lonestar190

Members
  • Content count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lonestar190

  • Rank
    Amateur
  1. "Hey FB, I want you to focus down left side with direct passing, dribble less, play defensive" "Ummm, okay, why?" "I want the AML to have the ball as much as possible." "Why didn't you just say that then?" Really a step backwards to remove the instruction. Each iteration seems to have fewer and fewer tactical options leaving a better looking, but much more limited, matchday experience.
  2. Significantly disappointed with the tactical side of the game. Fewer tactical options than ever (you got rid how to feed the target man.....really?) with next to no replacement options. I feel more tactically limited than ever. Conversely, the non tactical side of the game seems to have many more options, and a better way of reminding you of many of the options, such as match preparation, which is great to see.
  3. I have noticed this too. Sponsership money seems to go down regularly as a rule. My recent team won the league for the first time, than did it again, making it to the group stages of the Champions league both subsequent seasons (Bulgarian team). Sponsership money dropped by about 5%. Makes no sense.
  4. What really needs to be changed is that an agent never rejects a contract outright unless there is already another, better offer on the table. If you and the agent cannot come to an agreement, the agent should take your best offer, say something along the lines of "I had anticipated a better deal for my client, but I will take your offer to him and review it against other offers we are receiving" and get back to you after a few days or even weeks. Agents closing off communication like 3 year old children is just completely unrealistic.
  5. A major part of the problem is the real time negotiations that were implemented a few years back and are highly unrealistic. I just had the problem of trying to sign a free transfer while competing against a team in the same league which had a lower reputation. My 2,300/week was ultimately rejected as the player wanted 3,200. The next day, the player signed for the other team for 1,100/week. It's a huge problem that didn't exist to the same degree when players considered offers over several days. Now, if the club and player cannot come to an agreement in real time, its like it never happened. In reality, the agent may not like the offer, but would still hold the offer while talking to the second club instead of instantly rejecting it.
  6. The biggest problem I have with FM2013 is that the random factor in the game seems to have been increased as a way to make the game more "difficult." Thus, where randomness might have effected 10% of the game in 2012, it now is 25% (percentages not accurate, but for example only). This frustrates me to no end.
  7. I don't know what clubs do internally, but given the reliance on match ratings in the game, I always felt they should be something more than arbitrary newspaper ratings. I looked at them as internal ratings given that I can praise and discipline players based on the ratings. I could be wrong but the players in game appear to take them as accurate.
  8. One big fix would be to stop making contract negotiations and all or nothing thing in the moment. Realistically, negotiations are usually a drawn out process. Rather than the agent walking away when you don't meet the demands, the agent should say, "We don't believe your offer meets our expectations/valuation and will be exploring other options. However, we will keep your offer in mind as things go forward." Two weeks later, when no one else has matched your offer, the agent comes back and asks if the offer is still available. Then you have a second chance at negotiations, knowing that you can probably get the player at a little less than your initial offer. Variations on this should happen, especially with free agents/bosman players who are in communication with several clubs. As it is now, contract negotiations breaking down effectively end all communications, which is not realistic.
  9. Match rating have always been a bit of a joke as they don't really reflect how a player has performed, but more how a player is generally "feeling" or how he is performing at that given minute. The best example is giving away a penalty. If the penalty is scored, the player's match rating drops a point or so. If the penalty is not scored, the match rating is unchanged. Absolute nonsense given that these are supposed to be the ratings with which a manager reviews his players. They are not supposed to be newspaper ratings.
  10. Actually it is broken as it isn't realistic. It's a quick fix to cover the larger problem of scouting being absurdly simple/broken and having the ability to predict the future. For me at least that is the bigger frustration.
  11. I actually am. And I did a research paper on personal rights in online video games. The EULAs and TOUAs sound nice, but don't get a lot of support in the court system when properly challanged. At least not in the US.
  12. 1. Set steam to offline mode on each VM. 2. Run FM in offline mode on each VM. 3. ???? 4. Profit!
  13. Thinking about buying 2013, but not wanting to give up my 2012 save for a frustrating game. My biggest gripe in 2012 (and 2011 and 2010) tactically is the overall play of fullbacks, which is atrocious at best. Just want to get a sense of whether the community generally thinks fullback play has significantly improved or not. So...what do you think? Thanks
  14. The issue I see is that the AI doesn't seem to treat the transfer deadline as in important date. It just treats it as another day in which transfers can be done, without any sense of urgency. I never seem to see a lot of major, sudden transfers on deadline day, so without a revamp to the AI this wouldn't do much. I could be wrong about the AI though as it is only based on my observations.
  15. The problem is that match ratings are, and have always been, a reflection of how the given player is playing at that time - not really a reflection of a player's overall performance. A striker who does nothing most of the game but scores a goal in the dying minutes will have a higher match rating than a striker who scores at the start of the game and gies an overall better performance, i.e. higher pass completion, more dribbles, etc... Given that we are not newspapers but managers, I would like to see this aspect changed and match ratings be a reflection of actual performance and not how a player was doing when the game ended.