Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Neil Brock

Football Manager 2016 16.3.0 Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

I'm at work now so can't try the new update but for us unlucky people does anyone actually have an feedback on playing the new update?

More actual feedback on the game rather than the changelist would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's hilarious? You guys had all this extra time to cover the Chinese Super League transfers (since you dind't change the match engine) and you didn't even TOUCH Serie A. Didn't even TOUCH the squads. Nocerino is still at Milan for fks sakes - let alone Donnarumma starting in u18s and Bonaventura being a big chunk of garbage stats wise. That's some feedback for you - this is football manager not EPL/Russian League/Chinese League manager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a quick look at the data update. Noticed two notable missed transfers, one of each of two clubs I like to manage. That wasn't encouraging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And SI isn't doing that. They do however need to balance the ME overall. Plugging one specific exploit could have opened a million more or unbalanced the engine far more. Who knows? Just because it's not fixed right now, this second and this instant, doesn't mean it's not getting looked at and getting fixed for future.

Makes one wonder why I even should bother to buy the game when there are clear issues that are not fixable and will not be patched anymore and might be fixed in the next game? Or why I bought this version of the game.

Maybe Si should change the sale model to a subscription based one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally dont see any crossing issue in my matches but that doesnt mean they arent there. I think the issue with some people is that they think the ME is a "push this button and fix this" sort of thing when really its sort of like a human body in the sense that one thing is tied to another, etc. Lets say they adjusted crosses and 2 other things were threw out of whack... These same people who are over the top about crosses would be posting how they turned the ME to crap.

Thanks for the positional training fix, was annoying me .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what's hilarious? You guys had all this extra time to cover the Chinese Super League transfers (since you dind't change the match engine) and you didn't even TOUCH Serie A. Didn't even TOUCH the squads. Nocerino is still at Milan for fks sakes - let alone Donnarumma starting in u18s and Bonaventura being a big chunk of garbage stats wise. That's some feedback for you - this is football manager not EPL/Russian League/Chinese League manager
<swearing. -="" let="" alone="" donnarumma="" starting="" in="" u18s="" and="" bonaventura="" being="" a="" big="" chunk="" of="" garbage="" stats="" wise.="" that's="" some="" feedback="" for="" you="" this="" is="" football="" manager="" not="" epl="" russian="" league="" chinese="" manager[="" quote]

Are you basing this from playing on the new code or the changelist & other comments on the changelist?.

PS - do not circumvent the sweat filter, first & final warning on that</swearing.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think it's uncharacteristically long?

Those saying they don't have problems are merely providing a counter argument... if they aren't seeing issues, why do you think that is?

Eh, I somehow convinced myself that in previous years final patches were typically released in mid-February, but I actually went back and checked and saw that I was wrong, so disregard that comment.

As for the "change your tactics" argument - I disagree because one of FM's (and football's) strong points is that it allows people to employ various tactical approaches and still be successful. I stopped playing this year's edition because my preferred tactic (and apparently the tactic used by the AI in the league I manage in) leads to really boring matches where the majority of highlights show a full-back overlapping on the wing and putting in a cross to the back post. It's all well and good if some people don't experience that problem in their games, but others do, as documented in multiple posts in the feedback thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just kind of disappointed that we had to wait uncharacteristically long for the patch and the hottest issue with game hasn't even been touched. I'm also disappointed that some people choose to handwave the issue away by saying "it doesn't happen to me, so there is no problem/it's your tactics". It's obviously not the end of the world, still it's disappointing to see, because in my opinion it doesn't bode well for the state of the game in the long run.

Its a massive disappointment, I am normally not the person to be extremely annoyed by issues such as these and I understand that the match engine is mostly balancing that might never be 100% perfect but nearly every fm version was very playable and balanced after the 3rd patch .

But to not even touch the issue at all in the last patch after such a long time is just not understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've conceded from 7 corners in my last 30 league games. :(

Scored 1! :D

My team isn't the tallest though. Base it on what you actually see, not what you're guessing about the update. You're blaming the game when you can make changes yourself too.

Um read my post .... Its the game if the opposition dont score either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um read my post .... Its the game if the opposition dont score either

Um.. read mine. They do. It's not a universal problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh, I somehow convinced myself that in previous years final patches were typically released in mid-February, but I actually went back and checked and saw that I was wrong, so disregard that comment.

