Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About akkm

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,949 profile views
  1. I totally get the point of what you all enjoy doing and I probably shouldn't consider all tweakers as monolithic as that's clearly not the case but I'm also entirely comfortable that the assertions I've made are apt where they're apt lol. I guess to give you a feel for why the central play gives rise to such ire on these forums requires an analogy to the NFL. The lack of incision which as I've indicated has been apparent in many guises over the years has been particularly evident this year. This year's manifestation of it would be like a QB essentially not throwing the ball in the red zone and arguably even further back or at best very very intermittently...that's the equivalent really as the central attacking midfield playmakers are generally the main creator's in football and play a significant role in probing and passing using skill, creativity and guile to open up and unlock defences...one difference is obv in football those passes can even be indirect passes to play a player into highly advantageous position who can then slot another player in...so it's not as direct as a qb pass into endzone if you will. However think just how watchers of the NFL would view things if each time a team gets high up the pitch only very very rarely will they make that pass to a team mate...that's essentially what's happening in FM. So that's why people get so frustrated with FM in this format and with lack of simulation of that...equivalent in real world football would be spectators would be seeing one of the fine arts of the game very very rarely on display...essentially a lot of the flair/creativity/craft/guile of the game is missing or what is essentially a more sophisticated way to play football. Another good thing would be to think of FM as an NFL version (which would be so awesome). So say you're coaching the packers and you have rodgers as your QB...essentially you'd have all the tools in your playbook but basically can only really run plays on the ground or a series of laterals or long over the top throws from deep. Other ways it would arise as it has in FM - Too many shots – this equivalent would be knowing the QB won't pull the trigger properly in the red zone so your QB starts going over the top from his own 30/40 yard line...low percentage plays but it comes off every once in a while...things is that's also happening where he's ignoring your play calls to not do so lol. - Too many crosses & Crossing overpowered effectiveness wise...crossing in football is a low percentage play...yes they do contribute c20-30pc or more from open play that's down to frequency of use of same...but purposes of this equivalent in NFL would be a team trying a load of laterals to get into the endzone a la miami last minute td against patriots...again though it's infrequent in NFL you'd start calling this play more in FMNFL knowing QB won't pull trigger as required...or run game gets overutilised as that was easiest way to score or the rugby style laterals trying to score...whatever is a lower percentage play and at odds with real world....essentially that was what would be happening to score in effectively an unrealistic way frequency wise - Poor finishing/lack of variation in finishing...like last year...central chances were being created but chances were disproportionately being missed...this would be like dropping the ball with good chances to score - Poor ‘one on ones’...this would like having tyreek hill on your roster and just when he's about to cross the line after having created separation for a td he drops the ball - Play blocked through the middle forcing passes too frequently out to wider players...this would be like trying to run it up the gut but coming up against a goal line defence...and that's before you even get to red zone...so congested just keep get blocked - If you consider the options for wide players cross from x2, cross frequency x2, aim crosses at x4 it offers an ability to have a more concentrated and specified means to attack and as a result may imply an increased frequency by which this will be utilised...that would be equivalent to having a playbook stuffed with run options but limited options for pass plays So if you were seeing such restrictions each year limiting the ability to do certain things especially some of the key elements of the even in an NFL sim you'd get a bit irked by it particularly if all of it was limiting the effectiveness or basic functionality of the QB. Whilst you may well as a tweaker enjoy tweaking things to get around that ultimately you'd be gaming the code as by extension another equivalent (though football is slightly different) is in FM the space out wide is there it and gets used for crossing in an NFL sim its holes on D line offering up gaps for running backs...one could argue well if the gaps are there hit those gaps but that's a real world logic which stacks up but equivalent in an NFL sim would be as a play caller, it's actually not impressive to keep hitting those gaps as they are effectively of poorly modeled code...so you'd be gaming the deficient code...and that's all in those instances and the game would feel less rewarding eventually. Either way NFL is more linear in that sense of more progression into space in shorter more explosive bursts whereas football is more dynamic and interlinked with longer passages of play with more cohesion required and more variables reactive and proactive wise as play develops more organically so again it's not as simple a see space out wide get the ball there and get crosses in for obvious reasons. Anyway overall if you played a game with restrictions on functionality and effectiveness of your QB and gaps/same holes in defensive lines allowing runs (yes I'm oversimplifying that) frequently you can then understand why some may deem it unplayable or broken...of course it's not but taking it back to broad crossover to what may be similar in an NFL sim you can get more of a feel why people seem rather irate this year. Frankly the identification of this issue (even though it is more obvious this year) shows an evolution of the user's feedback and style/tactical preferences which is actually great to see as users are wanting a more sophisticated way to move the pieces around the board tapping into superior passing decision making and movement which is the ultimate goal.
