Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Neil Brock

Official Football Manager 2015 Feedback Thread 15.2.1

Recommended Posts

The game does give a hint of what kind of injury it is if you go into player profile after the event in match (it'll say something like 'has a possible knee injury' etc) so it must have already made the initial calculation by that point.

Thats true it does so there is some connection between the modules but its still limited as it stands.

That's not really much use to you as a manager, is it? There really should be better feedback on these types of knocks, because at the moment it just feels random.

Until a new injury module is written which better links the ME with the injuries its not going to change.

The bottom line is taking him off or not wouldn't have mattered in your example. Within the match it didn't affect his performance while its only after the match that it turned into a full blown injury, taking him off sooner wouldn't have changed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think by "attention" we mean two different things. I agree that at the moment, SI's answer in FM15 was to add more of the same to make it a more prominent part (tunnel interviews etc), which was entirely the wrong one. It needs more attention in terms of development- it needs a serious structural overhaul if it's going to be such a prominent part of the game- the "choose from five inadequate answers to repetitive, personality-free questions" simply isn't fitting the depth of the rest of the game, or having much more than a superficial impact. It's a chore, not something that adds to gameplay.

I'd say - in my opinion at least - they've moved slightly towards "right" in terms of media interaction, but they're certainly taking the long way around. It's still a bit of a chore, but for me it seems less of a chore than it was in previous games. There seems to be more cause and effect behind it in the game world, rather than just being a black-box that spat out changes in morale.

Having said that, there needs to be a definite long look at the module. Perhaps not an overhaul (but then that depends on what they would end up with) but definitely a long look. The key here is context. Having the media module act like a "proper" media system would probably be impossible without some pretty heavy contextual AI, probably beyond the reaches of time/resources at the moment. Not to say it's impossible, but they're unlikely to throw the number of considerably smart people at the module when the changes would cost a lot in terms of time and money. It's going to be immensely difficult to write the questions so that they seem more human. In the interim, we have them asking a repetitive set of questions.

It'll be interesting to see how they change it for FM16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one thing I would like to see, but is really hard to implement (I imagine) would be to store enough information in the saves so that they don't necessarily need to have a save from just before a "bug" occurs. Personally, I've seen a few things I would have reported, but by the time I actually observe it, I don't have a save which would reproduce it well enough. I completely understand why they need the things they ask for, but it's often difficult to have those pieces of data unless it's something repeatable.

It's the "save before" that stops me reporting a lot, too, because inevitably we don't know about the bug until it has happened, and my previous will be months before. SI basically need a kind of rewind tool on their end, which will allow them to go back timewise, taking a save from just after the bug and undoing the events of the days before it.

Also, (not to you, formaeuss) uploading saves and PKMs by FTP is no more complicated than moving files on a computer. Uploading being hard is a copout excuse for not doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the "save before" that stops me reporting a lot, too, because inevitably we don't know about the bug until it has happened, and my previous will be months before. SI basically need a kind of rewind tool on their end, which will allow them to go back timewise, taking a save from just after the bug and undoing the events of the days before it.

Also, (not to you, formaeuss) uploading saves and PKMs by FTP is no more complicated than moving files on a computer. Uploading being hard is a copout excuse for not doing it.

It's the one bugbear I have about the bug reporting system, but I know that it's no simple task. If they could say, for example, "Upload your current save, and we'll do the rest", and then go in and be able to call back everything that has happened (within reason) to track down the bug. To be honest, that's probably something they've thought about and gone "wouldn't it be nice" or already completely discounted it, but it's always something I've thought about when it comes to reporting bugs.

Go on then, I'll say it - would be nice if I could hear what the SI devs think about that :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say - in my opinion at least - they've moved slightly towards "right" in terms of media interaction, but they're certainly taking the long way around. It's still a bit of a chore, but for me it seems less of a chore than it was in previous games. There seems to be more cause and effect behind it in the game world, rather than just being a black-box that spat out changes in morale.

Having said that, there needs to be a definite long look at the module. Perhaps not an overhaul (but then that depends on what they would end up with) but definitely a long look. The key here is context. Having the media module act like a "proper" media system would probably be impossible without some pretty heavy contextual AI, probably beyond the reaches of time/resources at the moment. Not to say it's impossible, but they're unlikely to throw the number of considerably smart people at the module when the changes would cost a lot in terms of time and money. It's going to be immensely difficult to write the questions so that they seem more human. In the interim, we have them asking a repetitive set of questions.

It'll be interesting to see how they change it for FM16.

