Football Manager 2016 - 16.2.0 Official feedback thread

[An Olive Branch]

If you get knocked out of a competition (e.g. Europa League) what do you have to click to get every result from it to stop showing up when you are clicking continue?

I've unsubscribed, do I have to go into screen flow or something? or is it just set for the season

[An Olive Branch]

why is it always +1 added time, regardless of subs, goals and other delays?

It's often more than one.

BUT, looking through my schedule I've had lots of goals scored in 90+1 but never any other 90+.

I can't remember if they were scored later and just recorded like that or were all scored in 90+1

Correction, got a 90+3 goal showing on my schedule 3, it categorically isn't always +1 added time

[noikeee]

From the tactics forum:

cross to far post along with an inside forward/winger cutting inside works lovely, got a save with a right back with around 30 assists in a season using this method.

Surely this is an exploit and it isn't right? I've had pretty much the same experience, except I don't directly instruct my wingbacks to cross to far post, so they don't get that many assists but it does seem like a far too easy path to goals. I score one like this every 3 matches or so - someone crosses the ball for my IF to run into the far post and easily tap it in.

Meanwhile god help my inside forwards if they're ever going to score a slightly angled shot with the slightest bit of pressure by defenders. Admitedly they aren't great finishers but they struggle a hell of a lot more in those situations.

[qwerty22]

From the tactics forum:

Surely this is an exploit and it isn't right? I've had pretty much the same experience, except I don't directly instruct my wingbacks to cross to far post, so they don't get that many assists but it does seem like a far too easy path to goals. I score one like this every 3 matches or so - someone crosses the ball for my IF to run into the far post and easily tap it in.

Meanwhile god help my inside forwards if they're ever going to score a slightly angled shot with the slightest bit of pressure by defenders. Admitedly they aren't great finishers but they struggle a hell of a lot more in those situations.

it is a major issue that has been putting me off the game until a patch addresses this. Whatever tactic, style or player level most goals are the dreaded cross into far post to be tapped in by the opposite winger. Again look at the you tubers recording their games and notice how many goals are from crosses, Ridiculous!!

[stevemc]

This makes me sad; the amount of times I see players signed for big money from you, after tapping up and unsettling the players, then the buying club rarely play them...

[Danchinaski]

I've noticed this, AI buy a player and he never makes his debut.

[stevemc]

AI squad building leaves a little to be desired, in my opinion.

[An Olive Branch]

I'm also of the opinion it is still not good enough, and just typing the words Scott sinclair sadly isn't sufficient defence any more.

I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be improved for 16 so hopefully any developments that have been made can be amplified for future games/builds

[Danchinaski]

Something is slightly off with the club awards at the end of the season. In my 'best eleven', my right winger (a fans favourite, scored 38 in 90 over two seasons, winner of League 1 POTY, average rating 7.60) is kept out of the side by his understudy (32 games 1 goal in 2 seasons, average rating 6.90, about to be released on a free transfer).

[Draakon]

AI squad building leaves a little to be desired, in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure it's not specifically 16.2 issue. AI squad building have been fairly poor in FM series as a whole, especially in long term saves. In certain versions (FM12?) extremely poor, I remember FM where AI clubs left themselves with too small squads (only 20 players for a Champions League team with long cup runs) and at the same time bought players who didn't fit their tactics (for example - bought wingers while playing narrow diamond formation or full backs when playing 3-men defensive line) and then just letting them rot on the bench

Unfortunately, it's still an issue, and I'm afraid 16.3 won't make a big difference in this.

[TurkishWonderkid]

I spent 3 years with the 2. division team and I moved up the premier league in the first year. I have lost 12 games average each year, I was wondering that even 12 of 12 games I had average 20 shot and opponents average 5 shots and why I lost it? I mentioned this goalkeeper issue several times. I see no point there is a goalkeeper in this game. Even the best goalkeepers gives you such insecurity since opponents just come and score. Because of all the (so-called) excitements you were adding in the game, it turns to be just frustration, it makes the game extremely predictable and again one more time I have played CM and FM for 20 years and I have never woke up from the dreamland as much as this game. I know which in game players are going to play careless and I am gonna warn them come on guys show a bit desire.. I know I will dominate the game but they are gonna come and score easily. But when it comes to me, opponent will clear the ball from the line it will hit the post so much confusion going on there. I am tired to say 'Havent you watched us? We were so unlucky' in the press conference. It makes the game really unrealistic when you see things one sided. I know your intention is good for sure but what you expect us to feel and what I feel is completely different. When they start attacking all i say is you know what they are gonna score so they score and uphill battle starts for you to turn the game. At the end of the game all you feel is frustration because you have 5-10 times more shots than your opponent but you lost. I agree there are some exceptions but %100 of my games like this. Only thing I feel in the game is frustration. I am not even feeling happy when I succeed at the end of the league because %90 of the league passes with unrealistic moments. If you guys want I send you saved game and check. You will agree when you see it. I hope there will be some improvements in the next update.

[myslnik]

There is definietly problem with the game, it just can't count clear cut chances correctly. FM is all about numbers so if the ME don't recognise chance as a clear cut chance then those shoots/situations have worse conversation ratio. I think that there is no reall need to prove it, everybody can see this in their games. Player not marked, 10 meters from a goal taking a shoot pretty much like from penalty - missed or just smashed straight in to goalie face - not counted as cccs.

In same time ME count shoots as ccc's from impossible angels (when there is no real possibility for a goal - like those taken from line - when ball just can hit post at best) and blocked shoots.

[RTHerringbone]

There is definietly problem with the game, it just can't count clear cut chances correctly. FM is all about numbers so if the ME don't recognise chance as a clear cut chance then those shoots/situations have worse conversation ratio. I think that there is no reall need to prove it, everybody can see this in their games. Player not marked, 10 meters from a goal taking a shoot pretty much like from penalty - missed or just smashed straight in to goalie face - not counted as cccs.

In same time ME count shoots as ccc's from impossible angels (when there is no real possibility for a goal - like those taken from line - when ball just can hit post at best) and blocked shoots.

We had an excellent post in the tactics forum yesterday:

Here's my two cents.

I think what often gets lost in all of this is that the ME is still just a computer programme. An approximation to reality. It doesn't deal in perception. It deals in cold, hard facts and figures. So what looks like a sitter to you on screen, may well be intepreted/calculated differently by the ME. It has some kind of programming around spatial distribution and contact, of course, but it clearly isn't sophisticated enough to explicitly replicate reality. Nor should it be - that's insanely difficult, I would think.