  2. wait...so i just had a rant for nothing just saw the attachment had my post on it...no sweat either way
  3. Dude...you're way off the mark here in your interpretation of what i've been saying....WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off here...I know you're not just making things up to play to a narrative that it should be as hard as you want it to be to break down parked bus/deep lying defences here so basically you're just seeing thing which aren't anywhere in what I said above...I haven't said anything at all like you are claiming there...nowhere have I made the claim you say in quote below there...nowhere have i said we should expect lfc to beat a team like brighton by a huge margin...that's an absurd claim by you also nowhere have i made the argument you're claiming I made in the quote below...again NOWHERE have i said that good sides who camp with better players should in most cases win by large margins...again that claim your making is absurd and finally...haven't said below either...that is a fantasy of yours that I said something like that ...I didn't say that at all or even come remotely close to saying yes I make the generalised statements on big teams scoring bucket loads of goals season in season out precisely to avoid what you've inferred there and to provide a more balanced view of things...which is how you have to approach it...no team can or will consistently score bucket loads of goals game in game out...however as what I mentioned several times above it's the teams who consistently play against the deep lying defences the most are the ones who score most goals season in season out...but it's obvious over the course of the season...if I had meant every game I would have specifically said game in game out. Of course the goals will be dispersed over the course of the season with some games scoring low/zero goals others racking up a score In actual fact I specifically alluded to that below in reference to playing against deep lying/parked bus defences...so in essence you've completely misrepresented what I've been saying I'm afraid so again using big teams goals tallies shows that big teams are consistently scoring loads of goals every year. So despite them playing deep lying teams more often than any other teams they are the ones scoring the most goals...that assertion still stands as it's simply what's happening in the real world. I just had a check of city there and counted they've scored 94 goals in 32 games this year in all competitions...that's basically 3 per game. They've scored 3 or more in 47pc of those games. In the premiership in games against teams outside top 6 their average per game is higher...3.2 and score 3 or more 60pc of the time...so again against teams playing against deeper lines/more defensively the goals scored ratio increases...obviously they're lesser teams but any argument that parked buses are a preventative measure to goals being scored is fallacious...what they do is make it harder than leaving themselves open and that is obvious so yes it's harder to score against parked buses than teams playing more openly but it is hard to score against the deep lying team itself..yes, but the evidence suggests it's not as hard as people perceive it to be. Are there games where teams will get whacked...yes of course...mistakes/lower quality players etc but the only one here suggesting teams should regularly win by large scorelines here is you lol. The main reason for the big scores is the disparity in quality levels and the way of playing and that is the main thing absent in FM. On the generalised statements...you have to take that approach when assessing things...citing one game against brighton or whatever other game in isolation is not the way to make any judgements...doing that is what I alluded to as a 20/80 rule and you're in danger of confirming biases that way...on another thread i saw you suggesting a bayern game of guardiolas in the bundesliga where some team caused them difficulty in terms of playing their normal way and they started to play long and direct balls down the line as a solution to what guardiola team had to break down as an example to uphold as what was happening in the real world and therefore in FM...this is the type of suggestion that leads FM to become more isolated and separate from real world football. That adjustment is an outlier for guardiolas teams behaviourally and could almost be dismissed as unworthy of mention when trying to capture the better decision making habits of better teams/players. The outlier is not what should be concentrated on to simulate especially if it's to the detriment of the norm. as long as norm is modelled then capturing an outlier as far out as that should gain merit only then. I've said all along of course even with current engine its possible to whack defensive sides but is it for the right footballing reasons behaviourally or is it gaps in the code enabling it...re below there I have to take exception with the logic employed absolutely on parameters and I've never seen you claiming the engine has no flaws..I'd just question the flaws you see or more glaringly the ones you don't . Anyway kidding aside...people can and do whack defensive sides so we can all agree on this. Im not even sure the necessity to whip the defensive sides is the issue as much as that these defences can be penetrated in an easier/more comfortable and more realistic way but ok even if it's putting up some numbers on occasion lets extend that out. Again the logic of if only a few do it that's ok is flawed as you have to question is it happening for sound footballing fundamentals or is there a weakness in the code which allows tweakability to enable it to happen. Really if it the code was enabling it for good football behavioural reasons then it should be more prevalent and more easily tapped into with the levers available and indeed players on the pitch will exhibit better decision making/movement/pass selection as a default action...but that's not the case this year so it would seem to lean on the exploitation of code for it's math and not for its footballing patterns. Once you enter that realm then the number of people that can do it is entirely relevant. And that's then what I mean when you start saying stuff like as long as one manager can produce results like that a programmer sitting back and thinking it's possible and that the real challenge is for the programmer to improve how it happens consistently...that's where you start down the road of bad game development...that type of path can lead to issues being exacerbated and will lead to the knock ons and circular balancing issues...if the code is allowing it for the wrong reasons then you're just lumping wrong on top of wrong and then when making changes you have to sift through to it to sort it out with all sorts of issues having been knocked out from this. That's a very flawed approach to take. The way of playing needs to be more readily widespread for it to be for the right reasons. That thread of the user who won all 38 games as man utd...scored 122 conceded 11...so he consistently whacked deep lying defences (assuming of course the AI set up that way which seems fair considering the tactical choices prevalent this year). So basically he has done what you say in terms of one manager is producing results like that...should the programmer then attempt to mimick this...absolutely not as it's inherently flawed in how its achieving that. I had a quick check and the full backs had a combined 32 assists that season (think in all comps) so again this is rewarding behaviour which is in conflict with real world football...full backs should not and simply do not provide that many assists in teams...particularly those achieving at the highest level. Adding in wingers that number went up to 56 assists again just highlighting the issue further. So whether people want to admit it or not this is exploiting deficiencies of the code from a footballing point of view. Were it possible to overachieve centrally then that would be more acceptable albeit both could be argued to be improper the central play is more in line with the real world (by central play I don't mean through balls specifically either). So it's absolutely and utterly rewarding and allowing a means to score and create which is not in line with real world football so again this is in the parameters of the code but simply wrong in a real world footballing context. Therefore any programmer trying to replicate this to make it happen consistently is doing as I said and exacerbating issues with a stuck in the mud circular balancing exercise every year but never really getting out of the mud...or very slowly making progress but that's entirely avoidable by addressing sound football first and foremost. By the way don't take any of this personally...i saw one of your video things last year an found it highly entertaining. I just get on it here when feedback steers things away/prevents things from progressing for the right footballing reasons. We all want a better and more realistic but when I see your suggestion of things falls short 'in only two areas' that's just not correct. Take a gawk at that thread where the examples of pass selection not being coded to recognise simple and obvious passes and not being executed is something which cannot be argued with I'm afraid...any take to the contrary is denial (that's not directed at you).