In terms of variation, it's one of those areas, like with the bland commentary, that is somewhere the community could potentially help. The sheer volume of skins, facepacks, databases, kits, adboards etc show that there are people who will spend time creating these packs- the problem is that doing so for commentary or questions requires delving into actual programming territory. I recall in one of the early CMs (3?), lines of commentary were literally in text docs, so you could customise them at will- SI must have some kind of tool to create these Q&A on their end, so creating a publicly available version seems like a worthwhile endeavour. It doesn't solve the bigger issue that the way media interaction is implemented is clunky, but it would at least allow the community to go on and make what is there that little less of a chore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, there's still likely more to it than a couple soft goals scored on a counter. In particular as in Italy a number of teams are playingi three at the back (with 2, as in the shot above, a successful clearance is far more dangerous). I can't put my finger on it, but formations with three strikers always tend to find space in general. Only the coders know how this could have been influenced, as it is them who constantly tweak things such as marking, off the ball movements, on the ball decision making, passing accuracy. Looking purely at goals, which can paint a wrong picture, marking players frequently lose their man, but that is one reason why the result was a goal in the first place.

A thing to look out for may be the transition stage, i.e. the moment the team facing such a formation that insists on keeping players upfield regains the ball. Do the central midfielders push by those players, leave them unmonitored and advance too quickly? You don't need to get all pinned back to be able to take advantage of attack duty ST/as and AMC/as who right from that moment just slack off and let the other guys do all defending. Additionally, does the way the counter mechanism is triggered in FM provide an inherent advantage with so many players just staying upfield? A counter attack in FM is triggered when there are less than X players between the ball carrier and the goal. Obviously a clearance in the above screenshot will immediately result in the counter mechanism ticking in. If a counter attack isn't started when there's but two players and the keeper in between the ball carrier and the goal, it never is. :D

How are Sampdoria doing on your saves? Their manager has a 4-3-3 as a prefered formations, just as Cagliari's uses semi-regularly. Coincidence? It wouldn't be a cheat in that regard as the AI obviously uses such formations too. And it's no guaranteed win button either. However it's a formation that arguably tips the balance towards the team using it due to a number of factors at play, at least with the right combination of duties, wich will vary from save to save for the AI. In real football no formation inherently is that much better than the other, not the "modern ones" anyway. Formations are the means to an end, not the end itself.

Sampdoria manager usually get sacked in my saves. In general, all teams playing 4-3-3 (AM R/L) in Serie A have their own problems. This may (or may not) be due to the fact that I changed every 3-5-2, 3-4-3, etc. into 5-3-2 / 5-4-1 (specifically: 3-3(DM/WB)-2-2; 3-3(DM/WB)-2-1(AMC)-1; 3-4(DM/WB)-2(AM L/R)-1). This means that, even if the AM + ST are all on attack duty, there are 3 (or even up to 7!) players waiting for them...

Speaking of goals, it doesn't happen very often, but it does tend to happen everytime a goal is scored by such teams, that a defender with very limited skills, or a presumed ball winning midfielder, or even a goalkeeper, turns a seemingly innocent hail-mary pass into a magnificent assist. You call them "successful clearances", maybe coupled with a lapse of concentration from the defender(s), but if you look at the commentary, more often than not you read something like "great VISION by [instert name here] to set up the goal". So, maybe, another thing to look into is passing accuracy. Leave beautiful long balls to players with passing + vision 16+ and possibly the "tries killer balls often"/"tries long range passes" PPM's.

However, what I really don't understand is how is it possible that teams can leave so many players upfield, oblivious of the defensive phase, and still not concede 2-3 goals per match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of variation, it's one of those areas, like with the bland commentary, that is somewhere the community could potentially help. The sheer volume of skins, facepacks, databases, kits, adboards etc show that there are people who will spend time creating these packs- the problem is that doing so for commentary or questions requires delving into actual programming territory. I recall in one of the early CMs (3?), lines of commentary were literally in text docs, so you could customise them at will- SI must have some kind of tool to create these Q&A on their end, so creating a publicly available version seems like a worthwhile endeavour. It doesn't solve the bigger issue that the way media interaction is implemented is clunky, but it would at least allow the community to go on and make what is there that little less of a chore.

Definitely an option, but then would these additional questions have any effect? Like at the moment, I can criticise a manager, and he'll respond. What if someone wants to create a media question that should have an effect somewhere the game hasn't handled for? Would that just be a cosmetic question in the end? All rhetorical questions, and to be honest, if someone released an add-on that added 1000 superficial questions with no effect, I'd still use it to give some variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Definitely an option, but then would these additional questions have any effect? Like at the moment, I can criticise a manager, and he'll respond. What if someone wants to create a media question that should have an effect somewhere the game hasn't handled for? Would that just be a cosmetic question in the end? All rhetorical questions, and to be honest, if someone released an add-on that added 1000 superficial questions with no effect, I'd still use it to give some variety.