It has to have some sub-optimal behaviour written into it to make it work. In the same way that it makes you tear your hair out when defenders inexplicably fail to track their man, sometimes your forwards will miss seemingly easy chances with more regularity than you'd expect. It's all just a bunch of algorithms with a basic (compared to some computer games) graphical interface overlaid onto it.

[HUNT3R]

There is definietly problem with the game, it just can't count clear cut chances correctly. FM is all about numbers so if the ME don't recognise chance as a clear cut chance then those shoots/situations have worse conversation ratio. I think that there is no reall need to prove it, everybody can see this in their games. Player not marked, 10 meters from a goal taking a shoot pretty much like from penalty - missed or just smashed straight in to goalie face - not counted as cccs.

In same time ME count shoots as ccc's from impossible angels (when there is no real possibility for a goal - like those taken from line - when ball just can hit post at best) and blocked shoots.

These instances should really be reported in the bugs forum with the PKM examples, if you don't mind.

[CityAndColour]

He does have a point though, there seems to be an imbalance between assists from the flanks and through the middle. I've played a 4-4-2 narrow diamond where my right wing back, a player who only hadd the ability of a decent Vanarama National player, was my main assist guy in the League 2 with 23 assists in 45 games. The other wing back, who was slightly better in terms of ability, did slightly worse with 'only' 15 assists, but he had the DLF on the far end of his crosses, compared to the AF for the right back.

Now I'm in the League 1 with the same formation and my left wing back, same guy as last year, has provided me with no less than 12 assists in 11 games.

Maybe I'm a tactical genius, but there's just something not right about this in a formation where a wing back is, in most cases, opposed by two players..

Full back on attack duty + "look for overlap" shout + winger on attack duty on the other side = tap ins galore.

[iAlwaysWin]

I'm pretty sure it's not specifically 16.2 issue. AI squad building have been fairly poor in FM series as a whole, especially in long term saves. In certain versions (FM12?) extremely poor, I remember FM where AI clubs left themselves with too small squads (only 20 players for a Champions League team with long cup runs) and at the same time bought players who didn't fit their tactics (for example - bought wingers while playing narrow diamond formation or full backs when playing 3-men defensive line) and then just letting them rot on the bench

Unfortunately, it's still an issue, and I'm afraid 16.3 won't make a big difference in this.

Nothing to do with squad building, the AI clubs clearly buy enough talent, the problem is the AI has no concept of loyalty, if a player underperforms then hes quickly moved on or dumped in the reserves, AI doesnt care how much he cost or how much of a loss they will take moving him on, a player either performs or he doesnt, then the ai moves them on and buys another.

[An Olive Branch]

Nothing to do with squad building, the AI clubs clearly buy enough talent, the problem is the AI has no concept of loyalty, if a player underperforms then hes quickly moved on or dumped in the reserves, AI doesnt care how much he cost or how much of a loss they will take moving him on, a player either performs or he doesnt, then the ai moves them on and buys another.

I'm not of the opinion this is the case. In many cases the AI doesn't even give him a chance to 'perform or not' as you put it. I'm still suspicious that the AI largely buys players on reputation with not enough yet of a consideration of what they actually need. Of course there is some of that in game, as highlighted by recurring early AI signings and info about what other teams need when making bids for players, but it doesn't seem yet that the right balance has been found to stop Scott Sinclair signings happening with exponentially higher frequency than IRL

[An Olive Branch]

The zoomed out views of your stadium before the match kicks off or restarts are fantastic - has something changed in a later patch to make them more noticeable? Or is it just you need to not have a mega-stadium to fully appreciate the view.

[iAlwaysWin]

I'm not of the opinion this is the case. In many cases the AI doesn't even give him a chance to 'perform or not' as you put it. I'm still suspicious that the AI largely buys players on reputation with not enough yet of a consideration of what they actually need. Of course there is some of that in game, as highlighted by recurring early AI signings and info about what other teams need when making bids for players, but it doesn't seem yet that the right balance has been found to stop Scott Sinclair signings happening with exponentially higher frequency than IRL

well from my experience the players always get a CHANCE, it may be 2 games or 20 games, the point is if he doesnt perform better than what they alrdy have then he will sit on the bench then eventually get moved on or dumped in the reserves, the ai just wants consistent performers, it doesnt rotate that much like a human manager, its perform and keep ur place or find the exit door.

[noikeee]

We had an excellent post in the tactics forum yesterday:

And I think that's a great cop-out. I'm a programmer, I know very well how stupidly difficult it is to get right something as complex as the FM engine; but statements like that apologize the problems instead of getting SI to try to fix them. If certain chances look easy in-game but underlying the ME are being calculated as difficult; then either calculate them as easy or make them look different graphically.

And I suspect the whole idea of "it's the graphics that don't represent it well" is 99% BS. The graphical ME is now more than mature enough to give it a bloody good perception to the user of what's going on, this isn't 2005 when you had blobs representing players and couldn't even see height or where were the players feet pointed at. You can now see when a player is being pressured by a defender and when he isn't; maybe they could improve a little the graphics of when a player is out of balance or not because we can't really spot that, but we're not far off that point neither. Right or wrong what happens in the graphics is what the user perceives, so I'd well advise SI to adjust the probability calculations to follow what's going on in the graphics, and not the other way around.

[Seb Wassell]

I'm not of the opinion this is the case. In many cases the AI doesn't even give him a chance to 'perform or not' as you put it. I'm still suspicious that the AI largely buys players on reputation with not enough yet of a consideration of what they actually need. Of course there is some of that in game, as highlighted by recurring early AI signings and info about what other teams need when making bids for players, but it doesn't seem yet that the right balance has been found to stop Scott Sinclair signings happening with exponentially higher frequency than IRL

In theory the AI should only buy a player that improves on the player currently performing that job, e.g. a superior backup DR to the current backup DR, or a superior first choice ST to the current first choice ST. Of course the way 'superior' is judged is subjective; both the human and AI have to rely on incomplete data here.

As ever these situations are not black and white, with many factors contributing to the decision to purchase a player. Not every transfer will be a success, as should be the case when compared to reality.

