Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Lexis

Members+
  • Content Count

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lexis

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

1,808 profile views
  1. That s a very fair argument. I think even rarer are goals off the woodwork
  2. I felt this year's new features were an absolute joke. What was announced as major features this year are, at the very best, minor features, that should not have made it in the headlines. To me it was an absolute joke. How people found the new features satisfactory is beyond me. I waited for the full version to check some feedback on it and see how it looked. Waited for the january patch, was disappointed with how it generally looked and feel of the ME (checked youtube and general feedback on the forum). No intentions of buying FM20. In regards to FM21, I'll wait to see what new features they announce. If the new features are decent at the very least, I may buy the product from the beginning. If not, I'll just wait for general feedback / third patch before I buy, if it looks decent.
  3. Totally aware of that. I'm not saying their job is easy. All I'm saying is it looks like some "lessons learned" need to be performed.
  4. Hello, You are indeed correct. However, I think there are some problems at a process level that they may or may not acknowledge. Every edition of FM there are some mind blowing bugs that get through and into the release, that you just cannot understand how they weren't spotted, because every save you play, you can see them every match sometimes. I can think of FM18 I think it was, where inside forwards would shoot close to the corner spot (despite phenomenal attributes). FM19 with every team parking the bus. Any FM with the weird stopping the ball in touchline instead of obtaining a throw in and then allowing opposition to counter attack. There are some very obvious example of bugs that have gotten in the live version and you just cannot come to a proper explanation of how that was not spotted. Because had the game been actually played, any tester should be able to spot there's a problem there. This is why I'm saying somewhere, possibly at a process level, there is an issue that they are not addressing. Nobody said it's easy. Are the testers fed the game to test with too little time remaining until the live release? Are they being assigned too little time on the match engine? Do they not have enough testers? Do they report the bugs but the devs simply prioritize other things? It feels like every year we are getting a rehash of the match engine and you can only hope that this year the ME can offer some decent football and allow for various combinations to succeed. I do not generally see a positive trend in match engine versions. You can have a great ME in 17, a ****** one in 18 and a decent one in 19. There are obvious problems somewhere that are not getting addressed. Just look at this year's edition. Why are we not making consistent progress each year on the ME? Why are there bugs in the ME that have been around since FM11? Has the ME reached it's limit? Why are we still on it though? 2020 we still using this ? I would say this is only for the ME part, as the other parts of FM are slowly but consistently getting better. I see people here being happy that after the patch their tactic works and they score goals. No. You should be happy if, after a patch, your formation, tactics and ideas are accurately represented in the match engine. That's what the ME should do. It should allow users to use a variety of styles / philosophies and allow users to have success with each one, given prerequisites such as player quality, etc are in place. Instead, it feels like everybody is just forced to play the meta. You could try and play posession footbal and struggle all the time, despite having the prerequisites to do so, or you could just go gegenpress and win. A ME that forces you to play the meta is a failure. They have such a big community with a lot of users who would gladly give up time to test the product yet they only recently started using the public beta. Perhaps engage us earlier in the development cycle and get more testing power in place?
  5. I am hoping they can atleast acknowledge this and keep it in their radar.
  6. I think SI should definitely get in touch with some physical conditioning experts. The way condition, match fitness and general physical attributes are implemented from a growth perspective is totally flawed. For instance, Stamina should be a much more volatile attribute. Do a bad training camp at the beginning of the year, with not enough physical training load or bad quality coaches, your should likely have a poor stamina at the beginning of the season. Can you address that mid season? Yes, by getting quality coaches, but loading your players with physical training in the middle of the season may be disastrous considering the match frequency. Better wait for January camp? This is something that is much more obvious with little teams, who may not always have top fitness coaches and facilities, rather than with big teams where they always address all the issues. You did a proper pre-season with top quality fitness coaches and sufficient physical loading? Good. Players have a good stamina and match fitness and you always have to maintain that for the rest of the season. Strength and balance are also something that can change quite considerably with proper or improper training camps. Injury proneness should definitely be influenced a little bit by the quality of the physio s and fitness trainers. Good physical conditioning trainers always do prehab work with their players which can dramatically reduce injury rate. Again, don't look at top teams. They always do things close to perfectly and you won't spot differences. Look at bad teams. Acceleration and Pace likely less volatile to pre-season. Then again, consider how they work in match. Why are players sprinting and running with 60% condition the same way they do at 99? Top speed should decrease. Acceleration should decrease. How much they maintain sprint should decrease. Walking / jogging time should increase while sprinting time should decrease. We can't all play like liverpool with stamina 12 players. You want a liverpool-like team? Invest heavily in physical training in your pre-season, load the players up accordingly and you might do it. I've seen teams that, with heavy pre-season physical loading, they dramatically increased the stamina and performed to a very high levels. The same players, given a managerial change and coaches change, dramatically changed their physical output. Stamina is a very volatile attribute and very pre-season dependant.