Indeed, they're things that would need to be considered- but similarly, they're things that must already be considered with the existing questions. Of course, as you rightly say, opening that up to let users run riot on the effects is a different kettle of fish, but that doesn't automatically make it impossible. And even if the questions were largely cosmetic, well, that's better than nothing.

The other side of it is that the community aren't bound by the same dedication to all sections of the fanbase as SI, particularly relating to language. In terms of anything relating to additional text in the game, there are presumably considerations of translation, which would add significantly to the workload and schedule- it's not as simple for them to simply say, "OK, we're gonna put 1000 new questions in" or "let's add 500 lines of commentary". That text would need to be translated into however many languages the game is now available in, multiplying the actual workload considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the one bugbear I have about the bug reporting system, but I know that it's no simple task. If they could say, for example, "Upload your current save, and we'll do the rest", and then go in and be able to call back everything that has happened (within reason) to track down the bug. To be honest, that's probably something they've thought about and gone "wouldn't it be nice" or already completely discounted it, but it's always something I've thought about when it comes to reporting bugs.

Go on then, I'll say it - would be nice if I could hear what the SI devs think about that :p

Having a save game that reproduces a bug serves two purposes.

Debugging usually involves reproducing the events leading up to a bug and tracing exactly what code is called, to work out what code is not working as it should.

Running the game in debug mode allows us to see all this and find out what's triggering the bug, but we can't do that if the bug already exists in the save.

Also, to verify something has been fixed we need a save game that reproduced the issue with code prior to the fix, which then doesn't reproduce the bug when run with the fix in. It's fundamental to how fixes are tested.

Therefore by providing save games that reproduce bugs you are not only helping coders with debugging, but also speeding up testing as well. So we are always grateful to anyone that takes time to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having a save game that reproduces a bug serves two purposes.

Debugging usually involves reproducing the events leading up to a bug and tracing exactly what code is called, to work out what code is not working as it should.

Running the game in debug mode allows us to see all this and find out what's triggering the bug, but we can't do that if the bug already exists in the save.

Also, to verify something has been fixed we need a save game that reproduced the issue with code prior to the fix, which then doesn't reproduce the bug when run with the fix in. It's fundamental to how fixes are tested.

Therefore by providing save games that reproduce bugs you are not only helping coders with debugging, but also speeding up testing as well. So we are always grateful to anyone that takes time to do so.

Yeah, totally get that. I know why you need the saves prior if at all possible, but from the customer side, that isn't always possible unless it's something that's repeatable and you have a particularly aggressive rolling save strategy. I've had lots of things that - hands up - I should have reported, but by the time I've noticed them, evaluated and realised that, yeah, it's probably a bug, the previous save was probably too far back that I couldn't have reproduced it had I gone back. It would be nice if there was a facility from your side that could "rewind" in some way so that those without pre-bug saves could still be helpful.

I imagine though that's like saying "it'd be nice if cars could run on air and good intentions"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you do not have a save that consistently reproduces a bug reporting it & as best you can providing details on what you done to get there will at the very least alert us to an issue that we might not be aware of & from there we (the testing team) can use our experience to try & recreate the issue.

Of course it's always nice to have a save before the bug event happens but that's not always possible & at the end of the day part of our responsibilities as testers is to investigate & reproduce issues that are reported by the community, right now I'm looking into why a club would not have an embargo lifted after it was reported by a forum user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, totally get that. I know why you need the saves prior if at all possible, but from the customer side, that isn't always possible unless it's something that's repeatable and you have a particularly aggressive rolling save strategy. I've had lots of things that - hands up - I should have reported, but by the time I've noticed them, evaluated and realised that, yeah, it's probably a bug, the previous save was probably too far back that I couldn't have reproduced it had I gone back. It would be nice if there was a facility from your side that could "rewind" in some way so that those without pre-bug saves could still be helpful.

I imagine though that's like saying "it'd be nice if cars could run on air and good intentions"...

Yeah we understand that it's not always possible.

It's precisely for that reason that save games that do reproduce an issue are like gold dust sometimes. Especially if it's a particularly rare bug or incredibly time consuming to reproduce from scratch.

Some bugs are fixable from a current save, where a coder can make a best guess at what's happened and work backwards from what they see (so it's usually better than nothing at all)

But for complex issues we nearly always need to be able to reproduce the issue live. As I say, not just to debug it, but also to prove it's fixed afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if you do not have a save that consistently reproduces a bug reporting it & as best you can providing details on what you done to get there will at the very least alert us to an issue that we might not be aware of & from there we (the testing team) can use our experience to try & recreate the issue.

Of course it's always nice to have a save before the bug event happens but that's not always possible & at the end of the day part of our responsibilities as testers is to investigate & reproduce issues that are reported by the community, right now I'm looking into why a club would not have an embargo lifted after it was reported by a forum user.