If you have any obvious examples of the AI making an illogical transfer please do head over here - http://community.sigames.com/forumdisplay.php/523-Transfers-Contracts-and-Scouting-Issues - and open up a post along with an uploaded save. The ideal save is before the AI becomes interested in the offending player. We are always interested in examples that may seem unrealistic.

Cheers,

Seb.

[HUNT3R]

And I think that's a great cop-out. I'm a programmer, I know very well how stupidly difficult it is to get right something as complex as the FM engine; but statements like that apologize the problems instead of getting SI to try to fix them. If certain chances look easy in-game but underlying the ME are being calculated as difficult; then either calculate them as easy or make them look different graphically.

And I suspect the whole idea of "it's the graphics that don't represent it well" is 99% BS. The graphical ME is now more than mature enough to give it a bloody good perception to the user of what's going on, this isn't 2005 when you had blobs representing players and couldn't even see height or where were the players feet pointed at. You can now see when a player is being pressured by a defender and when he isn't; maybe they could improve a little the graphics of when a player is out of balance or not because we can't really spot that, but we're not far off that point neither. Right or wrong what happens in the graphics is what the user perceives, so I'd well advise SI to adjust the probability calculations to follow what's going on in the graphics, and not the other way around.

The ME is the important factor in match calculations. It should be the most important and it is. The commentary, 2D and 3D is just trying to show these calculation, basically. It does a bloody good job, but as pointed out, there can be issues sometimes. CCC calculation hasn't been the best (and I can imagine is difficult to tell what is a CCC, HC or nothing chance with many factors involved) so that is why I asked for PKM examples of these so it can be improved.

[themadsheep2001]

The ME is the important factor in match calculations. It should be the most important and it is. The commentary, 2D and 3D is just trying to show these calculation, basically. It does a bloody good job, but as pointed out, there can be issues sometimes. CCC calculation hasn't been the best (and I can imagine is difficult to tell what is a CCC, HC or nothing chance with many factors involved) so that is why I asked for PKM examples of these so it can be improved.

This, and for the ME to follow the graphics, rather than the other way round as suggested, would be a frankly awful, awful idea. SI are taking the right path in continuing to improve the animations to go with the ME.

[King Costly]

And I think that's a great cop-out. I'm a programmer, I know very well how stupidly difficult it is to get right something as complex as the FM engine; but statements like that apologize the problems instead of getting SI to try to fix them. If certain chances look easy in-game but underlying the ME are being calculated as difficult; then either calculate them as easy or make them look different graphically.

And I suspect the whole idea of "it's the graphics that don't represent it well" is 99% BS. The graphical ME is now more than mature enough to give it a bloody good perception to the user of what's going on, this isn't 2005 when you had blobs representing players and couldn't even see height or where were the players feet pointed at. You can now see when a player is being pressured by a defender and when he isn't; maybe they could improve a little the graphics of when a player is out of balance or not because we can't really spot that, but we're not far off that point neither. Right or wrong what happens in the graphics is what the user perceives, so I'd well advise SI to adjust the probability calculations to follow what's going on in the graphics, and not the other way around.

I have to agree with what you've said and what you posted on the last page. The graphical representation on this game, considering it's 2016, is pretty shoddy.

That's why everybody is complaining about crosses - because they way they look in the engine (especially on 3D) is horrific and so unrealistic. Why are more goals from crosses scored via volleys rather than headers? It doesn't even look like you're watching football at times.

The 3D engine really hasn't improved a whole lot since it was introduced (in my opinion...) and as the above post says, it's a bit of a cop out to just say 'well, they're trying'. It's a shame because at the end of the day, the engine is the key part of the game. The features of this year's game are brilliant and the best so far but the limited progress made with the ME is frustrating and disappointing.

[themadsheep2001]

When the truth is seen as a cop out (ie improving graphics every year), there's little point in continuing.

There isn't a 3D Engine by the way. There's the match engine, and then there are the 3D and 2D graphics (and commentary only)

[Casual]

SI doing or claiming it did graphical improvements doesnt neccesserily mean that we as users see it and feel it while playing the game. Im sure theres a well thought answer ready for any user complaint you get same as im also sure the real truth is rarely an option when running a business and talking to consumers, but if similar problems and bugs repeatedly drag over the years its likely that the amount of complaints will increase accordingly.

Putting a hot dog stand next to a stadium might be a big improvement for someone, but if you play the game for 15+ years like some of us do, you really dont see nothing special in that. The level of graphical improvements and general improvements in FM16 has never been lower, and i stand by this claim as an experienced gamer, FM player and someone from IT business.

[themadsheep2001]

SI doing or claiming it did graphical improvements doesnt neccesserily mean that we as users see it and feel it while playing the game. Im sure theres a well thought answer ready for any user complaint you get same as im also sure the real truth is rarely an option when running a business and talking to consumers, but if similar problems and bugs repeatedly drag over the years its likely that the amount of complaints will increase accordingly.

Putting a hot dog stand next to a stadium might be a big improvement for someone, but if you play the game for 15+ years like some of us do, you really dont see nothing special in that. The level of graphical improvements and general improvements in FM16 has never been lower, and i stand by this claim as an experienced gamer, FM player and someone from IT business.

Literally wrong. The number of added animations, and I mean on the pitch, has never been higher. Doesnt mean they stop there, still more to be done.

And there's no claim. They did. And if you're going to allude they are being dishonest, you're in the wrong place, as you have been told before.

Im sure theres a well thought answer ready for any user complaint you get same as im also sure the real truth is rarely an option when running a business and talking to consumers

Posts like that are both misleading, rude and certainly not accepted here.

[Casual]

Literally wrong. The number of added animations, and I mean on the pitch, has never higher.

So how come i didnt notice this at all? Maybe ive gone blind from playing the game for so long, but my eye has seen more improvements from FM 14 to 15, than from 15 to 16. You can very easily counter this with the numbers you have, ive no doubt, but this is EXACTLY what i was pointing out in the previous post. If users dont notice these new animations and changes, like a lot of us hasnt it aint only me, than the quality of the changes is really questionable. Like the match statistics, shots on goal and numbers alone dont always mean much if they are not on point.