  4. I know it wasn't aimed lol And I agree with you they won't be thrashed into pieces but the top teams are scoring a heck of a lot of goals these days despite coming up against teams' default setup of a defensive one. For sure they are ways to defend and better set ups can contain better than others but I'd also suggest that many teams option of defending by numbers/parked bus/deep lying defences isn't as effective as it should be almost being a 'lazy'/comfort blanket exercise to stop teams and with the lack of quality defenders out there even good defensive set ups can take a beating depending of course on level of mismatch of teams but it still takes quality players to implement them
  5. yet the teams who play against teams playing defensive football the most score the most goals eg city/lfc/barca/madrid/barca/psg...how is that happening do you think
  6. I think your question asking about noticing how differently city/pool play against deeper lying defences than they normally is projection...no team plays the same way against a deep lying defence than they would a normal one. Though you could actually make an argument that such is the frequency city play against deep lying defences it IS more the norm for them . LFC/City themselves don't play the same way as each other against deep lying defences either. Also again your examples of FM breaking down defences. No one is saying it can't be done and as always your tweaking to get around things is admirable but posting examples of bus breaking in FM to show you're doing as it's done in real world and say you're getting things in FM to work like the way LFC and city do in the real world is simply not the case from what you've posted there. I suspect you absolutely get certain instances of similar attacks/movements/passes/goals etc etc at times within the games but your first game there against palace there were 85 crosses by liverpool...that's off the wall and is indicative of an attacking pattern at odds with real world football...whether it be the ball being moved out wide too often or the decision making to cross too often or likely some combination of both but either way that's not how lfc or city or any other quality team for that matter will go about trying to break down a parked bus. As I say within that you probably did get instances of similarish moves it's clear the overall way your team attacked isn't representative of real world methods. similarly 65 crosses against man utd suggests something similar so when you wonder how the attacking side is under simulated then you're really answering your own question with those examples...you've demonstrated how...that's not how teams go about trying to break down those teams...yes as I say moments within the game may resemble elements of real world and I suspect you're well able to tweak things to produce these instances but overall it's different. Also the leicester game they had 47pc of possession so was that really a park the bus exercise. plus two were set pieces plus rb had 3 assists...though taa may well have been your set piece taker
  7. This is the wrong way to look at it svenc...until attacking patterns and movements are simulated better then that's what will impede the development of the engine. Until you do that you will be stuck with circular balancing exercises which we see every year. You talk of bias towards a tendency to prefer the spectacle but there has been a pervasive bias towards the defensive side on FM to the detriment of the attacking side of it. I've actually just made a couple of posts about this here but some users of FM tend to want to get the feeling that it's there tactical choices that make the difference to the outcome of matches and are unaware of how the undersimulation of the attacking side of the game has 'reverse exploited' things to their benefit also the classic nerfing of central attacking play Central play has actually been undersimulated every year bar FM17 since the rewrite to varying degrees it just hasn't been as noticeable it to the same extent as this year. it's come in various guises - Too many shots – as a result of underdeveloped ball circulation passing options/movement lack of through ball tendencies when there means when central players shoot meaning shot counts see serious spikes - Too many crosses – as a result of propensity to use players out wide several iterations have seen numbers of crosses per game significantly exceeding real world. Mitigation of this may have taken form of improved defending positionally/restricting forays of full backs/wingers but the long term solution is to programme decision making to see recycling the ball of circulating inside as the better option/decision - Poor finishing/lack of variation in finishing...generally in play through the middle. over the years some of the finishing from crosses/diagonal passes from out to win has been remarkably good - Poor ‘one on ones’...again players slotted in through the middle have low finishing rates in FM (I know svenc you question that but big chance conversion rates suggest higher rates than even you like to admit ) - Play blocked through the middle forcing passes too frequently out to wider players - offside frequency high most often preventing players slotted in through the middle - If you consider the options for wide players cross from x2, cross frequency x2, aim crosses at x4 it offers an ability to have a more concentrated and specified means to attack and as a result may imply an increased frequency by which this will be utilised - Crossing overpowered effectiveness wise...FM18 check out tactics uploaded on forums...many favoured wing backs some getting double digit assists which isn't a thing in the real world. So yet another bias in FM against quality attacking patterns. Overall though unless you enhance attacking patterns and the complementary attacking movement to offer better passing decisions/options to enable more fluid higher quality attacking play then the defensive side cannot be simulated to its maximum. If you do defending first then you won't actually know if the coded core decision making from an attacking point of view is on point as it will be masked by defensive elements...there's no better example of this than this year's well documented (and very well evidenced) threads on central attacking play and lack of central through balls. The million dollar question has been why has it been deficient this year particularly as to why there was an obvious lack of central through balls. Was