Very true Alex, and like I say, I hold my hands up and accept that there's probably things I should have reported that wouldn't have helped, even without the full data behind it.

I guess from our side, it often seems like the same "PKM and a save" line is put out whenever there is a bug. Of course that's the desired, but maybe if people were encouraged to report without it seeming like they have to have those pieces before they do, more might do it. Of course then there's the worry that you'll get a rubbish report with a lot of back and forth I suppose. Swings and roundabouts.

Anyway, was just something I often thought about around the whole having some kind of past data to help with testing in saves.

Yeah we understand that it's not always possible.

It's precisely for that reason that save games that do reproduce an issue are like gold dust sometimes. Especially if it's a particularly rare bug or incredibly time consuming to reproduce from scratch.

Some bugs are fixable from a current save, where a coder can make a best guess at what's happened and work backwards from what they see (so it's usually better than nothing at all)

But for complex issues we nearly always need to be able to reproduce the issue live. As I say, not just to debug it, but also to prove it's fixed afterwards.

The joys...certainly know the feeling of the difference between fixing something reproducable and not, so you have my sympathies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Just...no.

If 500 people report a crime, do the police need evidence for it? If not one of this nebulous "everyone" gives any evidence behind the bug, then what exactly are SI supposed to do to fix it? Do you understand how bugs are actually fixed?

I know what you're trying to get at but its an idiotic analogy giving an interesting insight.

If 500 people report a crime...then the police will investigate it. If no one gives evidence then its the job of the POLICE to go out and garner evidence THEMSELVES to attempt to solve the crime...that's their job. The 'nebulous' is the crime itself not your 'everyone'...its the job of the police to clear the haze as best they can...not have an attitude of just to sit back and rely on customers to provide feedback/evidence and if no feedback is forthcoming then sit back and shrug their shoulders and go 'neh, what do you expect us to do?!!' (I'm not actually suggesting that's the attitude of SI). Also police provide a public service so expectancy that the public will do their best to assist solve a crime is fair enough...if it doesn't happen though the expectancy that the police will do their job anyway. SI is not a public service so an expectancy that the public doesn't have to do SI's job is also fair enough.

SI is not a public service so, yes, absolutely if many customers 'report a crime' you ask 'then what exactly are SI supposed to do to fix it?' That's a ridiculous question to ask...their job...maybe try and get behind it themselves if there's no customer evidence.

It's not a direct criticism of SI per se in that they do absolutely great work but there's no question they have become more reliant on feedback here from customers (which again is fair enough give the increasing complexity of the game). This approach absolutely has its merits in that it progresses the game itself and has done through these forums and the community feedback which has proven invaluable to SI is terrific to be honest and its a process which works well but your attitude that if customers don't provide evidence then what's SI supposed to do is nonsensical...they should do their job. Yes if customers can help then great..things will work better but its simply NOT the job of customers to provide whatever to enable SI to fix it which is the becoming increasingly the servile attitude of some...criticising a customer for expecting SI to job their job is unnecessary and more an act of ingratiation than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you're trying to get at but its an idiotic analogy giving an interesting insight.

If 500 people report a crime...then the police will investigate it. If no one gives evidence then its the job of the POLICE to go out and garner evidence THEMSELVES to attempt to solve the crime...that's their job. The 'nebulous' is the crime itself not your 'everyone'...its the job of the police to clear the haze as best they can...not have an attitude of just to sit back and rely on customers to provide feedback/evidence and if no feedback is forthcoming then sit back and shrug their shoulders and go 'neh, what do you expect us to do?!!' (I'm not actually suggesting that's the attitude of SI). Also police provide a public service so expectancy that the public will do their best to assist solve a crime is fair enough...if it doesn't happen though the expectancy that the police will do their job anyway. SI is not a public service so an expectancy that the public doesn't have to do SI's job is also fair enough.

SI is not a public service so, yes, absolutely if many customers 'report a crime' you ask 'then what exactly are SI supposed to do to fix it?' That's a ridiculous question to ask...their job...maybe try and get behind it themselves if there's no customer evidence.

It's not a direct criticism of SI per se in that they do absolutely great work but there's no question they have become more reliant on feedback here from customers (which again is fair enough give the increasing complexity of the game). This approach absolutely has its merits in that it progresses the game itself and has done through these forums and the community feedback which has proven invaluable to SI is terrific to be honest and its a process which works well but your attitude that if customers don't provide evidence then what's SI supposed to do is nonsensical...they should do their job. Yes if customers can help then great..things will work better but its simply NOT the job of customers to provide whatever to enable SI to fix it which is the becoming increasingly the servile attitude of some...criticising a customer for expecting SI to job their job is unnecessary and more an act of ingratiation than anything else.

