Football Manager 2017 Release Date and Pre Purchase Details Announced

[KUBI]

The moderators (at least most of them) are also customers for a very long time (20 years for me) and we don't get promoted because we did defend the game for a decade. We all have our own view on the game. I think there is no such thing like a "perfect ME". Because it should be a representation of real football. And that means, you have wonderful football to watch and you have crap players, who can't pass a ball two meters. So every match you are watching on FM you should try to compare to a similar match in real football and not to what you think should look like a perfect ME. I had an issue in the past, that some lower league matches did look like Barcelona - Bayern. They did tune the ME and such matches are looking a lot more realistic now. But there is still room for improvements. It always will. The ME is a permanent work in progress, where you have one day every year to decide, which version you will release.

[themadsheep2001]

29 minutes ago, Georgik said:

We understand that you're a mod and have to take the developer's side (i've read here some mind boggling excuses for some glaring flaws, see the crosses problem which almost made the game unplayable, it surely made it un-enjoyable, it wasn't any difference with how a conference level keeper/defender dealt with a cross when compared to a Sergio Ramos/Pique type of player, let alone the fact that the game revolved around you trying to set up a tactic to counter this bug - which is wrong on so many levels). Believe me that us, customers for such a long time, would be more pleased if you would acknowledge what's wrong with the game and try to improve it. The lack of communication between SI and us is what bothers the most of us (see the 'atenttion' the wishlist and feedback thread are getting, let alone how FM 17 release was dealt with). If you look at the video Miles posted you will see around the 0:52 minute mark a player heading the ball for no reason whatsoever. Also the ball is bouncing from the players, you don't see a fluid game, more like pinball.

 

It's not about taking sides. KUBI has responded to you, but the minute you think this is about sides is the minute most people, SI included, willy simply not engage your point, it's a complete waste of time.

There's been some really constructive stuff here, let's keep that up instead.

[Lord Rowell]

3 hours ago, Georgik said:

 

Check out 00:52-1:00 minute mark, why would you market that ?

Hopefully we'll get more improvements on ME and Player Interactions and so on.

I wonder what's the point of having the option to play in 3d (and wasting resources on it) when it looks worse than let's say Fifa 98 (yep that was 18 years ago).

So you are basically marketing (or better said "trying to market") the game with a video which shows a stone age era gameplay, you're not going to attract more customers with it that's for sure, on the contrary. So, if you want to create some buzz for the game you should release a list of new features and some screenshots with them, instead of this poor attempt.

That passage of play actually impresses me.

It is scruffy midfield play, ball headers in the air in midfield. Followed by triple closing down on the ball carrier.

Much more like you see in real football.

[themadsheep2001]

13 minutes ago, KUBI said:

The moderators (at least most of them) are also customers for a very long time (20 years for me) and we don't get promoted because we did defend the game for a decade. We all have our own view on the game. I think there is no such thing like a "perfect ME". Because it should be a representation of real football. And that means, you have wonderful football to watch and you have crap players, who can't pass a ball two meters. So every match you are watching on FM you should try to compare to a similar match in real football and not to what you think should look like a perfect ME. I had an issue in the past, that some lower league matches did look like Barcelona - Bayern. They did tune the ME and such matches are looking a lot more realistic now. But there is still room for improvements. It always will. The ME is a permanent work in progress, where you have one day every year to decide, which version you will release.

I'll argue there will never be a perfect ME, a) software will always have bugs b) could never build anything as complex as a human brain. All you can do is try and get as close as possible.

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, Lord Rowell said:

That passage of play actually impresses me.

It is scruffy midfield play, ball headers in the air in midfield. Followed by triple closing down on the ball carrier.

Much more like you see in real football.

That ME definitely isn't perfect, but the idea that there shouldn't be bad football is crazy.

Considering how much football people watch, I'm suprised people don't see just how much football is actually really average.

[KUBI]

If you want a robot more human, you need to add errors and strange behaviour. 

[friend0]

To someone above to update statistics: I'm far from child, watch 3D full matches with sound on and not interested in real football. 

I buy every new version since FM12 and the worst issue for me - not much good changes in management possibilities. ME is less important.

I was a bit angered about no info about FM17, but later remembered that steam has return policy. So I'm going to buy with loyalty bonus and then maybe (or maybe not) try if it works.

[themadsheep2001]

23 minutes ago, friend0 said:

To someone above to update statistics: I'm far from child, watch 3D full matches with sound on and not interested in real football. 

I buy every new version since FM12 and the worst issue for me - not much good changes in management possibilities. ME is less important.

I was a bit angered about no info about FM17, but later remembered that steam has return policy. So I'm going to buy with loyalty bonus and then maybe (or maybe not) try if it works.

You can cancel a pre order at a any time and return within 14 days of sale (in this case release as it's a pre order) providing you play under 2 hours.

Nothing to stop you from pre-ordering, seeing the reveal coming soon, and going from there.

[alanschu14]

1 hour ago, KUBI said:

If you want a robot more human, you need to add errors and strange behaviour. 

Haha yup.  A former professor of mine solved checkers.  Unsurprisingly it's not fun to play against a checkers AI that is incapable of losing

[Svenc]

2 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

What Dave said above but I will add just because a player is one on one with the keeper it doesn't make it a CCC automatically.