  7. I also think SI should definitely get in touch with some physical conditioning experts. The way condition, match fitness and general physical attributes are implemented from a growth perspective is totally flawed. For instance, Stamina should be a much more volatile attribute. Do a bad training camp at the beginning of the year, with not enough physical training load or bad quality coaches, your should likely have a poor stamina at the beginning of the season. Can you address that mid season? Yes, by getting quality coaches, but loading your players with physical training in the middle of the season may be disastrous considering the match frequency. Better wait for January camp? This is something that is much more obvious with little teams, who may not always have top fitness coaches and facilities, rather than with big teams where they always address all the issues. You did a proper pre-season with top quality fitness coaches and sufficient physical loading? Good. Players have a good stamina and match fitness and you always have to maintain that for the rest of the season. Strength and balance are also something that can change quite considerably with proper or improper training camps. Injury proneness should definitely be influenced a little bit by the quality of the physio s and fitness trainers. Good physical conditioning trainers always do prehab work with their players which can dramatically reduce injury rate. Again, don't look at top teams. They always do things close to perfectly and you won't spot differences. Look at bad teams. Acceleration and Pace likely less volatile to pre-season. Then again, consider how they work in match. Why are players sprinting and running with 60% condition the same way they do at 99? Top speed should decrease. Acceleration should decrease. How much they maintain sprint should decrease. Walking / jogging time should increase while sprinting time should decrease. We can't all play like liverpool with stamina 12 players. You want a liverpool-like team? Invest heavily in physical training in your pre-season, load the players up accordingly and you might do it. I've seen teams that, with heavy pre-season physical loading, they dramatically increased the stamina and performed to a very high levels. The same players, given a managerial change and coaches change, dramatically changed (for worse) their physical output. Stamina is a very volatile attribute and very pre-season dependant. Of course, the more physical loading you want in pre-season, the more you are sacrificing tactical / technical loading so that's the cons.
  8. Can we get an answer if there were other changes to the ME besides the set pieces? Thanks
  9. Rules state penalty taker is not allowed to touch the ball on rebound I believe if he hits the crossbar
  10. This has been the case for ages now. Yet another thing that "somehow" keeps slipping in the final product year after year.
  11. I've always been a fan of Complete Forwards, albeit hard to find unless you are top teams. I generally like my striker to be well rounded with an emphasis on finishing so that he can be a threat regardless of where and how the ball comes. In FM19 I've developed Luca Pellegri to be a beast.
  12. I've suggested this as well. It would certainly give more power to the community and I'm sure there would be a lot of individuals willing to work on such projects. It allows you to make the game more arcade-ish, it also allows you to make it more realistically than SI perhaps initially managed. Check Skyrim and what beautiful modifications came as a result of the editor.
  13. Personally waiting for the full patch release before making a decision to buy. I'm really hopeful though that the major issues will be fixed. In my opinion, and I'm not saying that's the case, a match engine should allow success with a variety of styles (assuming players fit, instructions are correct and general team management is good). So theoretically given certain conditions, in the ME you should be able to succeed with a vast variety of approaches. The degree to which you find success with them depends on the before mentioned factors. Each tactical style also comes with some weaknesses that you will be exposed to. Mitigating those will be part of the challenge. Now, IF in the match engine generally (due to the way it's implemented) you can only have success with a certain given formation and style (eg gegenpress), then for me that match engine is broken. IF you are forced to play to the meta to have any decent success, then the match engine is broken. IF the match engine does NOT emulate those weaknesses for each tactical style to a decent degree, then that match engine is broken. If I can play gegenpress with a lower league side with poor stamina and workrate, not to mention other things, and have above average success and not be taxed for lack of stamina further down the game, then that is broken. If the match engine does allow success with a variety of tactics (some perhaps slightly or less overpowered than others) then that is a success. If weaknesses are also emulated at least to some degree, then that is also a success. The moment a user is forced to play to the meta, because his tactical style just isn't cut out for this engine (considering the player is good enough to have proper team management, instructions, etc), then that's the moment the game failed. This is the match engine that I'm looking for. The one that shows variety and how variety can work. That is not easy, but that is the job you have taken upon yourself. To have a simulator. I am eagerly waiting for the full patch release in hopes of maybe buying it, if feedback is better.
  14. FM 19 was marked by overly defensive opponents. FM18 was marked by execrable and outrageously bad long shots and shots from inside forward position.
  15. I know and user frustration has to be understood. If people are posting on forums frustrated, it likely means that they care (at least some of them), especially considering that some of them are old timers. Put yourself in a position where you pay full price for a game, you put all the effort in preparing the team, transfers, trainings, etc and then all goes to waste due to poor match engine design. Is the user at fault for bad tactics / training / management? Some of them, but not all of them. You (SI) have to understand the amount of frustration this causes. It is only natural some of them will vent here for better or for worse.
×
×
  • Create New...