As for the "change your tactics" argument - I disagree because one of FM's (and football's) strong points is that it allows people to employ various tactical approaches and still be successful. I stopped playing this year's edition because my preferred tactic (and apparently the tactic used by the AI in the league I manage in) leads to really boring matches where the majority of highlights show a full-back overlapping on the wing and putting in a cross to the back post. It's all well and good if some people don't experience that problem in their games, but others do, as documented in multiple posts in the feedback thread.

What's the real life football like in that league? Could it be as boring as you perceive it to be in FM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a massive disappointment, I am normally not the person to be extremely annoyed by issues such as these and I understand that the match engine is mostly balancing that might never be 100% perfect but nearly every fm version was very playable and balanced after the 3rd patch .

But to not even touch the issue at all in the last patch after such a long time is just not understandable.

For all you & I know SI spent the last 3 months trying all manner of changes to address issues raised in the ME bugs forum, just because there is no official announcement that an issue has been satisfactorily address it does not mean SI did not spend time on the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes one wonder why I even should bother to buy the game when there are clear issues that are not fixable and will not be patched anymore and might be fixed in the next game? Or why I bought this version of the game.

Maybe Si should change the sale model to a subscription based one.

You do understand that there will be "issues", bugs and flaws in every FM game you buy, don't you? Fixing things in software is an ongoing, never ending process. What don't get fixed now, will get fixed somewhere down the line, if it's at all fixable. And with something as complex as the FM match engine, instant fixes that don't screw up things elsewhere is a rarity. Also, it's a balancing act. You may not agree with the balance, but others do, and you'll just have to go with the flow if you want to enjoy the game. If it's so bad for you that you don't enjoy the game at all - then don't play it. If you enjoy it enough to want to continue playing it, then adjust your tactics to minimize any issues you might have, while you wait for your perfectly balanced match engine. Just remember that your perfect balance might be my totally unbalanced one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes one wonder why I even should bother to buy the game when there are clear issues that are not fixable and will not be patched anymore and might be fixed in the next game? Or why I bought this version of the game.

Maybe Si should change the sale model to a subscription based one.

So don't. It's no different to any other product. If I don't like a drink, but the makers say "don't worry, we're making it better", I wouldn't keep buying it and saying how terrible it was each time. I'd probably try it, maybe through some kind of free demonstration or something (where did I get that example from?) and then only buy it again once I thought I'd enjoy it. Exercise my consumer choice.

And why exactly would giving them x amount per month make you happier than paying a lump sum once a year? A relatively tiny lump sum as well, compared to most AAA console games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So don't. It's no different to any other product. If I don't like a drink, but the makers say "don't worry, we're making it better", I wouldn't keep buying it and saying how terrible it was each time. I'd probably try it, maybe through some kind of free demonstration or something (where did I get that example from?).

And why exactly would giving them x amount per month make you happier than paying a lump sum once a year? A relatively tiny lump sum as well, compared to most triple AAA console games.

Someone of mods said that analogies should be banned.

From your analogy I could say that if there's only one kind of drink that we like, and it was good before, but now the quality of the product dropped, we should just stop buying it, or should we ask the producer to raise the quality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's better? Not touching the crossing issue at all (which may or may not be the case, but is edging towards the former), or touching it so that crossing may be improved, but other aspects of the ME become immeasurably worse?

I would say considering how long we have had broken crosses for that having the ME unbalanced in a different way (even if it was to a greater extent) would be preferable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For all you & I know SI spent the last 3 months trying all manner of changes to address issues raised in the ME bugs forum, just because there is no official announcement that an issue has been satisfactorily address it does not mean SI did not spend time on the problem.

So spending time on the problem and ultimately failing to do anything should be satisfactory? Also its hardly and on off thing but a balancing issue that involves multiple parts, there is no reason why rebalancing could not be pushed out more frequently instead of using the 3 major patch schedule. Steam makes it possible to push updates effortlessly.

Maybe they spend time on the issue and did not manage to fix it perfectly until the patch deadline, why then is it preferable to do nothing at all rather than to try at least to improve the issue? Why is there a deadline where a full patch must be released at once in the first place, the data update could have been released without effort earlier while the more difficult fixes could have been released when they are ready?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do understand that there will be "issues", bugs and flaws in every FM game you buy, don't you? Fixing things in software is an ongoing, never ending process. What don't get fixed now, will get fixed somewhere down the line, if it's at all fixable. And with something as complex as the FM match engine, instant fixes that don't screw up things elsewhere is a rarity. Also, it's a balancing act. You may not agree with the balance, but others do, and you'll just have to go with the flow if you want to enjoy the game. If it's so bad for you that you don't enjoy the game at all - then don't play it.