A straight ball over the top with the striker and ball moving directly towards the keeper isn't a good chance.  A half decent keeper would actually be favourite to save that type of chance.

For a one on one chance to be considered a good chance or CCC you need the ball moving horizontally across the eyeline of the keeper so he needs to calculate two angles instead of one when positioning himself.

Speaking of one on ones, traditionally there's been lots of frustration caused by the ones created through the middle, that is from a no angled through ball. It was worse in older iterations, where there was marking bugs that allowed to basically spam those all match. You'll still have those exclusively if you keep things very narrow, and generally have most of the assists of players coming from narrow positions. There's a time and point for keeping things narrow and compact, such as playing more defensively (that's may be why none of the more aggressive mentalities in-game encourage narrow width without somebody fiddling with it). However, when trying to create options, that's not it. According to research, the more narrow the supply, the harder it is to convert. Partly laws of physics (no chance of the forward ever massively changing direction of the ball here) too. There's bugs, like players taking the wrong foot to shoot, however there's also that clearly trend of frustration caused in this scenario specifically. Naturally there is also misconceptions of what chance conversion actually should look like, and that  it isn't simply a case of Messi converts all and worse guy little (the margins are far smaller, clubs spend millions in attempts to go a few extra percent, plus some players are reliable on others creating opportunity, whilst others carve open themselves), but yeah. http://www.skysports.com/football/news/15118/10189870/wasteful-arsenals-premier-league-title-hopes-hit-by-poor-finishing

Therefore as argued many times, it would be very useful to have an actually shots breakdown of attempts from open play and set pieces. Immediately more telling. The stats can make it look like as if one side had genuine attempt after attempt. But with certain (illogically, limiting) tactical combos in particular against sides packing defenses, sides can average 15 corners a match alone, and if you add attacking throw ins to that, and free kicks, and that you can massively spam even weak "shots on target" all match through that, there comes the frustration. Watch the feedback for this year or past, there's a guarantee that as soon as the first guy comes in posting his screenshots of "broken ME / completely broken finishing", if he has the corner and free kick stats enabled, it'll show ridiculous numbers (atop of the always massively superior possession and shot counts, caused by naturally always pushing the opposition back / that opposition just dropping deep). In real football teams that pretty much park in the half of teams average no more than 7 corners a match (Barcelona, Real, Bayern). In FM you can have up to 25+, outside of very rare exceptions caused by one team pushed back, but actually stretched zero -- the area of play being made this small (oft in a bid to bump possession) that no matter what pass is played, there's always a defender who gets a foot in and clears. It's infuriating to watch, it's nothing much like a match of football, but it's tough to compare to any real match of football as no side trying to break down packed defenses goes about in such a way. You can be guaranteed either way that whilst there are many who will object to the regularly little return they have from their shots (NOTHING LIKE FOOTBALL!!), nobody will ever question the ridiculous amounts of set pieces they have at any point, which indeed is nothing like football right there.

In classic FMs that had their "corner bugs" in which you could turn centre backs into top scorers this was very slightly less of an issue, collect the corners, there's a goal in there deciding matches guaranteed. It's increased now. If the average attempt is that poor, and those shots on target accumulated by endless arrays of set pieces tend to be under heavy pressure and in zero space created (packed boxes by very definition), like lukewarm attempts from headers which are mostly easy saves for the keeper too, by the time a decent shot may be on, and there naturally is one or two in there, the foward may have lost the plot already anyway due to frustration and worsen the chances slightly on top of it, no matter if actually flagged ccc or otherwise. Oh, and as long as the stat doesn't actually consider some of the build-up, I'll continue to ignore it. We battered top dogs at their own ground 1-4 at 30 shots vs 10 in their favor, and they too struggled to ever break down much, whilst all of our goals came from through balls played in behind their lines, causing defenders to be actually stretched over the place, whilst none of their shots actually flagged ccc ever was in any such. That's not representation, that's second by second what's going on, but a stats algorithm weighting a couple of factors and considering whether going ccc+1 or not never ever replacing a human eye.

 

edit: Naturally this is a poster child for an area on which SI are best adviced to take it to their analyst and pro connections. It shows every year why it is the case.

[carling1968]

Crowd violence during a local derby would be a good addition to the 3D part of the game.

Zooming in to player celebration after a goal too.

[KUBI]

6 minutes ago, carling1968 said:

Crowd violence during a local derby would be a good addition to the 3D part of the game.

Definitely not. Because it's still a game. And in a game you can decide which parts of the reality you want to include and which one not. And this is a NO.

[QSF25]

I have a question regarding gibraltar will it be able to play in the world cup?

[Matt ex SEGA]

7 hours ago, Georgik said:

 

Check out 00:52-1:00 minute mark, why would you market that ?

Hopefully we'll get more improvements on ME and Player Interactions and so on.

I wonder what's the point of having the option to play in 3d (and wasting resources on it) when it looks worse than let's say Fifa 98 (yep that was 18 years ago).

So you are basically marketing (or better said "trying to market") the game with a video which shows a stone age era gameplay, you're not going to attract more customers with it that's for sure, on the contrary. So, if you want to create some buzz for the game you should release a list of new features and some screenshots with them, instead of this poor attempt.

