Football Manager 2016 - 16.2.0 Official feedback thread

[themadsheep2001]

I think what confuses me in FM 16 is an illogical outcome to certain instructions. Let me explain. I downloaded a tactic that looked quite interesting on paper, however it was a very aggressive tactic. Didn't do too bad as it happens but I just felt I needed to tweak it to the needs of my team. For instance the tactic is a 451 with two CM's on attack duty (quite a few attack duties in fact) and the CM's had an added PI of "dribble more". Now my two CM's of Song and Obiang aren't good dribblers so I deleted the PI. The result was they played worse with the PI removed than they did when doing something that they "shouldn't have been any good at". So I changed their roles to support to make the team more stable defensively. The result I conceded more goals! Similarly the tactic had CWB's on attack . Again it worked ok but I felt I needed to tighten it up a bit so I changed to CWB S, WB S and even a FB S and yet I was conceding far more goals than I was with them on an attack duty. My point is that you generally "should" have more success with a logical tactic with balance throughout the system but in this case my "logical" changes had the opposite effect. I mean how are you actually meant to become successful at the game when your players actually play better doing something that should make them play worse?!

Not sure what is illogical about that. FM isn't not an equation. Things operate in context, been saying this to you for years Sussex.

CWB example, I use them sometimes because they are so aggressive they can often cut wide threat off at the source high up the pitch, the downside being that if beaten they are in behind you with acres of space. Risk vs Reward.

FM (and Football in general) is an endless trade off between risk and reward, and balance and compromise. You will always be exposed somewhere, key is making that count for as little as possible

[Sussex Hammer]

Not sure what is illogical about that. FM isn't not an equation. Things operate in context, been saying this to you for years Sussex.

CWB example, I use them sometimes because they are so aggressive they can often cut wide threat off at the source high up the pitch, the downside being that if beaten they are in behind you with acres of space. Risk vs Reward.

FM (and Football in general) is an endless trade off between risk and reward, and balance and compromise. You will always be exposed somewhere, key is making that count for as little as possible

Ok I can understand the CWB example but surely players with limited dribbling skills shouldn't play better with a PI of "dribble more" than they do when you tell them NOT to dribble more?

[themadsheep2001]

Ok I can understand the CWB example but surely players with limited dribbling skills shouldn't play better with a PI of "dribble more" than they do when you tell them NOT to dribble more?

Again context, depends on entirely what they are trying to do, and the ability of the opposition. Song is also a relatively powerful player, and if the opposition play struggles against such a player trying to carry the ball at them, you might well get joy out of it.

I have relatively average dribbling DMs in my side, but i've often asked them to carry deep from space to overload positions. The downside of course being they are not as skilled as a true dribbler, and risk losing the ball in a dangerous area, leaving me open on the counter. Risk and Reward. Don't tunnel in on specifics all the time, you lose the context and the overall big picture.

[Seb Wassell]

ARGHHH

I had been playing fine for a few days but now my squad views are all over the place. No matter what one I set it to when I leave squad view and come back it is set to one of my custom ones, and always with the spacing randomised.

I reported it in BETA, but maybe the fact it comes and goes has stopped devs finding it.

Hey An Olive Branch.

I'm sorry to hear you're having issues with this.

It does sound like a tricky one to nail down, especially considering I've not seen anything similar myself on any of my machines here.

Would you be able to open (or add to) a post in the UI Bugs forum please? Including a save/screenshot and any other relevant information, such as resolution, will be of help.

Cheers,

Seb.

[Citizen Sandman]

I would say regardless of the different tactics i've tried, at least 80% of goals i've scored come from softly taken volleys which arrise from a nice cross.

[themadsheep2001]

I would say regardless of the different tactics i've tried, at least 80% of goals i've scored come from softly taken volleys which arrise from a nice cross.

Interesting, just over a quarter of my goals came from crosses. Surprising considering I'm mostly playing aggressively through the flanks with wingbacks and inside forwards.

[Federico]

I would say regardless of the different tactics i've tried, at least 80% of goals i've scored come from softly taken volleys which arrise from a nice cross.

That's it. I'd dare to say 80% of goals scored in matches I played (so to include goals scored by AI) come from crosses on far post. This just spoils any will to analyze how a tactic works and how you want to improve it according to my experience. I try in any case, and sometimes I got my reward.

But yeah, this is what we have.

[Dagenham_Dave]

I would say regardless of the different tactics i've tried, at least 80% of goals i've scored come from softly taken volleys which arrise from a nice cross.

You don't have to guess, there's a section which tells you how many of your goals come from crosses. I'd wager the actual figure will be considerably less than 80%.