Instead of having 1 hot dog stand put behind the stadium, you couldve animated the crowd better. Or you could ve changed the game sounds for the first time since probably more than a decade. Put fan chants, banners... Customize the stadiums more to get the real football feel. Theres literally thousands of ideas that exist out there and both me and you know they are doable. If anyone wonders why the fans are looking through the "what couldve been done" glasses, the answer might be in a simple reason that were hungry of new features, and have been for a long time. Im not trying to bash the game, im just speaking the truth. Changing the menu positions, adding new press conference options or just graphicaly representing old textual features is not even a half full coffee spoon no more...

[themadsheep2001]

So how come i didnt notice this at all? Maybe ive gone blind from playing the game for so long, but my eye has seen more improvements from FM 14 to 15, than from 15 to 16. You can very easily counter this with the numbers you have, ive no doubt, but this is EXACTLY what i was pointing out in the previous post. If users dont notice these new animations and changes, like a lot of us hasnt it aint only me, than the quality of the changes is really questionable. Like the match statistics, shots on goal and numbers alone dont always mean much if they are not on point.

Instead of having 1 hot dog stand put behind the stadium, you couldve animated the crowd better. Or you could ve changed the game sounds for the first time since probably more than a decade. Put fan chants, banners... Customize the stadiums more to get the real football feel. Theres literally thousands of ideas that exist out there and both me and you know they are doable. If anyone wonders why the fans are looking through the "what couldve been done" glasses, the answer might be in a simple reason that were hungry of new features, and have been for a long time. Im not trying to bas the game, im just speaking the truth. Changing the menu positions, adding new press conference options or just graphicaly representing old textual features is not even a half full coffee spoon no more...

There's 1000's of things they can and want to do. They take time. All these things take time, more time than they have to do in one interation, and you have to make a choice and prioritise. For someone who works IT, you surely should know that. I'm surprised that someone who has been playing for that long doesn't realise they have feature lists running through for the next 3 FMs, and that's not counting anything that pops up during then.

Just because it didn't happen this time round, doesn't mean it wont happen. Just because they chose to add things different to your wants, doesn't make it wrong.

You can't actually put fan chants in, for legal reasons.

[HUNT3R]

So how come i didnt notice this at all? Maybe ive gone blind from playing the game for so long, but my eye has seen more improvements from FM 14 to 15, than from 15 to 16. You can very easily counter this with the numbers you have, ive no doubt, but this is EXACTLY what i was pointing out in the previous post. If users dont notice these new animations and changes, like a lot of us hasnt it aint only me, than the quality of the changes is really questionable. Like the match statistics, shots on goal and numbers alone dont always mean much if they are not on point.

Instead of having 1 hot dog stand put behind the stadium, you couldve animated the crowd better. Or you could ve changed the game sounds for the first time since probably more than a decade. Put fan chants, banners... Customize the stadiums more to get the real football feel. Theres literally thousands of ideas that exist out there and both me and you know they are doable. If anyone wonders why the fans are looking through the "what couldve been done" glasses, the answer might be in a simple reason that were hungry of new features, and have been for a long time. Im not trying to bash the game, im just speaking the truth. Changing the menu positions, adding new press conference options or just graphicaly representing old textual features is not even a half full coffee spoon no more...

1 - It's not hard to look at FM15 and then at FM16. Quite a lot of animations were added. Look at how players stop the ball. Look at the different passing animations. The different shooting animations.

2 - The hot dog stand (actually, burger van ) took 1 guy a total of 2 hours. Compare that to what you suggested. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[Casual]

There's 1000's of things they can and want to do. They take time. All these things take time, more time than they have to do in one interation, and you have to make a choice and prioritise. For someone who works IT, you surely should know that. I'm surprised that someone who has been playing for that long doesn't realise they have feature lists running through for the next 3 FMs, and that's not counting anything that pops up during then.

Just because it didn't happen this time round, doesn't mean it wont happen. Just because they chose to add things different to your wants, doesn't make it wrong.

You can't actually put fan chants in, for legal reasons.

Im sure there will always be more improvements, and im sure the game is theoretically better every year, but the level of REAL value we get as users has been less and less. Im sure that the game will generally continue raising its overall numbers of animations and improvements, but with the given tempo in last few versions I might not live to see many things i expected to, even though im only 29.

I didnt know chants are not legally possible to do? I mean they chants that came from the folk... its not that the Ultras groups have put a copyright on them. There must be a way.

[themadsheep2001]

Im sure there will always be more improvements, and im sure the game is theoretically better every year, but the level of REAL value we get as users has been less and less. Im sure that the game will generally continue raising its overall numbers of animations and improvements, but with the given tempo in last few versions I might not live to see many things i expected to, even though im only 29.

I didnt know chants are not legally possible to do? I mean they chants that came from the folk... its not that the Ultras or anyone groups have put a copyright on them. There must be a way.

I certainly don't think you can judge value for anyone but yourself. You certainly couldn't speak for me as a user. Also define real. How is visible added animations not real? Just because it's not what you want, doesn't make them false.

Fan chants often come from real tunes, which have copy rights. Then there are legal connotations of whats been sung.

[Casual]

The hot dog stand (actually, burger van ) took 1 guy a total of 2 hours. Compare that to what you suggested. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I do realize that including a static burger stand png is something that can be done in an hour or two, but i alsovery well remember that SI advertised this burger stand point as a new feature in every pre-game presentation out there. Im only mentioning it because its indicative of how much we get, meaning if there were other big graphical impovements that bloody stand would never be mentioned because it would be shameful to do so.

[themadsheep2001]

I do realize that including a static burger stand png is something that can be done in an hour or two, but i alsovery well remember that SI advertised this burger stand point as a new feature in every pre-game presentation out there. Im only mentioning it because its indicative of how much we get, meaning if there were other big graphical impovements that bloody stand would never be mentioned because it would be shameful to do so.

It was mentioned because it was a funny little thing, and actually, oddly quite asked for. They made quite a big deal of the on pitch animations. It's actually not indicative of anything. You've extrapolated a lot from one burger van.

[Casual]

I certainly don't think you can judge value for anyone but yourself. You certainly couldn't speak for me as a user. Also define real. How is visible added animations not real? Just because it's not what you want, doesn't make them false.

Fan chants often come from real tunes, which have copy rights. Then there are legal connotations of whats been sung.

Although i see hundreds of people complaining because of the same thing every year on different boards and communities, yeah youre right that on here i can only speak for myself and my mates that agree with me. Im just saying what are our impressions, we dont see and feel these new animations or ME changes that make a big difference. We dont feel the other improvements as well, and we all agree that we couldve just updated FM 15 with new transfers instead of buying the new game thats never been closer to a data update. The game doesnt suck, its still fun to play, but right now were talking about added value and do we actually feel the DIFFERENCE. So these are my (our) 2 cents and FM 16 feedback.