Having worked on both the games you mention - I'd say that if FIFA 98 had looked like this, we'd have been very happy! 

But the truth is, while they're both football - one is trying to simulate a match you're watching, and the other is trying to create a fun experience to engage with.  FIFA bends reality a lot more than SI does to create a fun gameplay experience - it has to otherwise it'd be a very weird playing experience.  Don't get me wrong - its brilliant - but its being asked to do different stuff than the FM match engine.  FM, on the other hand, is striving to take into account WAY more connotations and statistics than FIFA has to - crunching all of that in the background and then displaying it as best as it can with the level of animations that they can get to work on what is always a quite low-end PC minimum spec.  So think of it as a high-wire balancing act.  From memory, there's some pretty good technical reasons why FIFA is able to look like FIFA and FM looks like FM (I'm entirely the wrong person to speak about em, though).

You see wasted resource - I see progress being made every year.  If they just said "well, we can't make it look like TV" then they'd never start and we'd still have a 2d engine - and on a personal level, I think the 3d engine is incredible - it adds a huge amount to the gameplay for me, even though I wasn't sure it ever really would at one point.  Your mileage may vary!

Lastly - as you mentioned marketing and some in this parish are interested in that - it clearly says "work in progress" which I'm pretty sure the SI chaps would tell you is the permanent condition of the match engine.  So there are mistakes and bugs.  It takes some bravery to just show extended footage, because it always means you're going to see a rough edge or two.  Again, I'd argue that giving people a sense of what the game looks like is important, and will gain more users than it costs.  Maybe I'm wrong, but those are the considerations you're making with any marketing material.  As for what would or wouldn't work better - its a campaign.  You don't tend to just dump all your marketing assets out in a single day and hope people circulate and read them.  I don't remember an SI release, EVER, where there wasn't a feature list and screenshots at some point pre-release.  They just haven't done it yet.  Normally, at least as far as I recall, that's because they decide pretty late what that final list will be - what is and isn't making the cut.  So you'll get what you want - just have a little patience... its very hard to do what everybody expects of you, all the time, and keep everyone happy.  SI are one of the more progressive studios in that they have a very short, finite window in which to prepare and release a very high quality product, and still do the best they can do to make sure everyone knows about it.  Its hard and you can't always do everything the way you want, or keep everybody happy.

Hope this helps a little.  Enjoy the game...:)

[GSevensM75]

11 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

That's only because the game itself isn't clear on what represents a 'cleat cut chance', and hasn't been for years. it's nothing to do with anything 'aligning' or not. 

So no, the entire stats engine isn't 'broken'. By the way, there's no such thing as a '3D match engine', there's simply just the 'match engine'. It's exactly the same whether you view it in 3D, 2D, or commentary only. 

If it isn't clear about what represents a CCC then it's not aligned to what I am visually seeing?  Maybe me and you have a different perception of what the word aligned means.

I used that as an example.  I have plenty, although most are minor.  Player ratings being the next biggest one.  I've watched matches where a player has had a shocker and yet gets awarded a high match rating and visa versa.  The last version often classified crosses as passes.  There were obvious key passes that weren't classified as key passes in the stats analysis after the match comparative to when you watch the match.

Its confusing for the player because basically stats such as player rating, CCC, key passes were either useless in FM17 and should be taken with a pinch of salt OR the player may as well not bother watching the match and forming their own opinion as the visual interpretation of the match engine clearly isn't aligned with the stats produced from the game.

[GSevensM75]

11 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

What Dave said above but I will add just because a player is one on one with the keeper it doesn't make it a CCC automatically.

A straight ball over the top with the striker and ball moving directly towards the keeper isn't a good chance.  A half decent keeper would actually be favourite to save that type of chance.

For a one on one chance to be considered a good chance or CCC you need the ball moving horizontally across the eyeline of the keeper so he needs to calculate two angles instead of one when positioning himself.

It does if the advancing attacker isn't at an acutely tight angle.  "A situation where a player should reasonably be expected to score usually in a one-on-one scenario or from very close range.".

And if a striker is moving directly towards the keeper this isn't a good chance?!  I'm sorry but that is just wrong.  A striker is always favourite against a keeper in that situation and I'd even go as far to say that as long as there is no defender breathing down the attacker's neck it's an easier situation to score from than a penalty kick because you can shift the ball to either foot to create an angle for yourself, or round the keeper etc. rather than having one movement to strike a ball to blast it past the keeper.  If a striker fluffs a one on one it's usually down to that striker's lack of composure and therefore a fault with the striker.

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, GSevensM75 said:

A striker is always favourite against a keeper in that situation

 

From open play there's very few situations in which the keeper wouldn't be considered a strongly favorite. Like those where the keeper is actually caught off-guard, wrong-footed, can't anticipate or the ball rebounds in directions impossibly to predict. The forward has to 1) trap the ball at pace 2) control it 3) get it on target in a way that makes it hard to save 4) all the while he's being pushed. "All" the keeper has to do is to deflect it. Defending is always "easier" than attacking. A penalty is a one on one where the forward has significantly advantages, actually. He's not under pressure (aside of mentally), the keeper isn't allowed to move off his line initially, the ball doesn't need to be trapped and controlled, and he can take all the time in the world to just pick a spot. And yet those aren't converted than at rates of 8 out of 10, purely average. In fact tap-ins and penalties are some of the very few situations in which the keeper doesn't edge it out.