So I made a flippant analogy that didn't really stand up. Oh well.

As SI employees have said, they can try and investigate issues without evidence. And they do. But I'm talking about the ones that say "this isn't working". And that's it. Reporting a bug with no save/PKM but giving full details of your system/specs/what you were doing/any other supplementary evidence is good, and can give SI a direction to go in. I'm not getting at those people. But if you just say something is broken then often it can be a struggle to find even a direction to go in. At that point, should SI travel down what could end up being a massive rabbit-hole, or should they fix the things that they have reproducable evidence for first because it'll probably end up being less of a time-sink?

There needs to be a balance in this - just saying that it isn't your responsibility and demanding SI "do their job" is short-sighted. They will continue to do their job, but a lot of the time they need our help in that. I don't think that's too much to ask. But users helping with bug reports is not doing SI's job for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ME seems kinda wackily on a knife-edge between absolute despair and absolute dominance. I started my second season at Norwich unable to buy a win (two draws, four defeats) with my 4-3-1-2 that bossed the Championship. Changed exactly three player roles (DLFs to F9, AF to CFa, BBM to CMa) and turned off one team instruction (Retain Possession) and went the next six unbeaten (five wins, one draw). That draw was away at Man City where I created 8 CCCs to their one. I also enjoyed a 3-0 victory over reigning champions Arsenal at home, with 9 CCCs to their two.

That's bonkers, and it's not the first time it's happened to me. You stumble along at about the game's expectations of you for a season or two until you hit upon some perfect combination of players and roles and then you barely need to do any maintenance to steamroller teams from then on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question, akkm, is that if someone is bothered and concerned enough about something in the game to post about it, then is it really that much more of an effort to actually provide SI with a starting point by uploading a save or PKM or screenshot?

On the flip side, posting about something is all well and good, but there's no guarantee that SI can find/reproduce it, so there's no guarantee that anything will ever happen, and your post has been for nothing. Giving them something to work with, be it a save or a PKM, is going to guarantee that your specific problem does get some specific attention, so they can do their job- not searching for bugs, but actually fixing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I made a flippant analogy that didn't really stand up. Oh well.

As SI employees have said, they can try and investigate issues without evidence. And they do. But I'm talking about the ones that say "this isn't working". And that's it. Reporting a bug with no save/PKM but giving full details of your system/specs/what you were doing/any other supplementary evidence is good, and can give SI a direction to go in. I'm not getting at those people. But if you just say something is broken then often it can be a struggle to find even a direction to go in. At that point, should SI travel down what could end up being a massive rabbit-hole, or should they fix the things that they have reproducable evidence for first because it'll probably end up being less of a time-sink?

There needs to be a balance in this - just saying that it isn't your responsibility and demanding SI "do their job" is short-sighted. They will continue to do their job, but a lot of the time they need our help in that. I don't think that's too much to ask. But users helping with bug reports is not doing SI's job for them.

I agree with what you've said there but the irony of your short sighted suggestion hasn't been missed ;).

also your spin and back tracking is amusing...your ill conceived retort to the guy above was in reference to his suggestion that many people suggest a problem...so if many are experiencing a problem then yes its fair to say SI should do their job and look into rather than your myopic approach of fixing potentially smaller problems just because they have reproducable evidence and not exploring the other thing just because it may waste time. That's hardly the right approach...as you say there needs to be a balance in this and reading what i initially posted suggest you've missed that point...I agree that customer feedback has proven useful and is really great way to develop the game...its just there's no point burying your head in the sand and fixing easier problems and ignoring the bigger problem (which is what poster had initially suggested) and saying 'what's SI supposed to do'...as i said ironically...that's the short sighted approach ;)

You're essentially on the right track and what you say makes sense at a lower level its just that it's too much of a small picture mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question, akkm, is that if someone is bothered and concerned enough about something in the game to post about it, then is it really that much more of an effort to actually provide SI with a starting point by uploading a save or PKM or screenshot?

On the flip side, posting about something is all well and good, but there's no guarantee that SI can find/reproduce it, so there's no guarantee that anything will ever happen, and your post has been for nothing. Giving them something to work with, be it a save or a PKM, is going to guarantee that your specific problem does get some specific attention, so they can do their job- not searching for bugs, but actually fixing them.

