Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dannyfc

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Same complaints as the majority regarding ME. Its a shame as rest of the game is fantastic. I know it's a beta but my concern is these were evident flaws last year, so I doubt they're able to significantly change much in two weeks. Long balls far too prevalent and accurate. I'm in the Conference, yet my CBs consistently ping inch perfect 60 yard passes, both over the defence and cross field. This is tempered by poor finishing and the prevalence of offsides, otherwise every game would be a cricket score. Long shots are still over powered. Had six 30 yard efforts fly in from about a dozen games, all from players with poor attributes in that area. Still a serious lack of penetration from central midfield areas. As soon as the space becomes congested, players lock up and instantly look for a safe option outwide or behind. You rarely see any take ons, or slide passes, or forward square balls into feet to then play off. Feels like the only creative outlets is within your own half or out wide. I think what FM does well is represent a teams control of space, but at the cost of any individuality or variance in play.
  2. Slightly later release date is good IMO. Selfish part of me is annoyed, but rational part reckons there's match engine improvements they're ironing out before release. Thought all the features last year were excellent additions but ultimately let-down by being it being somewhat of a crossing simulator on the pitch. Not a pop at SI as I genuinely believe it's still one of the most sophisticated emulation of artificial intelligence in modern games. I don't think people recognise how hard it is to code, particularly in a field which has barely progressed at all in other games. Still - it definitely lacks the fun element the older games used to. Very rarely witness any individual flair or inspiration from players. Hence why it bogs down to attritional warfare of grinding opponents down the flanks, or by bombarding them with long-shots. I'm not opposed to direct or 'unsexy' football, it's actually my preference, but I'd prefer to see more tactical solutions being effective if applied correctly. I know forum gurus will point to their saves with fasionable work-arounds , but it doesn't disprove that Gengenpress and extreme wing-play was always the most effective route to success. Also hope the number of offsides has been toned down. I guess just generally I would like to see less repetition in highlights and more variation in phases of play. Fingers crossed.
  3. Next official release will definitely be start of March to give time for all the January movements, but it would be great if they could release beta updates for the ME a little earlier like they did for the previous patch. Also, didn't there used to be 3 patches a year before 2015? Might have been few years before that but I'm sure that 'version 3' was always the final one.
  4. Honestly mate - i think the original post is said in jest. It's just a light humoured counter to all the posts seething about the state of FM when there's more important things in real life. I very much doubt it's ruining his relationship.
  5. Such a snarkey post for a minor complaint. Why would Crystal Palace have any idea of what player Newcastle have offered Watford in an exchange deal?
  6. How do you guys avoid your leading strikers getting isolated? I've tried using a TM(S) with an Advanced Striker, but when the ball breaks he's miles away from him down the field.
  7. Good analysis - I've stopped playing after I cottoned on the game's are simply a case of preventing the cross to nullify the opponent. I don't understand how this can be still be the case after 3 years. SI acknowledged it was an issue back in FM 17, but claimed the effectiveness couldn't be nerfed in a patch as it would imbalance the game. 2 years on and we're still at the same point, which suggests there's something underlying that isn't easily solvable.
  8. That's an entirely different form of artificial intelligence though, it's pure logic without any abstract thinking required for a simulation. In chess there are a finite number of squares, pieces and thus potential scenarios. The computer simply needs to process every potential move, and choose the optimum one. While it's not strictly 'cheating', the memory and processing power since the 90s is beyond superhuman, so it doesn't represent a fair game against a real opponent. The challenge Sigames have is they don't just need the AI to be able to win, they need it to win whilst retaining the illusion of being a fair human like competitor. To win it all needs to do is simulate the match a 1,000 times before kick-off, then select the tactical preset that would always beat yours and any variation thereof. This is why the AI is constrained to the same level of data the user is, however naturally a human will always be able to endlessly adapt and tweak that to gain an upper hand. If the AI were to do the same, it would eventually be able to exploit the ME but it wouldn't convince the player it was playing against a human. Every video game has suffered from this, hence why online gaming is so dominant. Given technology is still nowhere near being able to replicate human thinking, usually the developer will try to handicap the player with artificial boosts to AI abilities, or allow it to access data within the game the user doesn't have. Sigames have (rightly) opted against both of these to keep the a game a truer simulation, but ultimately it means to have any form of challenge you need to handicap yourself with the options available. (i.e. smaller club,, reptuation, transfer restrictions etc).