Do I have numbers and fully studies available? No. Opta cccs aren't converted at rates higher than 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 though. That's why me and you can give opinions, and SI should go with the facts. :-) Purely from the stats page, the CCC unless it racks up rather ho-hum chances hasn't been such a big issue (I'd still ignore it). It's the fact that you can accumulate lots of shots (and shots on target) off set pieces that can give totally wrong impressions. Is that an ME weakness? Hard to tell. The set pieces when they happen are typically the result of defenders visibly having it easy to just clear, clear clear (which is caused by the tactics of the attacking team, usually). If the defending team has no area to cover, as the attackers just sit atop of each other or close, they'll eventually always get a foot in, which visibly happens. Typically you would aim for a shot on target conversion longterm of roughly 1 in 3 or 1 in 4. There's always one or two AI teams in a save which are worse. Individually lack of confidence or a bad run or complacency or whatever all play their part, but if it's regularly there's system to it. If you would always apply such tactics, which would show in constantly hugely many set pieces a match, in particular against defensive teams, you can throw that totally out of the window. To another extent this applies forcing everything down the middle in every match in general, too, when there are no assists given from wide positions (wingers of backs or wider midfielders) too. This seems to be some in line with real life analysis which shows that the more angled the supply the more likely it is to convert. To be fair, it's going against any team sports logics to apply such tactics when trying to stretch packed defenses. It's just that there's nothing to compare that in football to.

The shots off the set pieces may be an issue in that it may be too easy to get attempts going off them, which can be caused by marking bugs and issues, which some versions certainly had, from corners to attacking throw ins. Still add to this the actually few decent shots cropping up in the highlights, and everybody focusing on those stats overly much thinks he'd be battering opponents, whilst the stuff that may be shown in the highlights is actually the few times where the defense is actually carved open. If it's set piece after set piece from kick off, that can't be happening much. Still at the bottom the aim's still football. Sometimes stuff happens against the run of play. Plus more advanced analysis focuses on the quality of each chance, rather than the quantity of it. No professional analyst would consider a match where one side has far fewer in numbers but high probability chances taken unjust. Unfortunately, the numbers in FM don't allow for much of that. The play, which is at the core of everything, well it does. Unfortunately, or naturally, it requires a bit of subjective reading. A stats algorithm is never going to replace that though... it wouldn't in actually football analysis as well where human eyes are assessing everything rather than a little program being fed a couple variables such as distance to goal, distance to next defender near, angle of shot, number of touches taken before the shot (all more obvious variables that have shown to influence the chance of conversion)... which is basically how it has to work on FM.

[Cannes]

One of the reasons why this entire discussion even exists, comes down to how easy it is to string good play together for even mediocre players. Passing, crossing and shooting under heavy pressure from multiple defenders is much much too easy in all previous fm ME's. You see the result in the aftermatch statistics clear as day in the "shots on goal" stat. It is consistenly 100-200% higher than in a normal football match.

Shots on goal in a normal football match is usually less than 10 aside, if the game has been particuarly actionpacked, you might see up to 15 shots from one team and in very extreme cases 20, in fm16 15-20 shots on goal is the bare minimum. Extreme cases are 40-50 shots on goals from the dominating side. Show me a competetive real life match that had this many shots on goal.

[Dagenham_Dave]

1 hour ago, GSevensM75 said:

Its confusing for the player because basically stats such as player rating, CCC, key passes were either useless in FM17 and should be taken with a pinch of salt OR the player may as well not bother watching the match and forming their own opinion as the visual interpretation of the match engine clearly isn't aligned with the stats produced from the game.

Have you never watched a game in real life and thought a player had a poor game, only for the media to give him an excellent match rating the next day? And by 'real life', I don't mean five minutes on Match of the Day. 

In any case, to even think that there isn't any alignment between the game's visual representation and the engine itself is just hyperbolic nonsense. 

[forameuss]

I'm baffled that anyone even compares the FIFA "ME" to FM's.  FIFA is a good engine for playing out a match with human input, but that's about it.  It's incredibly simplistic when compared to the FM one.  Try playing the modes where you control just the one player and watch the AI bumble around like morons because you don't have the opportunity to move everyone around anymore.  

Not to say that FIFA is bad in any way - it does the job it's supposed to.  There's just no comparison between them.  Like taking the more realistic F1 simulators driving engine and comparing it to Mario Kart.

[forameuss]

3 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Have you never watched a game in real life and thought a player had a poor game, only for the media to give him an excellent match rating the next day? And by 'real life', I don't mean five minutes on Match of the Day. 

In any case, to even think that there isn't any alignment between the game's visual representation and the engine itself is just hyperbolic nonsense. 

Hiya Garth Crooks, Hiya pal!

[Svenc]

28 minutes ago, Cannes said:

One of the reasons why this entire discussion even exists, comes down to how easy it is to string good play together for even mediocre players. Passing, crossing and shooting under heavy pressure from multiple defenders is much much too easy in all previous fm ME's. You see the result in the aftermatch statistics clear as day in the "shots on goal" stat. It is consistenly 100-200% higher than in a normal football match.

