Ein

This might be the only forum where you'll find gamers arguing against game moddability. I mean, some developers oppose it and in some cases (Creative Assembly) have scaled it back to push the DLC model. In some cases (Paradox), moddability and the DLC model exist side-by-side. Whilst SI's reaction to the Korean mod was insanely weird (why all the censorship if the change really did nothing?), they also release a modding tool (the pre-game editor) for free with every iteration, which makes mods like Daveincid's 'megarealism pack' possible. From our (FM gamers) point of view, it would obviously be great if more stuff could be subject to modification, especially when considering that FM has a lot of unfinished or half-baked features which do not get the attention of the developers but might very well be improved upon by dedicated fans.

One person mentioned that, and s/he was mistaken.

Which is the latest version without bloated or poorly implemented features like media interactions and so on?

Is it possible to buy old FM games? They aren't sold on Steam and the only sites that I could find seem dodgy. I'm specifically looking to buy FM18 which is the last edition before the switch to the new tactical creator.

Mentality is an abstract FM artefact which should have been rendered obsolete (at least as a free choice) with the implementation of the block/press line. This is also the reason mentalities were renamed e.g. from counter to cautious and control to positive since the block line is really the basis for those styles of football. To keep possession and control the game you have to press your opponent high. To hit your opponent on the counter you have to invite your opponent in. The current situation hardly makes sense e.g. you can simultaneously ask your players to be very defensive and press very high up the pitch or, alternatively, ask your players to be very attacking whilst simultaneously instructing them to stay within their own half.

I think team mentality should no longer remain stand-alone but should instead be automatically determined from the combined effect of various factors like TIs, roles, PIs, formation, OIs, etc. Anything which increases risk (e.g. TIs like counter, counterpress, high pressing, direct passing, attacking duties, a top-heavy formation) ups the mentality and and viceversa. Just some examples with TIs: Tiki taka: counterpress (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), short passing (- risk), low tempo (- risk), hold shape (- risk) -> balanced Gegenpress: counterpress (+ risk), counter (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk) -> attacking Direct counter-attacking: counter (+ risk), regroup (- risk), direct passing (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk), low block (- risk), -> balanced/positive Catenaccio: short passing (- risk), low block (- risk), hold shape (- risk), regroup (- risk) -> defensive Say you're playing a counter-attacking tactic and want to protect a lead. You could, among other things, change to shorter passing/lower tempo which would automatically change the mentality to cautious. This would be similar to how team shape is automatically determined from the player duties/number of support roles. Player mentalities are already determined automatically but they could take in more context. For example if you instruct your CM (with balanced mentality) to 'press more', his mentality would automatically change to positive.

I think the tactics creator could be made less abstract (less dependent on mentalities, roles, etc). What would be helpful is the ability to create patterns of play and intertwine tactics with training to develop specific strategies. For instance, if you aim to attack in a certain way: For example: 1. play out of defence (this would have its own pattern of play) until the ball reaches our designated midfield creator (say our #8). 2. When the ball reaches our #8, our LW (#11) should cut inside to overload the opposition defender (#5) with our CF (#9). 3a. If the opposition RFB (#2) does not follow our #11, pass the ball to either our #11 or #9 (the one farthest from their #5). 3b. If their #2 follows our #11 to prevent the overload, our LFB (#3) should bomb forward and our #8 should switch play to him. And so on... The higher the number of patterns of play, the more unpredictable your team will be. However, it will be more challenging for your players to remember and execute them successfully, depending on their technical abilities, mental attributes, player traits, team cohesion, etc. This approach integrates tactics, training, and one's managerial knowledge into a cohesive package. AI managers would have preprogrammed patterns of play (based on real-life preferences) with some degree of flexibility (dropping and adopting new PoP over time), depending on tactical knowledge, adaptability, in-game performance, etc. Of course it would still be possible to play without PoP if one chooses to. In that case, the players would be left to their own devices (as at present, essentially). I think it could help the AI (if done correctly) because the moves would be more rule-bound, like chess.

I agree re. simplification in that sense, with things like mentality being superfluous at this point (and possibly unbalanced in the way it stacks with some TIs). As I suggested in another thread, mentality could be automatically determined from the combined effect of various factors like TIs, roles, PIs, formation, OIs, etc.

I think it could help the AI (if done correctly) because the moves would be more rule-bound, like chess.

AI managers would have preprogrammed patterns of play (based on real-life preferences) with some degree of flexibility (dropping and adopting new PoP over time), depending on tactical knowledge, adaptability, in-game performance, etc. Of course it would still be possible to play without PoP if one chooses to. In that case, the players would be left to their own devices (as at present, essentially).

Rather than being simplified, I would suggest that the tactics creator needs to be made less abstract (less dependent on mentalities, roles, etc). What would be helpful is the ability to create patterns of play and intertwine tactics with training to develop specific strategies. For instance, if you aim to attack in a certain way: For example: 1. play out of defence (this would have its own pattern of play) until the ball reaches our designated midfield creator (say our #8). 2. When the ball reaches our #8, our LW (#11) should cut inside to overload the opposition defender (#5) with our CF (#9). 3a. If the opposition RFB (#2) does not follow our #11, pass the ball to either our #11 or #9 (the one farthest from their #5). 3b. If their #2 follows our #11 to prevent the overload, our LFB (#3) should bomb forward and our #8 should switch play to him. And so on... The higher the number of patterns of play, the more unpredictable your team will be. However, it will be more challenging for your players to remember and execute them successfully, depending on their technical abilities, mental attributes, player traits, team cohesion, etc. This approach integrates tactics, training, and one's managerial knowledge into a cohesive package.