[Svenc]

There's the match engine, and then there are the 3D and 2D graphics (and commentary only)

The think I partly don't like about statements like these is that it is promoting and fueling the ill-found idea that the former and the latter were two completely disconnected entities when the "match view/er" follows things second by second, move by move, much the same way as in any other video game of football. I.e. see King Costly's assessment of crosses and in parts noikee's posts. If what Costly's witnessing is a higher-than-should-be number of goals scored from volleyed crosses (rather than headers) it's not the result of the 2d or 3d graphics drumming up a rough estimation of "under the hood calculations" (i.e. "cross connects and finds the net), it's because that's what would be happening, including on and off the ball positioning of all players, the cross and the perfect volleys rather than headers (whether that be true I cannot tell, not an FM 2016 player).

It would be a result of overpowered crosses and super powered first touches rather than of arbitrary sequences shown to a player. This is theory that I think dates back to glitches more common in older iterations, such as for instance two players competing for a lose ball, and the favourite to pick it up seemingly artificially slowing down. This was badly theorized to show that it had been calculated that despite their starting position, player Unfavoured To Get There would get to the ball regardless instead. Things were a tad more complicated than that. Every computer game in the end visualizes computerized football, Fifa etc. are no different for the player. If they wouldn't visualize, all you'd see is a blank screen. FM optionally lets you watch things optionally in 3d, 2d or just by text commentary. Else there is no reason to promote that everything "would be just a representation" and should not at all be taken serious.

The issue with the CCC statistics, whilst somewhat connected, is something else entirely. Firstly there is the misconception that CCCs (as by Opta standards) would be like sitters. They aren't. They're at best representing finishes that are more reasonably expected to be converted than your average, let's say about at a rate of 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 (the Opta CCCs on average are typically converted at a rate of about 33%, actually). No team in the world has ever needed a single Opta clear-cut to thrash their opposition 7-0. The second issue is within the definition in a computer program, and that in FM it's a computer algorithm trying to judge what actually fits the bill or what doesn't. Even to the untrained eye it is apparent that FM just as any video game on the sports produces all kinds of different finished from different angles, different assists, ranges, with the shot applied under no pressure or in a packed box. Naturally you can enter as many parameters you like, in the end the stats algorithm will pick up on stuff that rather isn't and vice versa. That's not because the sequence of play hasn't happened "genuine", it's because quality and truly accurate analysis can't be possibly broken down to a couple of computer parameters.

Therefore the "shot on target" stat will be always more accurate, as it's a very simple thing, either a shot was on target or off. One curious thing I was never aware of until somebody pointed it out on a forum for instance is that no header finish was ever picked up as a CCC, at least up until FM 2015 at the very least. It seems as one possible parameter headers were not on the check list to fulfill outright for the stat algorithm to pick up on it and add +1 to the statistics.

[themadsheep2001]

The think I partly don't like about statements like these is that it is promoting and fueling the ill-found idea that the former and the latter were two completely disconnected entities when the "match view/er" follows things second by second, move by move, much the same way as in any other video game of football. I.e. see King Costly's assessment of crosses and in parts noikee's posts. If what Costly's witnessing is a higher-than-should-be number of goals scored from volleyed crosses (rather than headers) it's not the result of the 2d or 3d graphics drumming up a rough estimation of "under the hood calculations" (i.e. "cross connects and finds the net), it's because that's what would be happening, including on and off the ball positioning of all players, the cross and the perfect volleys rather than headers (whether that be true I cannot tell, not an FM 2016 player).

It would be a result of overpowered crosses and super powered first touches rather than of arbitrary sequences shown to a player. This is theory that I think dates back to glitches more common in older iterations, such as for instance two players competing for a lose ball, and the favourite to pick it up seemingly artificially slowing down. This was badly theorized to show that it had been calculated that despite their starting position, player Unfavoured To Get There would get to the ball regardless instead. Things were a tad more complicated than that. Every computer game in the end visualizes computerized football, Fifa etc. are no different for the player. If they wouldn't visualize, all you'd see is a blank screen. FM optionally lets you watch things optionally in 3d, 2d or just by text commentary. Else there is no reason to promote that everything "would be just a representation" and should not at all be taken serious.

The issue with the CCC statistics, whilst somewhat connected, is something else entirely. Firstly there is the misconception that CCCs (as by Opta standards) would be like sitters. They aren't. They're at best representing finishes that are more reasonably expected to be converted than your average, let's say about at a rate of 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 (the Opta CCCs on average are typically converted at a rate of about 33%, actually). No team in the world has ever needed a single Opta clear-cut to thrash their opposition 7-0. The second issue is within the definition in a computer program, and that in FM it's a computer algorithm trying to judge what actually fits the bill or what doesn't. Even to the untrained eye it is apparent that FM just as any video game on the sports produces all kinds of different finished from different angles, different assists, ranges, with the shot applied under no pressure or in a packed box. Naturally you can enter as many parameters you like, in the end the stats algorithm will pick up on stuff that rather isn't and vice versa. That's not because the sequence of play hasn't happened "genuine", it's because quality and truly accurate analysis can't be possibly broken down to a couple of computer parameters.

Therefore the "shot on target" stat will be always more accurate, as it's a very simple thing, either a shot was on target or off. One curious thing I was never aware of until somebody pointed it out on a forum for instance is that no header finish was ever picked up as a CCC, at least up until FM 2015 at the very least. It seems as one possible parameter headers were not on the check list to fulfill outright for the stat algorithm to pick up on it and add +1 to the statistics.

They are two separate but connected entities, but my point was to show they are not the same thing, but indeed they are a relationship.

As for CCCs, I hate the stat. It's a subjective interpretation of an already subjective stat, that is used as gospel.

I've noticed that about headers too.

[Mr U Rosler]

Must admit I’m losing interest in this year’s game, which is unheard of for me.

Can’t quite put my finger on it but a bit of the old ‘magic’ seems to be missing, I’ve moved up the leagues in my usual manner but in most games teams seems so evenly matched it comes down to who has the luck in front of goal to scrape a narrow 1 goal victory.

Sometimes it’s like watching 2 teams both managed by Louis Van Gaal play each other, a boring stalemate.