Shots on goal in a normal football match is usually less than 10 aside, if the game has been particuarly actionpacked, you might see up to 15 shots from one team and in very extreme cases 20, in fm16 15-20 shots on goal is the bare minimum. Extreme cases are 40-50 shots on goals from the dominating side. Show me a competetive real life match that had this many shots on goal.

 

Football sees about 25-30 shots a match, my averages are fairly comparably, I can get them significantly lower than that and totally stall matches (you don't need any crazy formations for that)

[

So it's part ME, but also tactics applied. AI too. There's lots of user tactics that just throw players forward in a way that no team plays in football too, so high shot counts are to be expected. I found from online multiplayer that human players are as aggressive as any AI manager only is when it's going overload, like late in a match. Wing backs or attacking full backs on any side, lots of attack duty guys, top heavy formations, and all of that. AI is playing matches dynamically, or else you'd have Bournemouth going gung-ho away at the Arsenul, which would be somewhat weird. Your average multiplayer opponent just keeps 'em coming from the kick off.

The discussion exists first and foremost because people overly focus on stats, rather than the play. Naturally if there's stats, they should be somewhat "reliable" if you know how to read them and put them in context, and I totally agree with GSevensM75 on that. but there's an actual part of the audience that thinks dominating possession and shot counts would be winning "where it counts", whilst you can totally "boss" Barcelona with a much weaker team if the AI for some weird reason drops off to just spoil (which actually happens, occasionally). You can win back to back promotions with the worst possession and pass completioin in the league. Plus naturally, there is that accusation of AI bias, which if you actually take a look, is pretty nonsense -- it's not that hard to have conversion rates at least onpar with an AI.

So, it may be a bit late for FM 2017, but there's room for improvement in the stats department. Who knows what that data analyst does though? :-)

[Cougar2010]

2 hours ago, GSevensM75 said:

It does if the advancing attacker isn't at an acutely tight angle.  "A situation where a player should reasonably be expected to score usually in a one-on-one scenario or from very close range.".

And if a striker is moving directly towards the keeper this isn't a good chance?!  I'm sorry but that is just wrong.  A striker is always favourite against a keeper in that situation and I'd even go as far to say that as long as there is no defender breathing down the attacker's neck it's an easier situation to score from than a penalty kick because you can shift the ball to either foot to create an angle for yourself, or round the keeper etc. rather than having one movement to strike a ball to blast it past the keeper.  If a striker fluffs a one on one it's usually down to that striker's lack of composure and therefore a fault with the striker.

I'm sorry but quite simply you are wrong.

I've explained why and Sven has also added his own explanations above but we can't force you to recognise that, its something you have to do yourself. 

Moving back to your original point though.

The stats between the 3d & the ME are always correct but there are areas that are affected by opinion.   CCCs are one where different people have different opinions as to what constitutes a CCC (As you have shown above), the ME is coded to recognise what it thinks it a CCC but like any opinion users can have a different idea.  Ratings are another that is subjective but the factual ones such as shots, passing %, fouls, cards etc do match up, if they don't its a rather bad bug.

[grade]

43 minutes ago, forameuss said:

I'm baffled that anyone even compares the FIFA "ME" to FM's.  FIFA is a good engine for playing out a match with human input, but that's about it.  It's incredibly simplistic when compared to the FM one.  Try playing the modes where you control just the one player and watch the AI bumble around like morons because you don't have the opportunity to move everyone around anymore.  

Not to say that FIFA is bad in any way - it does the job it's supposed to.  There's just no comparison between them.  Like taking the more realistic F1 simulators driving engine and comparing it to Mario Kart.

Not to offend you, but this kind of things needs to stop, for argument sake. Or we all go crazy here... because we are talking two different things here.

You know perfectly that most of us, when we talk about FIFA, we don't talk about the ME. The ME of FM and FIFA are two different beast, that has nothing to do with one another, because it is pointed to two different game styles. I at least, (I cannot say we or what not because the only opinion i can make is my own), when make the comparison is the 3D engine. The 3D engine, is graphics, the representation of the match. Sure somethings have been improved, but the players movements, feel to robotic, too Actual Soccer (the last edition was in 98, that is nearly 20 years ago... Okay this kind of things make me feel old).   Anyway, what I like for the 3D be is to the players have more natural and fluid movement. To be as smooth has the players movement in FIFA or PES. That would make the experience in FM, much more enjoyable, at leat for me. 

As for the comparison... that is worst then the car analogy. Seriously Mario Kart, is that the best you can come up with.  Shame on you, Mario Kart is the most realistic game i ever played (and yes i drive to work on a kart (being sarcastic). Now seriously, if you said between Gran Turismo and F1 games, I would accept that analogy. But both games are fun in both terms.

Now that we are clear (I hope), can we have proper discussion of the 3D Engine?

 

[Georgik]

Sorry if i somewhat offended any of you, i posted in the rush of the moment, i know all of you want for us to have the best experience when playing the game. I just think that most of us don't care too much about the 3D visual aspect of a match, most of us wouldn't even be so annoyed if you would scrap the 3D option altogether. What is crucial is that the overall experience of playing the game isn't affected, in my case, polishing how the AI managers act during the transfer window and the season, improving the ME, Player Interactions, the Media aspect, training routine and so on are more crucial than watching the game in 3D (of course, it would be ideal to have the option to see a more realistic version of the match, but is not a crucial aspect of the game as the others). 