I agree with all that lawlore...Just that tho by extension if customers don't provide evidence but are all experiencing something then SI should serch for the bug themselves if ultimately no one provides them with evidence...the reality is people usually do if it is the widespread issue that keithfc alluded to. Really what I'm saying is not against SI...they DO do their job...just its the attitude that customer has to reproduce the bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with what you've said there but the irony of your short sighted suggestion hasn't been missed ;).

also your spin and back tracking is amusing...your ill conceived retort to the guy above was in reference to his suggestion that many people suggest a problem...so if many are experiencing a problem then yes its fair to say SI should do their job and look into rather than your myopic approach of fixing potentially smaller problems just because they have reproducable evidence and not exploring the other thing just because it may waste time. That's hardly the right approach...as you say there needs to be a balance in this and reading what i initially posted suggest you've missed that point...I agree that customer feedback has proven useful and is really great way to develop the game...its just there's no point burying your head in the sand and fixing easier problems and ignoring the bigger problem (which is what poster had initially suggested) and saying 'what's SI supposed to do'...as i said ironically...that's the short sighted approach ;)

You're essentially on the right track and what you say makes sense at a lower level its just that it's too much of a small picture mindset.

You can almost smell the smug...

Nothing about what I said has any reference to what SI actually do. Believe it or not, I don't actually speak for them. Since you're not really reading anything I'm saying, and just taking it as some kind of point-scoring exercise for yourself, then...you win, I guess? Congratulations. Never mind that I'm saying pretty much exactly the same as Lawlore - who put it very well, as you seem to agree - so carry on.

SI will continue to do what they're doing, but they could probably do it a lot better with better reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why no SI developers post on this forum. If I were an SI developer I'd like to post "Why don't you all shut up as none of you have any clue what you are talking about".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see why no SI developers post on this forum. If I were an SI developer I'd like to post "Why don't you all shut up as none of you have any clue what you are talking about".

And that is exactly why you'll never be one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say I'm enjoying the game! There are the occational weird thing in the ME, but that doesn't bother me too much!

What I hope to see fixed in the February-update are the Inverted WBs and the Libero roles.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/402381-Reviewed-Libero-Attack-Role

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/400823-Reviewed-Inverted-Wingbacks

There should be plenty of info and examples available in the links!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wanted to say I'm enjoying the game! There are the occational weird thing in the ME, but that doesn't bother me too much!

What I hope to see fixed in the February-update are the Inverted WBs and the Libero roles.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/402381-Reviewed-Libero-Attack-Role

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/400823-Reviewed-Inverted-Wingbacks

There should be plenty of info and examples available in the links!

There are no new threads relating to the IWB or Libero (or Half Back, for that matter ;) ) in the Bugs Forum for the current ME. If these Roles are still not working in a Ronseal manner, SI would welcome timed examples of unexpected positioning / behaviour from the latest ME. As ever, the Bug threads with numerous timed .pkm examples from numerous matches are the ones which gain most traction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are no new threads relating to the IWB or Libero (or Half Back, for that matter ;) ) in the Bugs Forum for the current ME. If these Roles are still not working in a Ronseal manner, SI would welcome timed examples of unexpected positioning / behaviour from the latest ME. As ever, the Bug threads with numerous timed .pkm examples from numerous matches are the ones which gain most traction.

Seriously!?!? The roles play EXACTLY as they did in the beta so starting new threads explaining the exact same thing would be kinda redundant and insulting SI's employees intelligence!

Each time we brought this up we were told that it was too far down the priority list (I actually think it was you, RT :)). I just assumed that when a bug thread got "reviewed" SI were aware of the issue and fix it if they had enough time and were able to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once a bug is reviewed is means we are aware of its existence, from there & in particular with ME issues the more examples that can be provided along with opinions on why it isn't working as expected the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that, Alex! Still, I feel there should be plenty of examples of how Shrewnaldo (IWB) and myself (LB(a)) think these roles should behave. Either the desctiption of the roles should be changed, or even better, make the roles behave like they do in the description. :thup:

With that said I will try to record even more examples... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A player asks me for first team football, I say sure, you'll play. He then gets a couple of games and gets injured for a couple of months. He says it's all right, he'll give me more time to let him play. Then the season ends. Mid-holiday the player barges into my vacation home, steaming with fury because he hasn't played lately. I call men in white coats to have a chat with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a small detail adressed regarding the tactics screen.

Players shouldn't overlap on the tactics pitch. For example if I employ a shadow striker behind a false nine, the two player icons partially conflict in the same space. I understand (although I don't aesthetically like it) the positioning is defined by the player's role and duty, but there should be a limited amount of pixels the icon could move, so that even in the case mentioned above the icons would not overlap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One piece of actual feedback I have, although maybe it tends into "things you'd like to see in future versions", is that how players assess their playing time is a constant nuisance in FM15.

Right now you have to constantly negotiate with them over starts and minutes (which has become extreme in FM15, where I am always arguing with my third-choice players about first-team football in a way that seems thoroughly unlike real life; the game is full of professionals who are either happy to pick up a pay check or happy to sacrifice playing time for the privilege of being at a particular club). I'd prefer to see their understanding of what is a fair amount of playing time much more closely aligned with squad status: if a player is "Key," he'll want to know why he wasn't selected whenever he was fit and available; if he's a "Backup," he'll only complain if he didn't even make the squad for a cup game. As part of this, players should understand the context of the games they're missing: are they dead rubbers at season's end, or cup games the board doesn't care about, or title deciders?