A priority this year seems to be keeping a lid on goal scoring, at all costs, so the stats are realistic.

Congrats on that, makes for a pretty dull game though.

Bugs that mean I’ve been playing in front of crowds of 5,000 in the Premier League for 4 years as my board refuse to upgrade or build a new stadium doesn’t help and breaks the immersion.

Maybe I’m just getting a bit long in the tooth for this now.

[themadsheep2001]

Must admit I’m losing interest in this year’s game, which is unheard of for me.

Can’t quite put my finger on it but a bit of the old ‘magic’ seems to be missing, I’ve moved up the leagues in my usual manner but in most games teams seems so evenly matched it comes down to who has the luck in front of goal to scrape a narrow 1 goal victory.

Sometimes it’s like watching 2 teams both managed by Louis Van Gaal play each other, a boring stalemate.

A priority this year seems to be keeping a lid on goal scoring, at all costs, so the stats are realistic.

Congrats on that, makes for a pretty dull game though.

Bugs that mean I’ve been playing in front of crowds of 5,000 in the Premier League for 4 years as my board refuse to upgrade or build a new stadium doesn’t help and breaks the immersion.

Maybe I’m just getting a bit long in the tooth for this now.

Seems to be the same old myths going round atm, the bold just isnt true.

[HUNT3R]

I do realize that including a static burger stand png is something that can be done in an hour or two, but i alsovery well remember that SI advertised this burger stand point as a new feature in every pre-game presentation out there. Im only mentioning it because its indicative of how much we get, meaning if there were other big graphical impovements that bloody stand would never be mentioned because it would be shameful to do so.

To add to what themadsheep said, Miles himself said it was purely to show the level of detail that goes into the game.

[andu1]

Seems to be the same old myths going round atm, the bold just isnt true.

I guess some people were enjoying thrashing every team 7-0 in FM 15( which was the easiest FM i played).

Maybe the gap in difficulty between FM 15 and FM 16 is a bit too large for casual players, but the fault is that FM 15 was waaaay to easy.

[qwerty22]

Must admit I’m losing interest in this year’s game, which is unheard of for me.

Can’t quite put my finger on it but a bit of the old ‘magic’ seems to be missing, I’ve moved up the leagues in my usual manner but in most games teams seems so evenly matched it comes down to who has the luck in front of goal to scrape a narrow 1 goal victory.

Sometimes it’s like watching 2 teams both managed by Louis Van Gaal play each other, a boring stalemate.

A priority this year seems to be keeping a lid on goal scoring, at all costs, so the stats are realistic.

Congrats on that, makes for a pretty dull game though.

Bugs that mean I’ve been playing in front of crowds of 5,000 in the Premier League for 4 years as my board refuse to upgrade or build a new stadium doesn’t help and breaks the immersion.

Maybe I’m just getting a bit long in the tooth for this now.

No individualism in teams, players or tactics that shows on the ME. You choose a playing style and invest time in perfecting it all to be faced with the sad reality of the same goal scored over and over again.

Last year it was every game ending with a cricket score line and around 70 shots, The question here is are we at the stage where SI just tries to plug specific holes in the ME just like EA SPORTS do with FIFA? and on the long run you end up with no progress at all if not worse iterations?

When the sliders went out of the game, the idea was to take control off the users and force them into an on-rails scenarios for games. On FM 2008 tactics I could do things that I cannot do anymore regarding player positioning or team shape rendering all these bells and whistles to be just a gimmick.

It's depressing when you see the goals scored by other users, It's either a crossed goal tapped in or the old flakey cross where (oh he didn't mean it) line pops out.

I know we're getting close to the OH IT'S JUST A GAME stage but I owe it to this game to continue supporting SI with proper feedback and discussions.

IF you scroll up and read how some of the usual militiant defenders of the game treat any other opinion with disrespect and ridicule, While we know that they have no proper answers to most issues then you'll see why the game isn't improving.

When someone lies about their game having no issues with crosses then posting a screenshot that proves them wrong it's beyond a joke, Or answering someone with the classic reply YOU ARE WRONG which was used when we complained about high scorelines last year. This year there are no high scorelines, Did SI get it wrong then? or does your FM 2016 game still have 7-6 matches?

Positive feedback doesn't mean that you can dismiss what you want coz everyone is entitled to their opinions.

[Guest]

No individualism in teams, players or tactics that shows on the ME. You choose a playing style and invest time in perfecting it all to be faced with the sad reality of the same goal scored over and over again.

Last year it was every game ending with a cricket score line and around 70 shots, The question here is are we at the stage where SI just tries to plug specific holes in the ME just like EA SPORTS do with FIFA? and on the long run you end up with no progress at all if not worse iterations?

When the sliders went out of the game, the idea was to take control off the users and force them into an on-rails scenarios for games. On FM 2008 tactics I could do things that I cannot do anymore regarding player positioning or team shape rendering all these bells and whistles to be just a gimmick.

It's depressing when you see the goals scored by other users, It's either a crossed goal tapped in or the old flakey cross where (oh he didn't mean it) line pops out.

I know we're getting close to the OH IT'S JUST A GAME stage but I owe it to this game to continue supporting SI with proper feedback and discussions.

IF you scroll up and read how some of the usual militiant defenders of the game treat any other opinion with disrespect and ridicule, While we know that they have no proper answers to most issues then you'll see why the game isn't improving.

When someone lies about their game having no issues with crosses then posting a screenshot that proves them wrong it's beyond a joke, Or answering someone with the classic reply YOU ARE WRONG which was used when we complained about high scorelines last year. This year there are no high scorelines, Did SI get it wrong then? or does your FM 2016 game still have 7-6 matches?

Positive feedback doesn't mean that you can dismiss what you want coz everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Part I've highlight just isn't true, people who blindly praise FM have the same level of influence on SI as those who slag it of without offering any constructive feedback, we (mods) also take people to task if they are just having a dig at another user who is being critical of FM.

I agree with you about they way people will lie about or exaggerate their own experience as that offers no help to other users or SI & it happens at both ends of the praise/criticise scale.

[noikeee]

The ME is the important factor in match calculations. It should be the most important and it is. The commentary, 2D and 3D is just trying to show these calculation, basically. It does a bloody good job, but as pointed out, there can be issues sometimes. CCC calculation hasn't been the best (and I can imagine is difficult to tell what is a CCC, HC or nothing chance with many factors involved) so that is why I asked for PKM examples of these so it can be improved.