That was the point of my post, i believe that keeping your current customers is more beneficial than trying to attract the others, i hated those who claimed that Fifa Manager was better just because it had better graphics, when in fact it was a shambles of a game. I hope from all my heart that FM would remain a game which focuses on simulation of being a manager, and not be more of an arcade game.

[forameuss]

3 minutes ago, grade said:

Not to offend you, but this kind of things needs to stop, for argument sake. Or we all go crazy here... because we are talking two different things here.

You know perfectly that most of us, when we talk about FIFA, we don't talk about the ME. The ME of FM and FIFA are two different beast, that has nothing to do with one another, because it is pointed to two different game styles. I at least, (I cannot say we or what not because the only opinion i can make is my own), when make the comparison is the 3D engine. The 3D engine, is graphics, the representation of the match. Sure somethings have been improved, but the players movements, feel to robotic, too Actual Soccer (the last edition was in 98, that is nearly 20 years ago... Okay this kind of things make me feel old).   Anyway, what I like for the 3D be is to the players have more natural and fluid movement. To be as smooth has the players movement in FIFA or PES. That would make the experience in FM, much more enjoyable, at leat for me.

As for the comparison... that is worst then the car analogy. Seriously Mario Kart, is that the best you can come up with.  Shame on you, Mario Kart is the most realistic game i ever played (and yes i drive to work on a kart (being sarcastic). Now seriously, if you said between Gran Turismo and F1 games, I would accept that analogy. But both games are fun in both terms.

 

The people that make these kinds of comparisons are exactly the kind of people who will lump it all together.  And it's worth pointing out just how complex the FM ME is compared to the FIFA ME (nothing to do with graphics) for those people in particular.  I was going nowhere near the graphics, because the argument of "make it like fifaaaaaaa" followed by twelve angry faces is so tired, and so pointless.  I'd feel comfortable in saying it's never going to be like that.  If I'm proved wrong, great, otherwise I'm not going to lose any sleep.

And I stand by the comparison.  F12017 (or whatever the latest is) and Mario Kart both involve driving.  One does it in a realistic manner, and one does it in an arcadey, more "fun" manner.  Can you work out which is which?  And then for bonus points, can you work out which maps to FM and which to FIFA?  I'm sure you can.

[Cougar2010]

42 minutes ago, Cannes said:

One of the reasons why this entire discussion even exists, comes down to how easy it is to string good play together for even mediocre players. Passing, crossing and shooting under heavy pressure from multiple defenders is much much too easy in all previous fm ME's. You see the result in the aftermatch statistics clear as day in the "shots on goal" stat. It is consistenly 100-200% higher than in a normal football match.

Shots on goal in a normal football match is usually less than 10 aside, if the game has been particuarly actionpacked, you might see up to 15 shots from one team and in very extreme cases 20, in fm16 15-20 shots on goal is the bare minimum. Extreme cases are 40-50 shots on goals from the dominating side. Show me a competetive real life match that had this many shots on goal.

and it all comes down to tactical choices.

I've always thought its perhaps partly due to the likes of FIFA/PES/Match of the Day where through either watching or playing many users over time get used to lots of action packed into short lengths of time which gives a false perception of what 90 minutes of football is really like.

This then leads to what we see a lot in terms of tactics with users making tactical choices that are heavily attacking.  To put it into context the way it was explained to me many years ago by an ex-pro was: teams in general back then would have a 5/5 setup (5 primarily attacking players & 5 primarily defensive), if they needed a goal they might go 4/6 or when ahead 6/4.  Those three setups would cover the bulk of a game with only the last few minutes maybe different when teams gambled.  Compare that to the tactics we often see on the forums where users often use 3/7 or 2/8 setups from the first whistle and these overly attacking setups are the main part of the issue.

 

Using a balanced setup my shot counts for both sides are much more in line with real life.  I haven't looked recently but the last time I calculated it earlier in the year I think I averaged around 13 shots per match with 18-20 the top end & 4/5 the bottom end.

[Wells]

1 hour ago, Cannes said:

Extreme cases are 40-50 shots on goals from the dominating side. Show me a competetive real life match that had this many shots on goal.

Close one with Liverpool having 37 shots.. Liverpool 4 - 0 Everton

but still I agree it happens often compared to irl.

[Cougar2010]

16 minutes ago, grade said:

Not to offend you, but this kind of things needs to stop, for argument sake. Or we all go crazy here... because we are talking two different things here.

You know perfectly that most of us, when we talk about FIFA, we don't talk about the ME. The ME of FM and FIFA are two different beast, that has nothing to do with one another, because it is pointed to two different game styles. I at least, (I cannot say we or what not because the only opinion i can make is my own), when make the comparison is the 3D engine. The 3D engine, is graphics, the representation of the match. Sure somethings have been improved, but the players movements, feel to robotic, too Actual Soccer (the last edition was in 98, that is nearly 20 years ago... Okay this kind of things make me feel old).   Anyway, what I like for the 3D be is to the players have more natural and fluid movement. To be as smooth has the players movement in FIFA or PES. That would make the experience in FM, much more enjoyable, at leat for me. 