Please read my post, I do not expect perfection and I am very aware that this is not easy or an on off "fix" , rather complex balancing, what is hard to understand that nothing has been done to improve it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So spending time on the problem and ultimately failing to do anything should be satisfactory? Also its hardly and on off thing but a balancing issue that involves multiple parts, there is no reason why rebalancing could not be pushed out more frequently instead of using the 3 major patch schedule. Steam makes it possible to push updates effortlessly.

Maybe they spend time on the issue and did not manage to fix it perfectly until the patch deadline, why then is it preferable to do nothing at all rather than to try at least to improve the issue? Why is there a deadline where a full patch must be released at once in the first place, the data update could have been released without effort earlier while the more difficult fixes could have been released when they are ready?

Feedback on the game please, not SI's update (one they've been doing for years and years) strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So don't. It's no different to any other product. If I don't like a drink, but the makers say "don't worry, we're making it better", I wouldn't keep buying it and saying how terrible it was each time. I'd probably try it, maybe through some kind of free demonstration or something (where did I get that example from?) and then only buy it again once I thought I'd enjoy it. Exercise my consumer choice.

And why exactly would giving them x amount per month make you happier than paying a lump sum once a year? A relatively tiny lump sum as well, compared to most AAA console games.

A subscription based model would allow a more flexible development cycle, why only 3 patches per game for example? Steam makes it possible to push updates instantly with no logistical problems, so updates don't have to be grouped into big patched but can be anything.

Your drink analogy does not make sense, since there are millions of drinks but only one serious football management simulation, so no consumer choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I now have data for a season simulated in full detail.

Charlie Daniels is the only full back in the Premier League to be amongst those with the 20 most assists - joint 15 with 12 others.

In League Two (the league I know best), only Dunk - who has been used at full back, wing back and wide midfield - and Jacobson make the top 18, plus Grainger, Brown, Clohessy and Harriman - also used at full back and wide midfield - on joint 18 with 18 others.

Premier League:

Assists Bellerin (Ranked 1st - 19 assists), Dier (used as a right full back - ranked 10th, 9 assists)

Aditionally Bellerin, Zabaleta and Shaw are number 1, 2 and 4 in player ratings for the season.

Championship:

Assists: Colin (2 - 15), Hunt + Christie (3 - 14), Richards + Robinson (8 - 12), Vermijl (12 - 11), Moxey (17 - 10).

League One:

Assists: Tootle (1 - 16), Wilson (3 - 13), Eckersley + McLoughlin (6 - 12), James (10 - 10), Edwards + Bree (14 - 9)

League Two:

Assists: Binnom-Williams (1-22!), Freeman + Leadbitter (5-13), Duckworth (8-11), Stevens + Hewitt (18 - 9)

Conference:

Assists: Magri (as a wing back in a 5-3-2) (1-15), McManus (3-13), Hurst (10-10), Hodkiss (13-9).

Conference North:

Assists: Tomassen (1-13), Ruddock + Mills + Clancy (10 - 10)

Conference South:

Assists: Strugnall (14-9)

As can quite clearly be seen, this issue has not been addressed. The assists particularly for Bellerin and Binnom-Williams are farcical! I find that pretty funny given that it's been a problem consistently raised.

Still a lack of cards in the lower leagues - e.g. in the National South, only 5 teams had more than one dismissal, 6 teams had no dismissal. Half the teams have less yellow cards than games played...

There are a lack of sackings. In the Championship for example there were seven changes, four of which were taken up by Leeds and Forest.

Additionally just because a company has used the same pattern for multiple years doesn't mean it can't become outdated. I'd argue SI's cycle of patches, especially with Steam on offer, is outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So spending time on the problem and ultimately failing to do anything should be satisfactory? Also its hardly and on off thing but a balancing issue that involves multiple parts, there is no reason why rebalancing could not be pushed out more frequently instead of using the 3 major patch schedule. Steam makes it possible to push updates effortlessly.