To balance this, you'd need to make squad status much, much harder to adjust without players kicking up a fuss, and you'd have to make its role in contract negotiations much more important (with agents, the board and even other players watching your choice like hawks). But it would make players' demands both less frequent and more reasoned, rather than just seeming like a ticking morale bomb. It would move the "negotiation" to the front end, allowing the user to set and manage expectations, rather than to the back end, where they have to respond to them or risk outright mutiny.

All this should be second to a complete overhaul of Reputation, of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone just shoot Azpilicueta of Chelsea as his pesky throw ins are becoming a bit of a joke. Love to know how many assists from a throw this guy has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can almost smell the smug...

Nothing about what I said has any reference to what SI actually do. Believe it or not, I don't actually speak for them. Since you're not really reading anything I'm saying, and just taking it as some kind of point-scoring exercise for yourself, then...you win, I guess? Congratulations. Never mind that I'm saying pretty much exactly the same as Lawlore - who put it very well, as you seem to agree - so carry on.

SI will continue to do what they're doing, but they could probably do it a lot better with better reporting.

Oh you were viewing that as some sort of point scoring exercise/competition…ah come on, you should have told me lol. Or… is it more that you are simply projecting ?

Hmmm…heightened senses (smell)/projecting(as above)/paranoia(I was taking someone else’s side over yours)…it’s all very revealing.

Oh and I do believe that don’t actually speak for SI. I guess the real question is whether or not you yourself actually believe you do or not…ok ok..i’m sorry…that was uncalled for lol

Come on…would ya relax and don’t take it so personally.

Anyway…I’m off to the high road…I’ll leave you to it…

I do agree with you on most of it..genuinely :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get back to proper feedback please or a lot of posts will be deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have a save shortly before he escalates his complaint about a lack of first team action despite bring injured?

He wasn't still injured, but the season had ended before I had the chance to use him in enough games, and he came to me in June with his complaint (last league game was April 30). I couldn't possibly play him when there were no games.

I don't have a save ... Just mentioning it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, what I really don't understand is how is it possible that teams can leave so many players upfield, oblivious of the defensive phase, and still not concede 2-3 goals per match.

I think they often do. Teams such as Sampdoria or Genua are often amongst the sides who score a lot but also concede a lot. As for such tactics in general and human users, there are typically paired with high pressing and generally attacking game. By trying to win the ball high up the pitch you'd naturally soften the impact of getting pinned back oftenly in your half with a third of players not bothering to cover space and men.

In general, I'm starting to agree with all the observations that concluded the game would be biased towards attacking play. During my first proper save, setting up a 4-1-4-1 basic formation we did reasonably well playing defensively, not conceding in more than 40% prior the winter break. However, thereafter, things started to get awry again, in between January and Autumn 2015 there had been but a couple of matches in which we managed to keep a clean sheet. And I started to attribute that prior series to little more than luck. It is incredibly risky to speculate on 1 or two goals being enough. During the last patch I got a string of consecutive 0-0s, but that was done by playing keep-ball all game. Admittedly I did bring in David James on a free agent, who whilst being a perfectly viable option still for my German fourth tier side even at 45, greeted spectators with this in the first minute on his first day on duty. :D

[video=youtube;rhxRCXh6ArY]rhxRCXh6ArY

It is more risky than picking the weakest team by a mile in the competition and giving hell about balanced tactics and just attack from the go until the final whistle's blown. Or rather: It's certainly far easier to turn, pardon the players, crap squads into goal scoring machines by pushing men up in numbers than it is turning decent sides teams into ones that concede very few, at least from my experience (which could be down to me too). Still it is super easy to score goals, it is however much harder to try the opposite, and given that football is a low scoring sports and space is something teams have to fight for, that doesn't ring quite right. Prior to this I turned Hertha into German Cup winners with the exact same, finishing 7th in the Bundesliga and getting the overachievement achievement via Steam.

AHSElTg.jpg

n3Fe99P.jpg

(For the record: Tactics like these aren't advisable, as matches with incredibly many shots and random outcomes will be the norm. Similar are actually being shared on various fan sites, so stay the hell away from download tactics unless you understand what they are encouraging. Don't try this at home.)