[Freakiie]

Hold end of season meeting. Pick most ambitious option. Team: "I don't think you're being ambitious enough." No comment.

[themadsheep2001]

Getting sick of some of the jibes being thrown around. Be constructive or expect your posts to be removed from here on in.

[themadsheep2001]

Hold end of season meeting. Pick most ambitious option. Team: "I don't think you're being ambitious enough." No comment.

Definitely worthy of a bug report with save, that

[BoxToBox]

40% of my goals have come from crosses in my current save, even though I often play with a direct crossing game, on the flip side, 51% of goals I've conceded have come from crosses, which is disappointing for multiple reasons.

Mind, I'm playing in Bulgaria, not one of the top countries.

[Lobaeux4]

Not much in the way of feedback, but SO FAR the game is running like silk. No issues what so ever.

[Federico]

You don't have to guess, there's a section which tells you how many of your goals come from crosses. I'd wager the actual figure will be considerably less than 80%.

Playing finnish league, at the end of the season the statistic on goal scored from crosses was 57%, 49% on goal conceded. In fact, this is by far less than 80% mentioned earlier, however according to my statistics, it means that unless a match ends 0-0, half of goals scored during one single game come from crosses. It might be selective memory, so let's say I lose one match 0-2 with no goals from crosses and the following one I win 3-1, all 4 goals from crosses.

This to me is very near to be called "exploit" and as said earlier it's a bit frustrating. You can try to play in a different way, but you can't avoid to concede goals in such manner.

I think everyone might experience different statistics according to the league played, the mentality AI is using and players of course, but to me this issue persists.

Still the game offers several ways to accomplish an achievement, so the fact that dealing with crosses might be difficult at the moment it's not a barrier for other tactical experiments that might reward as well.

[qwerty22]

Playing finnish league, at the end of the season the statistic on goal scored from crosses was 57%, 49% on goal conceded. In fact, this is by far less than 80% mentioned earlier, however according to my statistics, it means that unless a match ends 0-0, half of goals scored during one single game come from crosses. It might be selective memory, so let's say I lose one match 0-2 with no goals from crosses and the following one I win 3-1, all 4 goals from crosses.

This to me is very near to be called "exploit" and as said earlier it's a bit frustrating. You can try to play in a different way, but you can't avoid to concede goals in such manner.

I think everyone might experience different statistics according to the league played, the mentality AI is using and players of course, but to me this issue persists.

Still the game offers several ways to accomplish an achievement, so the fact that dealing with crosses might be difficult at the moment it's not a barrier for other tactical experiments that might reward as well.

The problem isn't the quantity of crossed goals, It's the quality of the animations.... It's the same sequence over and over again... How about some near post ones, How about adding some curvature to the ball or maybe differentiate between a hanging cross or a driven on....

[WizbaII]

I'm curious...is there a reason odds aren't shown as percentages? I find myself always having to convert the odds to percentages so I can get a proper sense. Surely they considered showing it in percentages and decided not to? I would love to why because it gets tiresome when you are doing the math over and over. Instead of seeing like 3-1 or 5-3, my brain just wants to see 25% or 37.5%.

[Danchinaski]

Last post is right. Curling cross. Evades back four. Stationary keeper. Tap in. Happens just too often, regardless of someone-or-other's stat analysis on goals from crosses.

Goals from crosses are fine for dinosaur managers like me, I'm just sick of seeing the *same* goal from crosses.

[themadsheep2001]

Last post is right. Curling cross. Evades back four. Stationary keeper. Tap in. Happens just too often, regardless of someone-or-other's stat analysis on goals from crosses.

Goals from crosses are fine for dinosaur managers like me, I'm just sick of seeing the *same* goal from crosses.

Except I've seen drilled crosses, floated crosses to the 6 yard box, near post crosses, crosses to the edge of the box, reverse foot crosses by a right footed left back(!). One of the best goals I've seen was a volley from the near side about 15 yards out.

[Danchinaski]

I've also seen a wide variety of goals, from crosses or otherwise, but must say that when people here describe the most typical crossed goal, l don't think they're wrong or are playing the game wrong. I've seen this described goal so frequently that I've come to depend on it as an attacking force. Far post tap-ins are very, very common.

[Dagenham_Dave]

I'm curious...is there a reason odds aren't shown as percentages? I find myself always having to convert the odds to percentages so I can get a proper sense. Surely they considered showing it in percentages and decided not to? I would love to why because it gets tiresome when you are doing the math over and over. Instead of seeing like 3-1 or 5-3, my brain just wants to see 25% or 37.5%.

Change it to that in the preferences then.