it lack of movement by strikers, was it better simulated defending in terms of narrowness, the AI defending so deep so often, is it the lack of spaces available to AMC playmakers to play them into...these are all factors which affect it but the thread below shows definitively and beyond contestation that the core pass decision making to identify and execute these passes isn't being simulated properly to begin with. So this is a glaring omission from the code to enable quality attacking play and therefore a significant element of a users/managers arsenal to try and help unlock all sorts of defences and all sorts of opposition lineups is missing...so basic default decision making is not in FM to try and attack and creativity is woefully short as a result. So this proves that the much talked about weakness in the attacking phase is far from a perceived one but a very very real one...you might say Svenc, any denial of this having seen attached is indeed one indulging one's bias . That was just through balls but other quality and deft passes in tight areas/threaded passes into feet/passes into pen area putting player in for a shot given angle of run/one twos etc etc...these are also severely undersimulated and needed to break down tight defences In terms of development of the match engine as you can see trying to identify the problem in the first place can be masked/hidden by strong defensive elements. Therefore developing the defensive side of things first will only mask core issues further meaning further fixes/workarounds to change things are like the 'proverbial band aid fix' with these causing knock ons causing knocks ons ad infinitum. The way to develop the engine to enable it to achieve its potential most efficiently and most expeditiously is by maxing out the attacking side first in terms of pass selection/decision making and ensuring it's all working well. In essence by doing that the attack should destroy a defence for all the right footballing reasons. Then at that point defending should be addressed whereby it can be coded to deal with and cope with attack maxed out. Defending is mostly reactive anyway. Then you can model positional play/zonal and man and how that movement will prevent passing lanes/block spaces/deal with player runs/behaves as a block to move as a unit around the pitch within a team framework keeping its structure as required etc etc
  8. See above with the pkm which shows definitively that the poor central play is far from overblown...its a very real and significant issue. core pass decision making to identify and execute through ball passes isn't being simulated properly to begin with So this is a glaring omission from the code to enable quality attacking play and therefore a significant element of a users/managers arsenal to try and help unlock all sorts of defences and all sorts of opposition lineups is missing...so basic default decision making is not in FM to try and attack and creativity is woefully short as a result. On your last one...I think your comment about me misrepresenting is actually a misrepresention itself . I meant specifically in terms of wide play effectiveness Vs central play and not then engine as a whole which as you rightly point out has issues most years which is only natural given its complexity. Overall you're kind of making my point for me there though. As i was saying I think the 'tactical tweakers' have had some terrific posts and offer some great insights from the observations they have weaned from their granular level tweaking of roles/positions and all sorts of permutations with the tools/levers FM rightly offers up as a means by which a user can change the output of their team on the pitch. The ability to make those tweaks is a very obvious and crucial requirement of a football management game to allow the user to get the style they want to play and make changes within a game if that style isn't working against a particular opponent to change outcome. A deeper level of understanding of what all this can do is only appreciated by users coming on wishing to find solutions to things in FM. Most of what you do is spot on and on point so I'm not making a sweeping statement in general even though that may come across. As said though I certainly do feel the tweakers would complain if central play was more effective than it has been or if creative/skilled players were able to replicate their real world level of talent or impact on games as that would give the tweaker a sense of loss of control or a feeling of their tweaking wasn't as having as discernible effect as the players on the pitch themselves . Even guardiola himself has said his job is to get the players up into the last third of the pitch so the players can use their talents to create/unlock/dribble/pass move their to score goals. I sometimes think the tweakers wouldn't like to see players in FM being so effective on the pitch as they start to feel its not them making the difference and that manifests itself in the 'oh it's too easy' complaint lol The nature of the tactical tweaker is that they they engender more satisfaction/joy from making all these tweaks to things finding out all this stuff with workarounds/experiments and that is great...some do it to get a certain style, others will do so to get results, others albeit indirectly to get one over the engine...after all i suspect there aren't too many tweakers who tweak things to continually see their team underperform. most of what they do is legit footballing wise but not all of it at all...some enter the realm of exploiting the engine...some may not even be aware they are doing it...for example central play has been undersimulated since rewrite with exception of 17 favouring disproportionately play from out wide. As in say last yr wing backs were having double digit assists on loads of quick tactics posted so this offers a fake (compared to real world football) means by which to score goals. Central play last year underperformed relatively speaking with poor finishing from chances created centrally or the wild shots again trying to funnel play centrally. Central play has actually been undersimulated every year bar FM17 since the rewrite to varying degrees it just hasn't been as noticeable it to the same extent as this year. it's come in various guises - Too many shots – as a result of underdeveloped ball circulation passing options/movement lack of through ball tendencies when there means when central players shoot meaning shot counts see serious spikes - Too