This, and for the ME to follow the graphics, rather than the other way round as suggested, would be a frankly awful, awful idea. SI are taking the right path in continuing to improve the animations to go with the ME.

I think you guys misunderstood what I was trying to say, and I didn't explain myself well neither. Svenc kinda did that for me but I'd like to try to elaborate.

For a start let's put the issue of CCCs aside, I really don't care about it. Well it's a useful stat that can be pretty interesting, and I'd rather have it calculated well than not if possible, but I'm much more interested in the outcome of plays, not whether it's arbitrarily considered a "clear chance" or not.

Now, my background on this is the crosses issue. There's a **** ton of goals crossed to the far post tapped-in first time, and I can easily present that with a few PKMs. It's also backed up by disproportionate high ratings I've experienced for every full-back on attacking roles. That can all be proved in a fairly straightforward way. Now, it stands to reason that if there's too many goals coming in from this avenue, and the overall number of goals in the match engine seems correct, some other type of goals must be missing. This is the main problem for me. I have a feeling that something's not right, not well balanced, but it's much harder to make an obvious case for it. Is it that players aren't scoring enough from OTHER types of crosses (ie headers)? Is it that there's not enough quality passing through the middle? Is it that marking and general defending is too good through the middle? Are forwards missing too many easy chances down the ground? Or even harder to prove, are forwards missing too many DIFFICULT chances down the ground? (good luck submitting PKMs to demonstrate they're only scoring 10% when they should be scoring 15%). It could even be that every single one of these things are wrong but only by a minor amount, and you only need to marginally improve the odds of all these kinds of goals.

Not only it's hard to prove, but some clever people have found tactical setups that enable them to not depend on crossed goals at all and still win. This further muddles discussion, because it allows people to dismiss concerns as rubbish, but what I said still holds true. Whatever happens on their game can happen, but in my game I'm still experiencing too many far-post cross goals (scored and conceded); and if there's too many goals from one path, some other goals must be missing. Perhaps if these issues were fixed, these clever people would be even more successful?! Or maybe they're just managed to hit all of the other types of goals that are well balanced, and don't rely on the kinds of goals that are missing.

But I've gone on a (massive) tangent, let's go back to the match engine. It's true that the match engine team at SI can't exactly wait for the 3D guys to finish all the animations, for only then to start working. That would be ridiculous. It is indeed the core part that lies underneath everything else. However by definition the ME will have a lot of mathematical variables that only makes sense for 3D, because it's the only way it can simulate something this complex. We know that calculations are done every 1/8th of a second, therefore the ME will have a very precise X and Y position for each player in each 1/8th second; as well as at which height is he jumping, how balanced will he be in this split-second, how much speed does he carry if he's running, which angled direction are his feet pointing at. These are very physical things, that exist at the purely mathematical level of the ME independent of the 3D, because they need it to calculate how easy it is to pull off a pass, to where should a player run, etc; but only make the most sense in the 3D view of things. 2D can represent it but in a limited fashion; and commentary doesn't give you absolutely any of this info at all.

Let's go back to the ME issues - let's assume the whole, only issue (besides crosses) is that players who try to shoot under pressure aren't accurate enough with their finish (I'm not 100% convinced this is the case, but it could be). The only way I can see the 3D possibly misrepresenting this is that the players are lacking balance but the animations don't show it. But if they NEVER score under pressure, doesn't this mean the ME is wrong to process every single one of these opportunities as too difficult to score because the players lose balance too easily? This isn't a graphical problem, at least not strictly one. Please realize that the current graphical layer has tons of separate animations for tons of different scenarios. It won't represent a header as a volley, there's separate animations for that. It won't represent a control-the-ball-then-shoot move as a first-time shot, there's separate animations for that. It won't represent a player under no pressure when actually a defender is on top of him, because both the ME and the graphics have a precise X and Y position for the player; and I haven't seen any "ghosting" between animations to make up for a wrongly positioned player in ages. The graphical animations layer is all very sophisticated and versatile. So why exactly are we wasting SI's time apologizing for ME issues, by saying they're "misrepresented by the graphics", save for the occasional glaring graphical bug?

Jesus, I wrote too much.

[janesy20]

Must admit I’m losing interest in this year’s game, which is unheard of for me.

Can’t quite put my finger on it but a bit of the old ‘magic’ seems to be missing, I’ve moved up the leagues in my usual manner but in most games teams seems so evenly matched it comes down to who has the luck in front of goal to scrape a narrow 1 goal victory.

Sometimes it’s like watching 2 teams both managed by Louis Van Gaal play each other, a boring stalemate.

A priority this year seems to be keeping a lid on goal scoring, at all costs, so the stats are realistic.

Congrats on that, makes for a pretty dull game though.

Bugs that mean I’ve been playing in front of crowds of 5,000 in the Premier League for 4 years as my board refuse to upgrade or build a new stadium doesn’t help and breaks the immersion.

Maybe I’m just getting a bit long in the tooth for this now.

This is what frustrates me, I see alot of people suggesting reasons their tactics not working properly. If you play anything other than 4-1-4-1 then it's an automatic reply of 'you're leaving yourself too exposed on the wings' Attacking tactics are punished heavily regardless of which team you play as whether it's the best team in the league or worst. I spend nearly the entirety of my game attempting to prevent AI crosses and if I score I've no idea why or how it happened because I've been too focussed on trying not to be punished. Don't get me wrong, I'm not doing horrendously I'm doing ok, as has been said the gulf between the level of difficulty between fm15 and fm16 is too far and it's a bit of a farce at times. I'm just hoping SI release the next update and manage to make it considerably better as they have managed to in the previous few versions, I have faith that they know where they're heading and provided this patch isn't too long off coming then I think we can all get back to enjoying fm16!

[HUNT3R]

This is what frustrates me, I see alot of people suggesting reasons their tactics not working properly. If you play anything other than 4-1-4-1 then it's an automatic reply of 'you're leaving yourself too exposed on the wings' Attacking tactics are punished heavily regardless of which team you play as whether it's the best team in the league or worst. I spend nearly the entirety of my game attempting to prevent AI crosses and if I score I've no idea why or how it happened because I've been too focussed on trying not to be punished. Don't get me wrong, I'm not doing horrendously I'm doing ok, as has been said the gulf between the level of difficulty between fm15 and fm16 is too far and it's a bit of a farce at times. I'm just hoping SI release the next update and manage to make it considerably better as they have managed to in the previous few versions, I have faith that they know where they're heading and provided this patch isn't too long off coming then I think we can all get back to enjoying fm16!