[KlaaZ]

Is it possible that there is an issue with harsh penalties being given due to a high foot?

[forameuss]

Change it to that in the preferences then.

Not sure you can. Think you can put fractional or decimal, but not percentages. Are odds ever shown as percentages anyway? I'm sure most betting sites only offer those two options

[Defensive]

half of goals scored during one single game come from crosses...so let's say I lose one match 0-2 with no goals from crosses and the following one I win 3-1, all 4 goals from crosses.

Some interesting mathematics by the way.

[Federico]

Hahah! well it was just an example on how the goals spread around an whole season, no need to be so pricky my friend, unless you want me to describe in detail all the goals scored/conceded, something I have not intention to do anyway

[EuskalHerria]

I am at November 24, 2017 in my save and Zlatan Ibrahimovic just got hired as IFK Goteborg manager

[Dagenham_Dave]

Not sure you can. Think you can put fractional or decimal, but not percentages. Are odds ever shown as percentages anyway? I'm sure most betting sites only offer those two options

I just assumed it was decimal he was referring to, as it's only that and fractional I've ever seen in real life.

[TioPatinhax]

Is the new BPL TV deal already included in the current FM?

[WizbaII]

I just assumed it was decimal he was referring to, as it's only that and fractional I've ever seen in real life.

I get now why percentages is not available. Still weird, for those of us who don't bet to see odds in fractional or decimal format, to see that. They really should add percentages, it would be such an easy option to add.

[RTHerringbone]

Is the new BPL TV deal already included in the current FM?

Yes. Effective from the second season.

[bigbeezer]

hi lads,

is there a section where you can give feedback on individual countries?

cheers

[RTHerringbone]

hi lads,

is there a section where you can give feedback on individual countries?

cheers

No. General feedback is for this thread. If you have data related feedback for a specific country, then there will be a thread in the data section of the bugs forum to post in.

[Caccio]

Well guys......I was hoping that FM16 will feature less goals per viewed matches than FM15, which had unrealistically too many of them......I must say, my very 1st match, against my reserve team, has ended with a 7-4 win!

OK, I still have some hope left, since I tried this time with additional leagues, in Hungarian sixth, lowest division, where the tems were even much weaker than in the originally featured english 6th division, so I hope the developers haven't even calculated in playing with this weak teams......so I giess I will restart now with the originally featured competitions, in English Vanarama South division again, (that's where I usually choose the weakest team to manage), and see the match results there.

If my cery 1st match will end with a 10+ "goal-shower" result again, I must say I will be pretty much disappointed......

[RTHerringbone]

Probably needs more than one match against a reserve side to form a true impression of the game.

[Caccio]

Well that's a valid comment, I just remembered my 1st match (also vs reserves) from FM15, which ended with a 4-6 loss, and FM15 obviously had too many goals per matches to be realistic, so I fear this will be the case with FM16 as well.

Normally I hope I am wrong, game realism, especially in a football manager game, is of key, even deciding importance to me.

Just to make sure, I am starting without league additions this time, in English Vanarama north/south division, with the weakest team, which is atill significantly stronger than Hungarian 6th division teams.

[edgar555]

Yeah one match is the absolute perfect sample size

[Cougar2010]

Well that's a valid comment, I just remembered my 1st match (also vs reserves) from FM15, which ended with a 4-6 loss, and FM15 obviously had too many goals per matches to be realistic, so I fear this will be the case with FM16 as well.

Normally I hope I am wrong, game realism, especially in a football manager game, is of key, even deciding importance to me.

Just to make sure, I am starting without league additions this time, in English Vanarama north/south division, with the weakest team, which is atill significantly stronger than Hungarian 6th division teams.

There is no way that FM15 "obviously has too many goals per match"

There were some situations where this did occur but it wasn't the norm, I could show you 10 seasons from my current save where goals were at a realistic level.

[BoxToBox]

Real Madrid won 10-2 the other week, obviously there are too many goals per match in La Liga, going by that match alone.

12 games a match is insane.

[GunmaN1905]

Are the ratings ever gonna be fixed?

Like attacking stats are only relevant thing for the most part, even in goalkeepers ratings.

I had huge amount of clean sheets which ended in either 0-0, 1-0 or 2-0 and my goalkeeper rarely gets over 7 rating, even when opposition has 10+ shots on target or when he saves penalties.

But when I win like 5-0, 6-0 or such, even the goalkeeper has nearly 8 rating, alongside defenders, who also never get more than 7.5 in close games. Neither does DM, only fullbacks do, because of their attacking duties.

I know this is completely irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things, but it's somewhat annoying.