many crosses – as a result of propensity to use players out wide several iterations have seen numbers of crosses per game significantly exceeding real world. Mitigation of this may have taken form of improved defending positionally/restricting forays of full backs/wingers but the long term solution is to programme decision making to see recycling the ball of circulating inside as the better option/decision - Poor finishing/lack of variation in finishing...generally in play through the middle. over the years some of the finishing from crosses/diagonal passes from out to win has been remarkably good - Poor ‘one on ones’...again players slotted in through the middle have low finishing rates in FM (I know some question that but big chance conversion rates suggest higher rates some fmers like to admit ) - Play blocked through the middle forcing passes too frequently out to wider players - offside frequency high most often preventing players slotted in through the middle - If you consider the options for wide players cross from x2, cross frequency x2, aim crosses at x4 it offers an ability to have a more concentrated and specified means to attack and as a result may imply an increased frequency by which this will be utilised - Crossing overpowered effectiveness wise...FM18 check out tactics uploaded on forums...many favoured wing backs some getting double digit assists which isn't a thing in the real world. So essentially a key way to attack and create in football has been nerfed over the years so some using more reactive football were using 'reverse exploits' thinking there defensive setups were blocking things but core coding was what stopped it, last year goals from out wide were too prevalent which is just not a thing in real world football at the highest level So overall things like this may get lost in the feedback they get from seeing their tweaks working out on the pitch in creating success and whatever style they may like to see but even with this happening it may not be for proper footballing reasons so they may be more comfortable with that. I'm not directing that at you as you seem well reasoned in your assessment of what's an engine issue vs tactical. But the bottom line is this nerfing of quality central play means the way goals get scored and created is displaced to other means which as said predominately over the years has been towards wide play...so if both were effective that's fine as people's preferences will be catered for but if it's to fall one side then it shouldn't be towards wide play/crossing as that's a more unrealistic representation of real world football and that's just basic helicopter level stuff. So most users over the years have come to realise and accept that the engine will always have it's faults and some are more minor than others and some will bother some more than others and one can understand repetition of even innocuous/minor issues can start to grate certain users but when a core issue of 'how teams actually play' is affected rather than an AML isn't tracking back by 5 yards or the F9 isn't doing as he should are all minor details in simulating how football is actually played compared to basic core decision making/movement etc. a lot of users want the 'what it says on the tin' approach and a simple click and select to get results based on an expectation the correct footballing behaviours are in there to be weaned out. I've tweaked the heck out of things myself over the years to get the team playing as I want or need depending on circumstances so am entirely comfortable with that as long as it's not tweaking to exploit deficiencies in the code but for fundamentally sound footballing reasons. However, when tweaks made don't enable the likes of central play as with this year as thread I attached here proves definitively then that's a fundamental issue with the engine itself so it becomes a chore to hear it being defended as 'oh it can be done'...it can't replicate the incisive, intricate patterned play of a city/barca/madrid or many teams who've chosen to play that way over the years so there's no point in saying it can. Agree with you on pkms which is why I've posted to the appropriate forums as required. ps I liked your nfl style application of playbook to FM thread...I'll be keeping an eye on it to ensure you're not using that granularity to exploit weaknesses in the code rather than doing it for the correct footballing reasons...kidding, it's a very cool idea you have there
  9. I'm all for the tactical input from some of the users...some of the posts are terrific in the tactical guides and the tactical feedback overall. At the same time some of the feedback leads things the wrong way as described above and and has done over the years leading it to the current state of this year's engine. SI do listen to feedback despite what some may feel so it is useful to actually try to change the game's fundamentals. with the state of this years engine and seeing certain defending of same then there's a need to actually acknowledge what's lacking for real development to happen and to make this easier to prevent circular balancing acts required by SI reacting to simplistic logic instead of simulating more fundamentally sound footballing logic/behaviours...whilst people correctly say there is no right/wrong way of playing...there actually is a BETTER way of playing...people who don't accept that are just confirming a bias and denying years of evidence in football. So to get to that point better footballing decision making needs to be properly modelled and we are certainly not there yet and to see people defend the engine and say 'its fine it can done' is hampering the development of things and only leads to stagnation depsite SIs best efforts to advance things. No one is questioning the difficulty of the task of coding the dynamism of a football game and then on top of it people's/user's preferences for different elements of football styles they want to tap into to achieve results (deep lying/reactive football, counter attack, quick transitions, possession based, pressing and all that)...it's clearly a complex exercise. I believe SI would reward attacking systems by default as a choice but it elicits too many complaints from users who then start to complain that it's too easy as they want to feel it's their tactical input generating success in FM...in the real world it's all about the quality of players...jose is prime example of that but even guardiola/klopp etc will do nothing in premiership with non