You're making wild assumptions here. I'm playing a 442 narrow diamond (so not the best formation to defend the wings) and I'm top of the league with a team predicted to be 5th. I'm having no issues with crosses and I'm getting goals from through balls, dribbles and crosses. Formations are a small part of it. How you set up within it, is more important.

[janesy20]

You're making wild assumptions here. I'm playing a 442 narrow diamond (so not the best formation to defend the wings) and I'm top of the league with a team predicted to be 5th. I'm having no issues with crosses and I'm getting goals from through balls, dribbles and crosses. Formations are a small part of it. How you set up within it, is more important.

That's nice for you, but in return you're making an assumption that everything is ok in the game just because you are fine. A tactic with two full backs on support and two wide midfielder should not really have the majority of goals conceded coming from crosses, or should they?

[HUNT3R]

That's nice for you, but in return you're making an assumption that everything is ok in the game just because you are fine. A tactic with two full backs on support and two wide midfielder should not really have the majority of goals conceded coming from crosses, or should they?

I haven't made any assumptions. I just said I'm not having issues so it isn't universal. As said, it will depend how you set up within the tactic.

[Cougar2010]

That's nice for you, but in return you're making an assumption that everything is ok in the game just because you are fine. A tactic with two full backs on support and two wide midfielder should not really have the majority of goals conceded coming from crosses, or should they?

What % of goals do you expect coming from crosses?

Whats an acceptable %?

A quick look on google gives you this analysis of the 2012 European Championships: http://thesportjournal.org/article/analysis-of-goal-scoring-patterns-in-the-2012-european-football-championship/

The relevant part is in the first summary:

Most goals were scored after a cross (43.7%)

Now thats just one analysis of one real life tournament but it implies that most goals in football come from crosses as opposed to any other way.

[themadsheep2001]

I think you guys misunderstood what I was trying to say, and I didn't explain myself well neither. Svenc kinda did that for me but I'd like to try to elaborate.

For a start let's put the issue of CCCs aside, I really don't care about it. Well it's a useful stat that can be pretty interesting, and I'd rather have it calculated well than not if possible, but I'm much more interested in the outcome of plays, not whether it's arbitrarily considered a "clear chance" or not.

Now, my background on this is the crosses issue. There's a **** ton of goals crossed to the far post tapped-in first time, and I can easily present that with a few PKMs. It's also backed up by disproportionate high ratings I've experienced for every full-back on attacking roles. That can all be proved in a fairly straightforward way. Now, it stands to reason that if there's too many goals coming in from this avenue, and the overall number of goals in the match engine seems correct, some other type of goals must be missing. This is the main problem for me. I have a feeling that something's not right, not well balanced, but it's much harder to make an obvious case for it. Is it that players aren't scoring enough from OTHER types of crosses (ie headers)? Is it that there's not enough quality passing through the middle? Is it that marking and general defending is too good through the middle? Are forwards missing too many easy chances down the ground? Or even harder to prove, are forwards missing too many DIFFICULT chances down the ground? (good luck submitting PKMs to demonstrate they're only scoring 10% when they should be scoring 15%). It could even be that every single one of these things are wrong but only by a minor amount, and you only need to marginally improve the odds of all these kinds of goals.

Not only it's hard to prove, but some clever people have found tactical setups that enable them to not depend on crossed goals at all and still win. This further muddles discussion, because it allows people to dismiss concerns as rubbish, but what I said still holds true. Whatever happens on their game can happen, but in my game I'm still experiencing too many far-post cross goals (scored and conceded); and if there's too many goals from one path, some other goals must be missing. Perhaps if these issues were fixed, these clever people would be even more successful?! Or maybe they're just managed to hit all of the other types of goals that are well balanced, and don't rely on the kinds of goals that are missing.

But I've gone on a (massive) tangent, let's go back to the match engine. It's true that the match engine team at SI can't exactly wait for the 3D guys to finish all the animations, for only then to start working. That would be ridiculous. It is indeed the core part that lies underneath everything else. However by definition the ME will have a lot of mathematical variables that only makes sense for 3D, because it's the only way it can simulate something this complex. We know that calculations are done every 1/8th of a second, therefore the ME will have a very precise X and Y position for each player in each 1/8th second; as well as at which height is he jumping, how balanced will he be in this split-second, how much speed does he carry if he's running, which angled direction are his feet pointing at. These are very physical things, that exist at the purely mathematical level of the ME independent of the 3D, because they need it to calculate how easy it is to pull off a pass, to where should a player run, etc; but only make the most sense in the 3D view of things. 2D can represent it but in a limited fashion; and commentary doesn't give you absolutely any of this info at all.

Let's go back to the ME issues - let's assume the whole, only issue (besides crosses) is that players who try to shoot under pressure aren't accurate enough with their finish (I'm not 100% convinced this is the case, but it could be). The only way I can see the 3D possibly misrepresenting this is that the players are lacking balance but the animations don't show it. But if they NEVER score under pressure, doesn't this mean the ME is wrong to process every single one of these opportunities as too difficult to score because the players lose balance too easily? This isn't a graphical problem, at least not strictly one. Please realize that the current graphical layer has tons of separate animations for tons of different scenarios. It won't represent a header as a volley, there's separate animations for that. It won't represent a control-the-ball-then-shoot move as a first-time shot, there's separate animations for that. It won't represent a player under no pressure when actually a defender is on top of him, because both the ME and the graphics have a precise X and Y position for the player; and I haven't seen any "ghosting" between animations to make up for a wrongly positioned player in ages. The graphical animations layer is all very sophisticated and versatile. So why exactly are we wasting SI's time apologizing for ME issues, by saying they're "misrepresented by the graphics", save for the occasional glaring graphical bug?

Jesus, I wrote too much.

No one is apologising for anything, with respect, that's a nonsense thing to say. I'll be honest, the minute people start throwing that around, I rapidly lose interest in the rest of what they have to say.

And by and large it will (but certainly not always) be graphical, because the graphics ARE still catching up with the ME. That's not to say that there are not things that can be improved in the ME, and not one person has ever said otherwise.