Maybe they spend time on the issue and did not manage to fix it perfectly until the patch deadline, why then is it preferable to do nothing at all rather than to try at least to improve the issue? Why is there a deadline where a full patch must be released at once in the first place, the data update could have been released without effort earlier while the more difficult fixes could have been released when they are ready?

Not sure what more can be said.

SI acknowledged an issue

SI spent time attempting to address the issue

SI were unable to code a solution that they were satisfied with

There was no middle ground that mitigated against the issue with causing issues elsewhere

SI made a decision to leave things as are there, I assume because that was better than any of the other changes during testing.

Do you want SI to make changes for the sake of making changes, or worse create some sort of placebo to trick you in to believing changes had been made?

I expect your next post to be providing feedback on the game after spending time playing it, not a review on the changelist & SI's decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A subscription based model would allow a more flexible development cycle, why one 3 patches per game for example? Steam makes it possible to push updates instantly with no logistical problems, so updates don't have to be grouped into big patched but can be anything.

Your drink analogy does not make sense, since there are millions of drinks but only one serious football management simulation, so no consumer choice.

3 major patches. There have been many little patches along the way (especially last year, I seem to recall them being every few weeks), I don't keep track of them all but I've seen FM update with small, quick updates enough through steam when turning it on (particularly as I tend to be a weekend only kind of player of games in general nowadays) I see the little progress bar zip along more often.

The small patches with little changes and tweaks aren't publicised though, because in general there is no reason to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had time just to play one game, first time in ages that i was able to field two limited fullbacks and they worked as expected and one of them get 7.2 without offering offensive support and other ended 6.9, i believe that was because the goal was originated on his side, but wasn't a cross.

And the game ended 3 x 1, two goals from through balls (one from the middle to the right, one from the left to the middle), a indirect free kick and a direct free kick (the shot was toward opposition keeper original position, but i didn't have time to watch closely if the goal was a blunder, mistake or ME problem).

First game was promising, much more than I ever had in the last patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feedback on the game please, not SI's update (one they've been doing for years and years) strategy.

Its hardly worth posting feedback when the biggest issues have not been addressed, might as well copy paste the 2.0 update thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone of mods said that analogies should be banned.

From your analogy I could say that if there's only one kind of drink that we like, and it was good before, but now the quality of the product dropped, we should just stop buying it, or should we ask the producer to raise the quality?

I guess that would depend how many people believe the product has dropped. If a small pocket believe it vehemently, but the majority don't, then who's "right"? It was nothing to do with the product anyway - it's customer choice, and common sense. If I don't like something, I'll probably stop buying it and move on.

I would say considering how long we have had broken crosses for that having the ME unbalanced in a different way (even if it was to a greater extent) would be preferable.

Really? So say they "fixed" crosses by meaning that the defenders closed down a lot more and stopped these coming in, but that meant that the defenders closed down far too aggressively, and when they weren't being sent off all over the place, they were stopping any kind of attacking football like the reincarnation of catenaccio, that would be better than the case we have now, where it's affecting some people and not others? Aye, very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its hardly worth posting feedback when the biggest issues have not been addressed, might as well copy past the 2.0 update thread.

If you don't want to post feedback in the feedback thread, then honestly, don't post in the thread at all. SI are looking for feedback on the actual game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've simulated one season in 5 top leagues and there are still same ridicoulus cases such as van der Viel as the best ligue 1 assisting player with 14 assists (played all games as RB), Pablo Zabaleta as 2nd highest rated BPL player with 10 assists and many, many full backs from other countries and leagues having around 10 assists in the season (10+ is very common). Let's take a look on some site with football statistics and you can see that such cases simply do not occur. I understand that ME is very sophisticated and hard to tune, but fact, that this problem hasn't been solved makes for me FM16 remaining too far from real life and still unplayable. That's my personal point of view and I cannot play this game anymore, which is very dissappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e6a3mWH.png

Tactic is simply trying to copy Mihajlovic's 442 system that he is using for the most of this season.

Here my posting stops. I'm not modern day Don Quijote battling with windmills. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've simulated one season in 5 top leagues and there are still same ridicoulus cases such as van der Viel as the best ligue 1 assisting player with 14 assists (played all games as RB), Pablo Zabaleta as 2nd highest rated BPL player with 10 assists and many, many full backs from other countries and leagues having around 10 assists in the season (10+ is very common). Let's take a look on some site with football statistics and you can see that such cases simply do not occur. I understand that ME is very sophisticated and hard to tune, but fact, that this problem hasn't been solved makes for me FM16 remaining too far from real life and still unplayable. That's my personal point of view and I cannot play this game anymore, which is very dissappointing.