Of course it is true that selecting low crosses doesn't mean that crossers will never attempt any floated crosses. In that case, it makes sense to see a lower number of floated crosses but a larger number of higher quality ones (that result in goals from direct headers and assists from knock downs) not in absolute terms (as the test seems to be showing) but as a percentage of attempted floated crosses. Otherwise, one would always have to choose the counterintuitive option e.g selecting floated crosses when playing with a quick, agile forward to create more higher quality low crosses.

Staff can improve their attributes over time or by obtaining coaching qualifications (as long as their potential allows it). It's been like that before (not limited to FM 24). What should be new in FM24 is attributes changes being shown by arrows but this feature seems buggy (some get it and some don't).

I replied to that particular statement (people posting negative stuff for views) not to anything else you wrote. Obviously some shortcomings (e.g. long-term player and squad development) and bugs (mentoring and training, summer tournaments, etc) cannot be tested in the demo given that it only runs for half a season. The demo is mostly good to check the ME, which is not really something I'm hung up on.

This works both ways though. For instance, the most popular FM Youtubers will generally praise the newest iteration of the game as "the best ever" and will not mention any bugs it may have (certainly this happened in FM24). For people to watch videos on FM, they would first have to own the game so making people lose faith in the game is counterproductive if you are doing it for views. Also, not all bug reports are acted upon. I posted bug reports that remain unresolved 3, 4 years later.

All of them have their ups and downs. I prefer the new tactical, training and mentoring systems in place from FM19 onwards. However, all of them have some bugs and unbalanced gameplay that remain unresolved to this day e.g. not all training routines actually train the attributes they claim they train, mentors can still gain traits from mentees even when their influenced tab is shown as 'none', technical attributes being much less effective than physical/mental ones, some tactics being too overpowered due to risky mentalities and teams instructions stacking with each other without consequence I like how physicals decline more slowly in FM22; however, it was overdone and led to issues with the development of young players. I dislike that media interactions were given more prominence (a dedicated screen instead of being able to reply quickly in the inbox). It also had an unresolved bug with automatic generation of staff, even when the option to do so is ticked off. FM20 to FM22 also had that bug with the Club World Cup taking place in summer where the game would still treat the players as being on holiday (not sure if this has been resolved). I would say the peak for me was somewhere between FM17 and FM20 (though I haven't played FM14 - FM16 so I cannot compare).

It's too simplistic and one-dimensional e.g. having a high level of discipline is better -- you just get less player complaints. Instead, it should only rub off on certain personalities and create problems with others. Most things have no trade-offs. So if you want to limit player interactions, ensure your LoD is as high as possible and fill your squad with players with good personalities.

Only 18 pace! :P

The test exaggerates what FM players could deduce already: that attributes are either much less or much more effective than they should be. The effects of what the test demonstrates can be observed in the game with the types of players that are OP and types of players that are underwhelming (especially when played by the AI). Someone rightly mentioned Abraham and Kane. I've seen plenty of saves where Kane struggles to reach double figures for pretty much his entire career whereas the likes of Haaland and Abraham will always do well under the AI.

"I'm afraid those are the kind of tactics teams use nowadays." "If you think something is wrong, you should post a pkm in the bugs forum." "If those tactics don't work, people will incessantly complain about it. Revolutions and bloodshed shall sweep the land!"

There's no need to do anything extreme other than using the default tactical templates. Such faults, rather than being episodic, are quantitative and emerge as long-term trends. Pinpointing exactly what the ME is doing, especially with so many things being under the hood, is beyond the scope of end users. The long-term trends are extensively documented and easily reproducible. I do not understand the resistance from end users to improve the product.

I meant variety with regards to tactical effectiveness.

Not only. Some tactics are not supposed to do well until the players get tired. Some tactics are not supposed to do well period. It's not true that defensive tactics would necessarily get teams slaughtered. Football is still varied and teams like Brentford and Luton still get to punch above their weight. As do teams playing high pressing, offensive football (Brighton, Bournemouth). But that's certainly not a given either. Ultimately, a lack of pragmatism hampered Leeds' progress and cost their place in the EPL. And Burnley, whilst doing extremely well in the Championship, are not finding life as easy in the EPL. FM lacks such variety and it's extremely easy to overachieve with insanely offensive tactics. Not just offensive but insanely offensive. Someone just posted a tactic with 2 mezzalas and 2 wingbacks with which he was doing extremely well. Not even Man City play that way -- their left FB plays like a centreback. Not even Liverpool have ever played that way -- when their WBs pushed forward, their CMs were more conservative.

There's no shortage of possession instructions: the passing slider, the tempo slider, 'work ball into box', 'dribble less' and 'play out of defence'.

It's not simply about attacking mentality. With 2 mezzalas roaming out of position and one static DM on defensive duty with hold position, this tactic should result in huge gaps in midfield. Not to mention other less than ideal things: 2 wingbacks with focus down both flanks (i.e. even higher mentality) - with the static DLP-D presumably the only cover (whilst also covering for the mezzalas!). Wingback (on higher mentality) on the same flank as a winger, mezzala and IF attacking the same channel (maybe the integrated positional play prevents this from happening?). Then you have wider coupled with counterpress and trap outside. So the players are typically in a wide build-up (positive + fairly wide). What happens when they lose the ball? They are instructed to counterpress (they must cover more distance owing to the wide starting position), and, if that fails, retreat back to protect the middle. Those instructions should absolutely knacker your players out. Such tactics shouldn't be that successful, not even when playing favourites.