The opposite of the above would picking a defensive tactics, a formation that suits it and encouraging it to drop even deeper than it would by default. But if you do that, you'll be hammered. Fluke goals and space are there no matter what, be it from attacking throw-ins, crosses, inch perfect passes in between the centre backs... it must be a hell of a balancing job though, and I appreciate that. Defending on FM already overly relies on successfull tacklings, that is why there are so hugely many of them. However, cranking those up thus can not be the solution to offset off the ball positioning, passing accuracy, shooting decision making and similar, which from my experience are vastly improved, even when under pressure and closed down. Additionially the physics are far less predictable. Players like Hazard cut through defenses like the hot knife through butter, and I frequently saw the trio of Lewandowski, Müller and Robben outright toying against packed defenses even completely isolated and on their own. Caring about robust defenses, I don't think I'm going to be super best friends with this ME iteration though. I enjoyed surviving CL group stages with minnows in prior iterations, as it was possible to claim the right of the weak and with a little luck score the one crucial goal from the few shots we get, which could be enough. I don't think it is quite as consistently possible here though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Italian tv money seems broken. I won 2 league titles and european cup and never got more than 40m tv money in serie a over 8 seasons at parma. Them move to Milan who have struggled for years, and they get 80m v money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The transfer window finishes on 31st October. And why FM transfer update out in March? ( Last two year 28 February)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Italian tv money seems broken. I won 2 league titles and european cup and never got more than 40m tv money in serie a over 8 seasons at parma. Them move to Milan who have struggled for years, and they get 80m v money?

Its not broken, its simply the way the money gets divided in Italy.

This is a summary taken from another website:

In Serie A, their much smaller pot of money is divided in a somewhat unusual (critics would argue, wholly biased) way:

40% is divided equally between the 20 teams.

30% is divided between the clubs based on population (5% based on the population of the city in which the team is based and 25% based on their average home attendance)

30% is awarded to teams based on performances. 5% depending on the last season, 15% on the last five years and 10% based on results from 1946 up to the sixth season before the current one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The transfer window finishes on 31st October. And why FM transfer update out in March? ( Last two year 28 February)

No, the summer transfer window closes late August/early September and then the game is released.

The winter transfer window closes end of January (Feb in Russia) and then you get the update patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The transfer window finishes on 31st October. And why FM transfer update out in March? ( Last two year 28 February)

Sooooooooorrrrrryyyy 31st January of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone,

I usually buy FM at this time of year to avoid the release issues. I'm just wondering if the upgrade from the 2014 version is currently worth the money. I don't mind small issues but if there's anything that makes the game remotely unplayable it will stop me from upgrading for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after roughly 10 seasons:

way too easy. The ai seems ******** or i might have stumbled upon a magical 4-4-2.

This reputation system is ruining the game. I think the Ai is stupid because it judges many of its decisions , based on reputation. Probably why the ai cant build a squad and buys several players and dont use them.

In relation to squadbuilding and maintaining the same quality of competetion, well its just - in the long run - non existent and sadly has been so for years. When the "original cast members" are close to gone, the quality of competetion drops. Especially if you are playing in second tier leagues like holland, denmark or portugal.

These diseases have been in the game for years and they might be hardest to fix, i dont know and frankly i dont care. This is as close to gamebreaking as you can come. I love long careers, building from the ground and up, but thats too easy in the long run.

Which brings me to my next point. Fm is awful at representing how hard it is, to be a top team in those mid tier leagues. In general fm is awful at representing the difficulties in managing top clubs.

I love the new animations and on thre tactical side i feel, that when i make a change in role, i see a difference. Love the way its set up with the menu bar, although i´d like it if it could be horisontal too.

This has been said a million times before, but please stop adding features, which are of significantly less importance, then fixing the above mentioned things. I know the game wont reach perfect, but ai stupidity in regards to transfers and squadbuilding has been complained about for years. Rightly so i´ll add, these numbers are omade up , but it feels like when one feature has reached 50% of perfect, they start a new feature and this reaches 50 and wash, rinse and repeat. Having flawed features, which havent been fixed and hew features which presents new flaws, i drives my head. In fantasy land, maybe, just maybe a feature could reach 75% of perfection, before a new feature is added.

Fix the core issues, the game has reached a level and a size, where this is an area that needs more attention, much more then other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fix the core issues, the game has reached a leveland a size, where this is an area that needs more attention then other areas.

Could not agree more. Stop adding new features and concentrate on core issues and better documentation to enable us to understand the game more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could not agree more. Stop adding new features and concentrate on core issues and better documentation to enable us to understand the game more.

Or, do what they do now, and have different teams doing both. Because there are those who might just like new features as the 47 page wishlist thread suggests, and SI will have ideas of their own and might just want to implement them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been brought up before but the ref who is supposed to be behind the goal is clearly not. I don't know if it's a bug or a graphics issue

Left handside of the three pictures

2015-01-21_00001_zps83739a9c.jpg

2015-01-21_00002_zps8239a225.jpg

2015-01-21_00003_zps9acd7b0c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...