As for the comparison... that is worst then the car analogy. Seriously Mario Kart, is that the best you can come up with.  Shame on you, Mario Kart is the most realistic game i ever played (and yes i drive to work on a kart (being sarcastic). Now seriously, if you said between Gran Turismo and F1 games, I would accept that analogy. But both games are fun in both terms.

Now that we are clear (I hope), can we have proper discussion of the 3D Engine?

 

I think using the term 3d engine makes it more confusing tbh.

People aren't sure if you are talking about the ME or the graphics.

[Wells]

To add, I really hope I don't encounter this sort of things  https://streamable.com/gssz  in FM17 

[Cougar2010]

5 minutes ago, Wells said:

To add, I really hope I don't encounter this sort of things  https://streamable.com/gssz  in FM17 

Thats just a goalkeeper error, nothing more.

It happens IRL and should be in FM, just look at Joe Hart for example.

 

EDIT

The animation of the error could be improved to make it clearer whats happened.

[KUBI]

People let out the third part of the ME, which is commentary. When there are errors on the pitch and the commentary is about an error or a fluke, than it is part of the gameplay and not a flaw. If you see strange 3-D behaviours of players, but no comment about it, it's probably a ME issue. 

[pancone]

People, don't cry too much! The new FM will be a little more playable in spring. We can try demo(when it comes) and then we could change our impressions.

[Cougar2010]

9 minutes ago, KUBI said:

People let out the third part of the ME, which is commentary. When there are errors on the pitch and the commentary is about an error or a fluke, than it is part of the gameplay and not a flaw. If you see strange 3-D behaviours of players, but no comment about it, it's probably a ME issue. 

Yes, just shows how much I don't look at the commentary when playing nowadays

Worth adding though that not all the commentary is shown on the screen which I suspect will be the case in Wells example, you need to look at the match report which lists each line in text.

[Prim47]

Looks like these will be the new features added to FM17.

http://www.fmscout.com/a-football-manager-2017-new-features.html

On the topic of sound on match days, I think it would be good to see downloadable content similar to what you can do on FIFA (not sure it still exist, as haven't play in quite some years), where you could download commentary. Some have pointed out that they are not too interested in sound, whereas some others would like this. So would be good to see this optional just like how some download skins, face packs, competition logos etc. This I believe shouldn't be hard to implement, but of course this idea has come to late for FM17 so this is in regards to later editions.  

[Cougar2010]

6 minutes ago, Prim47 said:

Looks like these will be the new features added to FM17.

http://www.fmscout.com/a-football-manager-2017-new-features.html

On the of sound on match days, I think it would be good to see downloadable content similar to what you can do on FIFA (not sure it still exist, as haven't play in quite some years), where you could download commentary. Some have pointed out that they are not too interested in sound, whereas some others would like this. So would be good to see this optional just like how some download skins, face packs, competition logos etc. This I believe shouldn't be hard to implement, but of course this idea has come to late for FM17 so this is in regards to later editions.  

Some of those listed aren't new.

Off the top of my head the fitness tests pre match, coaching qualifications, managerial style focus & the training camp are all in FM16 (Some also in earlier versions).

[Prim47]

Just now, Cougar2010 said:

Some of those listed aren't new.

Off the top of my head the fitness tests pre match, coaching qualifications, managerial style focus & the training camp are all in FM16 (Some also in earlier versions).

I guess then some of it are just pure speculation. 

[herne79]

28 minutes ago, Prim47 said:

I guess then some of it are just pure speculation. 

Some of the listed items are taken from the info already released.  Some, as Cougar says, aren't new.  The rest is indeed pure speculation at this moment in time as nothing further has been released by SI.

[Prim47]

Just now, herne79 said:

Some of the listed items are taken from the info already released.  Some, as Cougar says, aren't new.  The rest is indeed pure speculation at this moment in time as nothing further has been released by SI.

Thank you Herne79 - I am waiting for the official details to be released. 

[Neil Brock]

3 hours ago, Cannes said:

One of the reasons why this entire discussion even exists, comes down to how easy it is to string good play together for even mediocre players. Passing, crossing and shooting under heavy pressure from multiple defenders is much much too easy in all previous fm ME's. You see the result in the aftermatch statistics clear as day in the "shots on goal" stat. It is consistenly 100-200% higher than in a normal football match.

Shots on goal in a normal football match is usually less than 10 aside, if the game has been particuarly actionpacked, you might see up to 15 shots from one team and in very extreme cases 20, in fm16 15-20 shots on goal is the bare minimum. Extreme cases are 40-50 shots on goals from the dominating side. Show me a competetive real life match that had this many shots on goal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2855748/QPR-s-win-Leicester-featured-incredible-52-shots-goal-setting-new-Premier-League-record.html

Now I'm not saying this is normal of course and shouldn't be happening regularly in game, but you asked for a competitive real life match that had this many shots on goal and I'm happy to oblige  

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, KUBI said:

People let out the third part of the ME, which is commentary. When there are errors on the pitch and the commentary is about an error or a fluke, than it is part of the gameplay and not a flaw. If you see strange 3-D behaviours of players, but no comment about it, it's probably a ME issue. 