Were they simulated on FULL detail, as in you went into Detail Level and manually set the leagues to Full Detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And SI isn't doing that. They do however need to balance the ME overall. Plugging one specific exploit could have opened a million more or unbalanced the engine far more. Who knows? Just because it's not fixed right now, this second and this instant, doesn't mean it's not getting looked at and getting fixed for future.

Well sure, future doesn't mean this particular game though does it?

I'm not particularly bothered, have racked up abouth a tenth of the hours I managed in previous versions and looks like I won't be adding to it as I'll probably uninstall FM16 and pick a previous better balanced version to occasionally play. My comment was meant as an answer to all the "don't know what the fuss is about, my game is fine" posts. They couldn't fix the issue, fair enough, but don't try to claim there isn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page loading times seem to be improved in my 2040 save which i started from day 1 of the release. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed an increase in loading speed on my work computer (it's a slow one) which is very nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't want to post feedback in the feedback thread, then honestly, don't post in the thread at all. SI are looking for feedback on the actual game.

Honestly, what can you realistically post feedback about except that match engine?

For data issues there is the data forum

the bugs that have been fixed except the match engine issues i did not even know about , except maybe not so great ui performance but this was hardly a big issue.

The last thread also was largely about match engine, which is logical.

So without any real changes in the match engine with this patch, why can I not give feedback about the lack of changes? What else is there to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feedback on the game please, not SI's update (one they've been doing for years and years) strategy.

What has years and years do with anything? It's clearly time for a change. Especially if the customers looking for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally weird squad numbers in the Football League (loan players being assigned 50 something etc) has not been addressed. This patch is <deleted> absolutely blimming dreadful. Is there genuinely any point in reporting problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What has years and years do with anything? It's clearly time for a change. Especially if the customers looking for one.

It's not feedback on the game - the reason for the thread and something that has been repeatedly asked for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there genuinely any point in reporting problems?

It can be addressed in a future build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally weird squad numbers in the Football League (loan players being assigned 50 something etc) has not been addressed. This patch is <deleted> dreadful. Is there genuinely any point in reporting problems?
As annoying as that is for those of us who like order is it really that big an issue? SI have to prioritise bugs with those that have a clear negative impact on everyone's game getting priority, I imagine an odd squad number allocation would not be anywhere near that category.

</deleted>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmed 19 games in Serie A on full detail.

11 of top 20 average ratings are full backs.

9 of top 20 assisters are full backs.

9 of top 20 key passers are full backs.

5 goals from direct free kicks across the league.

Nothing appears to have been done with offsides either, so there are several players in the league who'll finish the season with close to or more than 100 offsides. IRL there is an extreme example of this with Carlos Bacca who's going at a remarkable 1.6 offsides a game, so he might have 55-60 by the end of the season. In my save Mattia Destro's going at 3.1 a game.

Most of the top offsiders have the 'Likes to break offside trap' PPM. I made a thread about this in the bugs forum with plenty of examples of buggy offside behaviour, backed up by other people and other threads, but nothing's changed. Games with 10+ offsides are still fairly common.

If you're expecting any difference at all with this update, don't get your hopes up. Won't even bother reporting stuff. What's the point? Nobody listens and nothing gets done. My faith has completely gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As annoying as that is for those of us who like order is it really that big an issue? SI have to prioritise bugs with those that have a clear negative impact on everyone's game getting priority, I imagine an odd squad number allocation would not be anywhere near that category.

</deleted>

It's an immersion problem. Especially as this is a carry over from 2015. Especially as this was "under review". Especially as every other problem has seemingly not been addressed. Literally, everything I've looked for bug wise is still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would appreciate this thread being kept solely for feedback for the FM16 16.3.0 update. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simmed 19 games in Serie A on full detail.

11 of top 20 average ratings are full backs.

9 of top 20 assisters are full backs.

9 of top 20 key passers are full backs.

5 goals from direct free kicks across the league.

Nothing appears to have been done with offsides either, so there are several players in the league who'll finish the season with close to or more than 100 offsides. IRL there is an extreme example of this with Carlos Bacca who's going at a remarkable 1.6 offsides a game, so he might have 55-60 by the end of the season. In my save Mattia Destro's going at 3.1 a game.