I just played a 4-4 game where my defenders were all rated above 6.5, except for one 6.3 and attackers had like 8+ each.

It would be only logical for defense to get 7+ when you don't concede and opposition poses a threat.

[Welshace]

While I completely agree with the sentiment Gunman ... your choice of an example is awful..

Your defence helped let 4 goals past them and you expect them to get decent ratings?

In a 4-4 draw.. generally speaking your attack has done it's job but your defence has categorically failed at theirs.

[RTHerringbone]

Are the ratings ever gonna be fixed?

Hopefully. They aren't completely knackered but there are regular occasions where the rating does not reflect the performance. As usual, it's a prioritisation thing and SI would need to commit time and resource from their small ME team to develop new algorithms to determine the sort of stats that should impact the ratings of specific Roles / Duties. It's not a quick fix by any means, but one that is needed at some point.

[Optimistic Dave]

While I completely agree with the sentiment Gunman ... your choice of an example is awful..

Your defence helped let 4 goals past them and you expect them to get decent ratings?

In a 4-4 draw.. generally speaking your attack has done it's job but your defence has categorically failed at theirs.

Read his post again and grab the right end of the stick next time.

[Welshace]

Quite right.... been a long day at work.

[jujigatame]

Player complaints still lack context. Having a first teamer throw a fit because he wants to move to a bigger club in order to win a title. Meanwhile we're top of the table 6 points ahead of the club he wants to move to.

[King Costly]

Is it just me who is finding loaned out players tend to get terrible ratings? It's happened to almost every player I've loaned out on my current save and a keeper I currently have is having real problems.

He's a two star current, five star potential ability and has been loaned to Servette in the league below. I've got my assistant to compile his match reports and he tends to either get a 7+ or below 6.3.

It's strange as he's got very good stats for Servette's league, they haven't dropped him, and I never find my keepers fluctuating that much in ratings. I've conceded five before and my keeper has got a 6.7 - it seems they really have to mess up to get less and it's very difficult for them to get a 7+.

This isn't a keeper specific issue but thought I'd give it context. Is anybody else noticing loaned out players getting terrible ratings despite being decent footballers?

[Cougar2010]

He's a two star current, five star potential ability and has been loaned to Servette in the league below. I've got my assistant to compile his match reports and he tends to either get a 7+ or below 6.3.

I'll pick up on this bit.

The 7+'s suggest solid games whereas the 6.3 or less suggest he is maybe making mistakes which lead to goals (Can you check his stats?). This would indicate perhaps a consistency issue or maybe even a weak "Big match" hidden attribute. Even perhaps just one or two weak attributes.

If not a 6.3 could just be a byproduct of the team losing and letting in goals which he may or may not have been able to do something about.

[HUNT3R]

Player complaints still lack context. Having a first teamer throw a fit because he wants to move to a bigger club in order to win a title. Meanwhile we're top of the table 6 points ahead of the club he wants to move to.

The key point is that wants to move to a bigger club.

[Caccio]

Despite not committing any kind of an offense, I noticed, that my last post got still removed from this forum.

I do feel extremely disappointed and offended for this, since I did nothing at all to deserve being treated like this, as a long time FM regular player and fan, who counts the game among his all time favorites, (buys every single version of it since 2007), I certainly haven't deserved such a treatment, merely for my good intwntions aiming to improve the realism of the FM game.

So I must protest, and repeat my previous post here again:

Just like all earlier FM releases, I did play FM15 for a whole year, till the very day I started with FM16.

Compared to ALL earlier releases, FM15 DID have unrealistically too many goals per matches, and this is not only my personal oppinion, many other FM players and fans share it, just google the internet, or even FM15-related forums with key-words like "FM15 too many goals", and you will see the legitimacy of that statement for yourself.

( I wouldn't wish to spam you people with referred links here)

I insisted on determining this fact only as a constructive critic, which I posted merely in order to establish and validate my hopes, that FM16 will turn out to be more realistic than its mentioned predecessor.

So dear Forum Moderators, please DO NOT remove this bona-fide, constructive post of mine again, it's neither offensive in any way, nor out of the actual (FM16) topic!

Thank You!

[RTHerringbone]

None of your posts have been deleted Caccio, certainly not from this thread.

[HUNT3R]

If it was removed, it was because it didn't follow the forum house rules, wasn't constructive or wasn't feedback.

As said before, judge FM16 after more than just one game.

[Caccio]

Well my appologies then, obviouslys some error, (which I failed to notice), has happened by posting it.

Sorry again, I must have missed that error notification due my severely deteriorated eyesight, and was sure the post "got through"...