  9. Out of interest, what makes it exploitable? Does it work even against two holding DMs?
  10. Anyone finding the number of offsides each game excessive again this year? Strikers seem unable to check their runs when trying to get in behind. I'm averaging about 6 or 7 a game currently, while in real life i think it's usually between 2 to 4. Now I understand playing direct with players with low anticipation will naturally lead to this, however the opposition are also experiencing similar numbers so isn't purely tactics related IMO. I've tried limiting attackers to support duties, however this is in the Conference so being forced toward a more patient approach isn't ideal for chance creation. It can make the highlight reel frustrating to extremely watch at times. I guess the alterative option would be to simply tone down the number of offsides shown. If it's marginal decision from a slipped through ball then fair enough, but I don't really need to see every long punt up the pitch where the strike has set off 2 yards early. That said, I'm really enjoying the match engine on the whole and this is a minor gripe rather than a full on rant.
  11. I can never get an Attacking variant of a forward ever to work. They just end up isolated from midfield, or encourage endless balls over the top they're usually offside for. A DFs and F9s work best for me. Both work close to the midfield dragging the defence out, allowing one to get into the space between the channels. The striker role makes me miss the custom sliders the most. I want an AF with lower mentality, or a less specialised option that's more attacking than a DF.
  12. What type of goals are you conceding? Two WBs could leave you exposed to counters down the flanks when trying to break teams down. This would only be evident when camped in the oppositions half, which you probably aren't against top teams. Especially with a Raum who wouldn't offer any defensive assistance on the left flank. I would try switching to FBs and see how that works. Could also do with more bite in midfield. A BWM alongside your CMa, or a DM instead of an Anchor man. Other option is to keep this one for the top sides then create a new system for weaker teams. Maybe drop the Anchorman into defence to make a 3, allowing your WBs to roam ahead with more security. Then change Hughes to a holding DLPd
  13. I've got a young 18 year old in my first team who's development has stalled and slightly declined in the last few months. First season he improved dramatically, but his progress stopped after I rejected an approach from a bigger club. It makes sense this distraction detracted him from his development, however his unhappiness has since been resolved after signing a new contract. Yet he's still not applying himself in training a few months on from this resolution. Despite his personality and high determined stat, the training screen still shows a 'casual approach' to training. Is there anything I can do to get him interested again? I've criticised his training level a couple times to no avail. Second time he got offended. I have high reputation so it wouldn't be that. Would dropping him help? Will give it a few more months but I'm tempted to sell if not. It's a shame as there's bags of potential however there's other youth I'd rather give a chance if I can't get him going. Would also be good to understand what metrics determine attribute progression. These are the ones I recognise so far: Professionalism Determination Match Time (not sure if rating effects things?) Training Facilties Coaching and workload
  14. Thanks Cleon, adapted my tactic based on these principles and enjoying more success going forward. Still struggling to defend against deep crosses but could be my players. If I wanted to make this system more adventurous, do you think an Attacking style coupled with a deeper backline/less closing down would have similar results?
  15. I know what you're getting at, but I don't think it's well represented in game. I follow lower league football, and chances from pacey players latching on to through balls is relatively common. They may take too heavy a touch, run down a blind alley, or fluff the shot when in-sight. But it's rare for them to check back and refuse to take the ball on, or be caught by a lumbering centre half. These players are fast, and should be in-game, but also need to reflect their deficiencies to compensate. The engine appears to instead artificially penalise these chances rather then play out realistically. I don't want to return to the days of; through ball to pacey striker > 1-on-1 > goal. But that doesn't mean these goals do not exist in some sphere. I just feel the engine is covering the cracks so to speak. Rather these chances be converted or spurned similar to real life, they're instead toned down to keep scorelines in check. Overall it feels like crafting out quality chances isn't being rewarded. It's instead a game of percentage football. Where taking opportunist pot shots or pumping balls into the box enough times will force an inevitable goal at some point. An Allardyce or John Beck wet-dream, but horrible to watch.
  • Create New...