league players...tactics are most influential with players playing against similar levels but coaching better player decisions/behaviours is what makes better players...that again is one of reasons for jose exposure...he coaches tactics not good decision making therefore his players don't develop and indeed stagnate and regress. Again taking it back to FM feedback often directs it back to tactical reactionary inputs to help out defensively and strengthen that side of the ball. All defensive improvements are very welcome but not to the detriment of the attacking side of the game...especially when defending standards have regressed significantly in real world football with very few quality defenders/defences and the number of goals increasing and the big teams scoring large numbers of goals season in season out and also big players scoring massive numbers of goals especially when playing for dominant teams. So really the attacking patterns decision making, pass selection & off the ball movements are moving further away from real world football in the top third...with the disconnect never so apparent to users as it has been this year. Again I wouldn't question SIs ability to code this, as difficult as it is to do, but I do think they are (naturally) aware of customer feedback and the stronger voices of previous years have led them the wrong way albeit a bucket load of the feedback has been spot on and has led to sounder engine as well..to be fair a lot of things up the top third are really excellent...it's just the more sophisticated pass decision making of a creative player of a messi/iniesta/ozil/isco ilk isn't properly simulated in addition the complementary off the ball movement to blend it all together to enable the slicker guile based cohesive fluidity that a barca/city/psg et al play like. Previous years since rewrite (bar fm17) FM falls on the side of wide play balance wise to create chances/goals and teams/users tend to overachieve this way which is completely at odds with real world football...so FM has favoured the wrong behaviours but the a lot of the granular level tactical tweakers don't seem to mind this (in that I havent seen many of them complain about this over the years on the forums anyway) as it gives impression they are the ones 'moving the needle' to drive their teams success. If attacking was properly simulated and through the middle pass and move was on point then it gives the impression that things are too easy because firstly it can appear that defending is weaker and also thats it just easier to win that way so they want the 'faux impression' that things in FM are harder having to move things wide or other displacements of overpowered and disconnected creativity chance and goals wise...so essentially they are gaming FMs code by taking advantage of overpowered defending/undersimulated attacking by moving the pieces around the board but not necessarily for fundamentally good footballing reasons but more for code gaming reasons as as you say ...you can't give something beyond the limits of the code and are trying to get around what the game gives you...but I'm suggesting feedback has directed it towards a more limited simulation of the game thereby a more unrealistic simulation of the game. The goal should be (and is) to give a more realistic simulation of the real world football game and that's why I think it's necessary to acknowledge its current limitations and change/improve the core default decision making to get there and not defend it's current state by offering as i said above examples just gaming the code/seeing examples of fundamentals at variance with real world or just using a 'see this example' with a 20/80 approach...ie their exception is held up as the norm. This will just impede development. SI has acknowledged these issues this year as the feedback has been significant and on point and whilst fixing it is no easy task given the legacy code favouring wide play the length it may take is fair enough but any noise arising to start to say 'oh things are fine' is utterly self defeating in SIs quest to make a more realistic engine. So yes that's why my feedback in parts can be perceived as having a go at users/customers but its more at any opinions which blocks the growth of the engine by defending the engine in its current form when its said oh well this is how it is in FM as it is in the real world...it's fine if its an admission of gaming the code as you point out to get around the limitations but not when its upheld as a 'this is how you do it as this is how its done in real world football' when that's not exactly the case. This thread is an example of where its said...oh well breaking down a parked bus/deep lying defence should be hard...and again at its simplistic interpretation logically this makes absolute sense but this is far too linear logically to apply to FM in that in the real world counterintuitively the teams that play against the deep lying/parked bus defences the most score the most goals so go figure. So clearly its not as hard break these teams down as is perceived to be or indeed current FM allows it to be. As said issues are the proclivity of the AI to utilise this tactically in addition the actual depth of defensive line the AI maintains proportionately time wise (ie theyre too deep too long in a game) with that tactic and the lack of simulation of better movement/pass selection/dribbling/ability to pass move in tight spaces all means it's at odds with real world. No one is saying it cant be done in FM but its not being done consistently with the same footballing behavioural fundamentals as it is in the real world. And again whilst the example of deep lying defences/parked buses is cited as example of how to stop better teams and by extension good defending real world shows that these defences are still being dismantled (not easily by any means) with regularity with the bigger teams amassing large quantities of goals every season but in FM people feedback the opposite ie 'stop complaining about not being able to break down a parked bus as that's how it is'...that isn't capturing the bigger picture for the reasons explained above...so essentially that line is an incorrect defence of an undersimulated match engine. Yes it should be hard and yes it should depend as with everything with quality of players and there will be games things won't work or games where there will be the odd goal or whatever but FM is currently at odds with real world with how it bears out comparison wise.
