, sounds like a possible data issue with Bournemouth.
  9. As I posted in the thread TFF started I do not think this woudl work with with current level the AI is at but as an alternative have two formation screens that the user flips between which show the expected attacking & defensive shape based on the selections made in the TC
  10. Not being able to withdraw the contract once the new work permit application is rejected sounds like a bug. As for needed a new work permits that's what the law requires.
  11. I had no issues scoring when using 4411 or 451, it's all down to role/duty selection. Edit: Of course the AI managers would need to be taught this but to be brutally honest that's what SI & the tactics testing community (I'm being critical of my own contribution on this) could have spent the last half decade doing rather than try to get a somewhat flawed base logic to work.
  12. Having more AM & ST roles also available in the strata below would be ideal, maybe lock it to the support duty options to reflect a more conservative focus.
  13. My thinking is that if SI had to solve those issues without the benefit of a confirmed fixture schedule then the lessons they learn solving those problems during the development & testing phase would benefit the fixture scheduling system across the whole game. A tad simplistic but think of it as a choice between downloading a tactic or learning to use the TC, what has the more long term benefits?
  14. This is exactly what I would expect & until recently it's the approach that the German research team appear to have taken. 4231, 433 & such like should be set as the preferred attacking formations with the norm being the base setups of 451, 4141, 4411 which can easily hybrid into the the more attacking formations when in possession within the current TC. The stronger sides, with the right players should still start matches using the attacking formations because of their dominant position but it would be less common than has been over the last 5 or 6 FM's That's not what happened though, researchers started setting attacking formations as the default to the point where far too many managers has the same default & attacking formations. This is most likely due to broadcasters starting to show formations in their possession form (451 doesn't portray an attacking ideal) which led to more fans thinking that was how teams actually setup & the inevitable complaints about lazy wide players started to appear, the end resulted were ME decisions that accommodated the poor interpretation of football tactics rather than correct the research data & attempt to educate the average FM'er.
  15. This is something I would like to see, not having players on one or both posts is much more commonplace these days & is something at should be in FM, maybe have it tied to a keeper trait as that tends to be the deciding factor irl. Personally I've not had players on the post since FM15 & I've always faired better than average at corner defensive stats.