Tbh I've always found the difference between what the commentary flags up as an error and what appears to be the case from watching the match engine one of the hardest things to assess, because whilst the 3D engine is a literal rendering of the game engine, there's a lot about the underlying calculations that either (i) isn't clear from a zoomed out view and limited set of player animations or (ii) might be different from a human assessment of the difficulties and importance of particular actions

Classic example is where I see a player miss from a narrow angle whilst appearing to be under pressure and commentary says "he should have scored". Do I believe my own eyes and knowledge of football, or do I remember that the game is actually powered by maths, and there will be calculations governing the player's chances of scoring from that particular position which the commentary module might well have access to? Same goes when the commentary lavishes outlandish praise on what appears to be a routine finish; maybe there are some calculations in the background which indicate that the player had little time to react or struck the ball in a particularly technically difficult way which isn't easily show by the 3D engine's limited set of movement animations and the physics of a ball that's just a tiny white dot. Or maybe FM commentary just erratically overhypes things like real commentators do.

Same goes when the commentary flags up a "missed interception" which looks in the zoomed out match engine view like the ball passing a well-positioned player at speed and/or height, versus when it says nothing about a player being unmarked and we're left wondering whether that's because the match engine logic was written in a way which meant that getting tighter on that player wouldn't be seen as a priority at all, or because the nearest defender's poor marking/concentration/positioning/decisions meant they overlooked that priority and the stats engine just doesn't see it as a particularly conspicuous error.

[grade]

4 hours ago, forameuss said:

The people that make these kinds of comparisons are exactly the kind of people who will lump it all together.  And it's worth pointing out just how complex the FM ME is compared to the FIFA ME (nothing to do with graphics) for those people in particular.  I was going nowhere near the graphics, because the argument of "make it like fifaaaaaaa" followed by twelve angry faces is so tired, and so pointless.  I'd feel comfortable in saying it's never going to be like that.  If I'm proved wrong, great, otherwise I'm not going to lose any sleep.

And I stand by the comparison.  F12017 (or whatever the latest is) and Mario Kart both involve driving.  One does it in a realistic manner, and one does it in an arcadey, more "fun" manner.  Can you work out which is which?  And then for bonus points, can you work out which maps to FM and which to FIFA?  I'm sure you can.

If you are going to be that way... so be it. You have your opinion and i have mine. That is the end of that discussion.

3 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

I think using the term 3d engine makes it more confusing tbh.

People aren't sure if you are talking about the ME or the graphics.

What name SI calls it? I all forward to have the 3D and ME separated when discussing the 3D. Well lets call it... 3D? Sounds like good name for me.

I think the player motion on that video sounded like too much unrealistic. For example I think that the ball should only move when there is an actual contact with the players body. I see too much of ball changing direction before the ball enters in contact with the players body. That should be improved. Stuff like this needs to massively improved.

[Silver Twilight Sparkle]

14 hours ago, Svenc said:

Speaking of one on ones, traditionally there's been lots of frustration caused by the ones created through the middle, that is from a no angled through ball. It was worse in older iterations, where there was marking bugs that allowed to basically spam those all match. You'll still have those exclusively if you keep things very narrow, and generally have most of the assists of players coming from narrow positions. There's a time and point for keeping things narrow and compact, such as playing more defensively (that's may be why none of the more aggressive mentalities in-game encourage narrow width without somebody fiddling with it). However, when trying to create options, that's not it. According to research, the more narrow the supply, the harder it is to convert. Partly laws of physics (no chance of the forward ever massively changing direction of the ball here) too. There's bugs, like players taking the wrong foot to shoot, however there's also that clearly trend of frustration caused in this scenario specifically. Naturally there is also misconceptions of what chance conversion actually should look like, and that  it isn't simply a case of Messi converts all and worse guy little (the margins are far smaller, clubs spend millions in attempts to go a few extra percent, plus some players are reliable on others creating opportunity, whilst others carve open themselves), but yeah. http://www.skysports.com/football/news/15118/10189870/wasteful-arsenals-premier-league-title-hopes-hit-by-poor-finishing

Strikers in FM need to have better tools to be able to deal with these straight angled chances. The game provides two PPMs named "Likes to round keeper" and "Likes to lob keeper", they would be useful but they have no effect and are NEVER used by the players, let's hope these are fixed for the next game. The only version where players actually tried to lob the GK (even those without PPM) was FM14.

"Likes to round keeper" however, i don't think i ever saw it in any version.

[beardymouse]

Miles on Twitter:

"Have just seen the first draft of the FM17 new features video - 32 minutes long & we don't even have time to talk about 2 of my favourites!"

[KUBI]

 

[forameuss]

It'll be top trolling if they released the video minutes after the loyalty bonus expired.

[Dagenham_Dave]

2 minutes ago, forameuss said:

It'll be top trolling if they released the video minutes after the loyalty bonus expired.

That would be amazing. Tears and snotters EVERYWHERE. 

[KingBuzzo15]

Beta release date usually gets announced in the features vid as well doesn't it?

[forameuss]

6 minutes ago, KingBuzzo15 said:

Beta release date usually gets announced in the features vid as well doesn't it?

It's already been announced.  Only thing that hasn't is when it will be.  Which never gets announced.  It just appears.

[fabioke]

56 minutes ago, forameuss said:

It'll be top trolling if they released the video minutes after the loyalty bonus expired.

I don't want to be trolled .