  10. I agree defending is fundamentally better with changes made but there's no point saying AI is on it from a defensive point of view as attacking being seriously diminished means judgement on how good it is is inconclusive. Bizarrely increasing defending and diminishing attacking just means they've moved further apart and balance is further away than it should be decreasing the over realism of a simulation of football off topic..what do you think of lafleur
  11. That's just misleading though. AI is still on the receiving end of attacking systems this year...it's just in a different way in the past...whether its through attacking generating corners or long shots or whatever people are still winning matches...it's just the way they are winning them is consistently at variance with the way things happen in the real world and essentially this is because the way teams attack in the real world is simply not simulated at all well this year. And whilst defensive shape has been added which is obviously a good thing it's masking fundamental issues many of which have been highlighted very well in terms of how teams actually attack in the real world with more dynamic movement, pass selection, players control/agility in tight spaces The game is not littered with a plethora of goalless draws so clearly teams are still winning and thus attacking teams are still winning over defensive teams its just the means to create in and around deep lying defensive teams isn't simulated well really what's happening is undersimulation of attacking gives the false impression that its good defending that's stopping things and making things harder and creates a false impression of it being clever to break down defences but whats actually at play is those breaking down these defences are just doing so by gaming the code and they (despite what the may think) are not breaking defences down in FM with tactical nous ...that impression is severely misplaced as the tools to do so simply aren't simulated this year. really don't know if defending is actually any good...yes fundamentally narrow shape defending is a plus but without attacking being properly simulated one can't conclude anything about how well the defensive elements will hold up. You're right to say balance is off but the middle ground is not missing somewhat...it's nowhere to be seen. I read a post saying someone saying logic gets rewarded in FM and of course this is right in certain elements but it's also incorrect in other aspects. I posted before about certain feedback leading FM the wrong direction in terms of leading it towards simulating highly simplistic things such as...oh if you're playing against a low lying defence draw them out...yeah like guardiola/poch/klopp et al train their teams to do that...that's baffling to suggest that and think it has merit at the higher end of the game...of course it it logical but there's a bigger picture at play as to why it's just not a thing in real world soccer. It's also arguably logical to suggest that the more players and the more you get the ball in the box the more chances you will have to score goals (sam allardyce type simplicity) but again there's a much bigger picture at play there as well in terms of how the ball gets into the box and movement/angles of runs etc of players to get on the end of those passes into the box and of course control of the ball/game to alleviate pressure on one's own defence by not just lumping the ball into the box at any occasion turning over possession. FM has moved away from simulating attacking sophistication cratering this year with the well documented central play lacking to reward more reactive defensive enabled 'soundness' with more simplistic attacking patterns...frankly i'd lump overloads into that...yes it has a certain validity in terms of positions/movements on the pitch to get into positions but the way movement this year has been undersimulated again you're really just gaming the code and not getting your players to move around the pitch into advantageous positions for fundamentally sound footballing reasons and certainly not any level of sophisticated movements. Really some of these things are things which can give certain players a level of granular 'feel' of control lever wise its jose style simplicity tactically and one of the reasons why he has been exposed...it's not that he has failed to adapt...it's just he is a tactical simpleton and always has been and actually has very little sophistication especially from an attacking point of view...so he has no clue how to set a team up to play like a guardiola/poch/emery/klopp team. Jose main defensive attribute of players behind the ball, full backs lack of adventure going forward, playing narrow with central mids staying central and deep to stop more expansive teams will get no rocket off the ground. His teams have usually operated best utilising the likes of duff/robben/eto/ronaldo on the counter attack or his go to move when chasing a game of putting on fellaini (or huth in liverpool 2005 semi at anfield) and bypass midfield and get it into box is all logical at it's simplest sense but we've seen it's too simplistic and it's effectiveness is dependent of getting breaks and high quality of players to eek out results and jose has been the beneficiary of high class players over the years to get him results. His man utd team lacked cohesion/purpose/shape attacking patterns wise as he coached the basic level movement and passing options...instead going with highly simplistic instructions of using rashford/martial/lingard pace on the break or get set pieces and load men into the box or get it wide and get crosses in, or up to the big man lukaku...he was essentially reliant on moments to create and score rather than proactively creating with superior and more dynamic way of playing or basically a million miles from the advancements dynamism wise attacking patterns of guardiola/poch/klopp and others But these Jose tactical traits are what FM has implemented to enable that linear translation of eg change fb to wb get crosses in/overload certain areas or whatever to elicit that feeling of 'oh how great a tactical decision that was'...absolutely it has to give that being a management simulation but this year has seen a MASSIVE drop off in quality attacking play in terms of pass selection/movement In relation to this thread @herne79has correctly identified the issue is twofold in terms of ability to properly break down a deep lying defence with proper football fundamentals and then the frequency with which AI teams employ that and further within that the actual depth of defensive line is continually too deep compared to real world ie real world defences don't keep that depth or shape that readily. The ability to break down these defences is reliant on central play attacking patterns getting a significant bump to reflect real world football and not FM code enabled means to break it down. In addition to well documented through ball/attacking movement issue there should be a distinction made between through balls (which are seriously undersimulated all years but this year it's been stark) and what are just quality passes (ie not definitively