Most of the top offsiders have the 'Likes to break offside trap' PPM. I made a thread about this in the bugs forum with plenty of examples of buggy offside behaviour, backed up by other people and other threads, but nothing's changed. Games with 10+ offsides are still fairly common.

If you're expecting any difference at all with this update, don't get your hopes up. Won't even bother reporting stuff. What's the point? Nobody listens and nothing gets done. My faith has completely gone.

Its obvious when you read the changelist, nothing significant has been done with the match engine, why should anyone expect different results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As annoying as that is for those of us who like order is it really that big an issue? SI have to prioritise bugs with those that have a clear negative impact on everyone's game getting priority, I imagine an odd squad number allocation would not be anywhere near that category.

</deleted>

This version isn't the first to have squad numbers, why did it break?

Stop ridiculing people, realism is important for some users

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you want SI to make changes for the sake of making changes, or worse create some sort of placebo to trick you in to believing changes had been made?

I expect a playable game that is actually worth €50, in which, should I decide to play with WB and W roles, with TI's overlap&exploit the flanks, that not all goals (or 80% of them) will be scored from a cross made by my wingback. Which is exactly what's happening on 16.3. as well.

Take a look at Paradox Interactive, the company SI can relate to, considering those two make the most complex simulations today. Paradox throws out patches quite often with tweaks being done and released on a monthly basis. This year I've seen something alike from you as well, with a lot of small patches coming out. However, their games are mostly flawless, whilst FM in almost every major update gets something done incorrectly, whether its the crossing issue some of you choose not to acknowledge while some are defending SI's decision to ignore it (thus acknowledging it), the injuries problem, the corners problem, the "GK catching a ball outside the box and getting a red card problem", and many many (MANY!) others that have occurred through the years/releases and remained there until a few months later when the patch would solve it. This year that wasn't the case and you are seeing two types of goals if you're not Cleon and watching preseason games on full isn't your thing (I've nothing personal, just saying):

1) two defenders vs opposing CM/AM/ST where the player with the ball dwells on it or runs with it until one of the defenders decides to break away and close him down, leaving a player unmarked. The ball is passed to the unmarked player and a goal is scored. D-line, formation, shape, TI/PI, roles/duties, OI, attributes, nothing makes a difference because it happens to everyone

2) random cross goal, and by random - I mean random. Whether it's the goal line 180 degree cross to the striker's head, or the fullback byline cross to the far post, where there appears to be almost no collision detection during the jump, results in a goal.

That does not sound nor look playable to me because I'm scoring and conceding the same goal over and over again, regardless whether I'm playing with Barcelona against a non-league team in the Cup, or with a 2nd tier Faroese side, and most important of all - regardless of my tactic.

Regarding this thread (and the previous one 20 pages long), entering a "cross" in the search bar on any page of it results in a 80 or more results. While I completely understand it's not remotely simple to fix it, seeing the same problem active as ever even 5 MONTHS after the release means to me you guys at Sports Interactive simply don't care enough. Meaning that these feedback threads are useless if you decide not to try and fix the issue because you feel you can only make it worse.

And you expect me to give constructive feedback after all this? And for what? What did the last thread bring, with almost 2000 posts of feedback (useful or not), when there are only 5 (FIVE!) ME changes worth noting, two of which are also useless:

(- Give more time at the end of the match when a team wins a competition

- Fixed missing commentary for competition win at the end of a shootout)

I'm utterly disappointed this time and this is the only way to express it, so I do apologize for the occasional off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they were not. But for me it is also very strange that there is a lot of side defenders (even a few cases of central defenders) from lower leagues who made 8-15 assists in season.

It is also hard to understand for me why the discussion about this problem is still being continued. It's obviously that the problem exists and destroys the game realism. How is it possible that great and well experienced software development team haven't noticed it on the tests? I'm just looking on the general forum, don't know what is going on in the bug section, so correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to offend anyone, I really appreciate the game as itself and the effort made to create such advanced application, but I just cannot understand the situation I'm writing about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no fix for not being able to use Design-a-Son and Son-Generated at same time on FMT? That's disappointing seeing as I paid for both. Want a refund or both to work at same time (as Lucas Weatherby told me they would).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...