a strictly defined through ball) of passes in tight areas/threaded passes into feet/passes into pen area putting player in for a shot given angle of run/one twos etc etc...these are also severely undersimulated and needed to break down tight defences Interestingly the teams that play against deeper lying defences like barca/city/liverpool more recently/bayern and so on and so forth actually score bucket loads of goals season in season out. City beating burton 9-0 had 10 through balls played from central positions, nearly all of which were played INTO central positions and 24 key passes many played from central positions...yes massive mismatch of ability levels but FM just isn't simulated to do this currently. Yes City do utilise cut backs a lot these days but again a lot of the preceding passes to the one for the cutbacks are played from central positions in tight spaces eye of the needle type which are sorely absent from FM. So bottom line is the means by which teams in the real world break teams down (especially deep lying defences) is SEVERELY undersimulated this year so any continuing defence of this year's engine citing examples of doing so is just gaming the code/seeing examples of fundamentals at variance with real world or just using a 'see this example' with a 20/80 approach...ie their exception is held up as the norm. Defending or normalising the current engine and saying 'it can be done' impedes the development of the match engine in the short/medium and obviously long term Saying 'oh well this makes it more rewarding/difficult' leans more to someone who wants to get short term 'hits' of them thinking it's great tactical decision making making them win games which again is essentially gaming the code. The likes of this will keep FM further away from simulating richer and more fundamentally authentic real world patterns of play (attacking play especially) Were real world attacking patterns of the likes of city/liverpool actually simulated well within FM then you'd actually have a legitimate challenge/difficulty level within the game in that trying to match these teams would be very very tricky tactics wise and also if this was the normaI teams could play this way as well meaning City/Liverpool within FM would consistently post bigger points/goals numbers and they'd be doing it in a more realistic way. Those who continue to complain of overpowered attacking and resist/object to the simulation of better and more dynamic attacking patterns movement/pass selection/dribbling/guile/fluid and cohesive team movement really don't want a realistic simulation at all and just want a more gameable engine allowing them a feeling of 'better tactical management' 'faux difficulty/challenge' but not for sound footballing reasons...just want simplistic levers to pull and say change A = B and thus goals. They want to move further away from the feeling that it's the players on the pitch making the difference to their team's results/output and more towards their perceived tactical input making the difference. This of course is all part of the balance SI has to implement to satisfy all tastes for the game but making the engine less realistic to satisfy the 'tactical gurus' debases the engine itself quality and realism wise and actually makes it easier to play and a more banal exercise rather than engendering enjoyment out of watching your team go out and play quality football...as said this approach just makes it more an exercise in gaming the code as the difficulty/challenge rather than a fundamentally sound challenge football wise or put even more bluntly it's a 'code gaming tactical' challenge and not a realistic footballing tactical challenge It just makes it further removed from real world football
  12. how often do you think the long goals happen in real world by the barcas/citys playing against deep lying defences Also by overloads against deep lying defences..what do you mean by that
  13. My point wasn't about vardy tho. There was the quote that big chances start as probability of being scored at 20pc but average of top twenty players over course of a season is significantly higher than that. I cited vardy more as an example of one on ones which see repeatedly quoted as 1 in 3 chances are scored from but cannot see that anywhere on the net lol. Absoutely he will more than likely revert to the mean but his average conversion of 3 seasons before this is 53% so again that is significantly better than 20pc or 1 in 3 one on ones...interestingly last two seasons is 66pc...so is he improving. Also his ability beyond conversion rate of big chances would be factored into being the most desired forward in world football...after all whilst big teams create big chances a forwards ability to operate in tight spaces to link, move and finish would be more important factors to consider...no point signing a vardy no matter how high his conversion of big chances is if his other attributes don't contribute against deeper lying defences which they would be required to...big teams are not assessing a forward exclusively for their big chance conversion rate so wouldn't make him the most desired forward in the world especially as big teams aren't hanging around waiting for an opportunity to play a player with brilliant big chance conversion a la vardy over the top just to utilise that conversion rate...going down that road would mean they wouldn't be very successful at the top level and no longer a big team the average for the 20 players over the course of the season was 51% which is significantly higher than but I read on squawka average big chance conversion rate for premier league is 43.4pc so again that's a far cry from the base 20pc. Also the 43pc is an average so you would actually have players achieving rates north of that and some may consistently do so. Saw another thing where teams top ten wise with most big chances missed (in absolute numbers) was quoted for last 5 years (cant find article since but I had copied the table over, may have been 3 years but think 5)...the average conversion rate for them was 44%...so that's team wide for 5 years so takes the anomalous elements out of it and is sufficient sample size to start framing expectations from...at least ballpark wise You can't start to compare deviations with free kicks to pens either as you say...the percentage conversion of free kicks lends itself to random spikes either way but conversion of big chances is far higher than free kicks so it's a redundant comparison to make. Bottom line is the big chances ARE scored at higher rates than so they stand alone so when one expects these chances to be converted at higher rates than normal chances in FM there is real world statistical justification for this premise. Some may well have expectations higher than real world but suggesting a 20pc base for big chances it's misleading and underestimating how these chances are scored and again as an average with poor chance conversion dragging it down instances/runs of these chances being converted at higher rates will also occur...I havent seen many on these forums talk of their strikers converting 60/70pc of their one on ones even in the short term !!!!
  • Create New...