Jump to content

Football Manager 2017 Official Feedback Thread


Recommended Posts

 After the new patch, if I send a scout to see a player for a week, I have 100% knowledge immediately even if the starting percentage is very low.

The patch changed some of my settings (the tactics screen shows a new bar - Tactical Familiarity - that I didn't see/choose before) or is it a bug?  

 

EDIT:  The night has passed and now it seems that scouts work as always. Problem solved. 

SECOND EDIT: Knowledge hits 100% no more the day after the scout sees the player, but after a week.  Quicker than it used to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What's the thinking behind making the generic roles/duties CM/D and DM/D less generic by forcing certain levels of closing down (more or much more)? I've used those roles with close down less, as the specialist roles always bring something to the table that I don't want, be it playmaker status of the DLP, forced fewer risky passes of the anchor man or dropping between the cb's of the half back. The alternatives are even fewer in CM than in DM. I mean, shouldn't generic roles be there for the very reason that they can be customized in ways the specialist roles can't?

I really, really, really don't get it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kcinnay said:

Disappointed with the patch. I've been a loyal customer for the series since I was old enough to buy the game (CM 03/04), but now I feel a bit let down. I know it's impossible to please everybody and to solve every problem, but... Even though I've a (much) better than average laptop, I've still not been able to play the game without either disabled crowd or a severe 3D lag. And I'm not the only one who has that problem. (https://community.sigames.com/topic/386972-lag-in-match-engine/) I appreciate the way there's been feedback for this from the SI people, but at some point, a solution needs to be found. If a retailer sells me a car with a broken cd player, he needs to fix it. The broken cd player doesn't make the car unusable, nor is it essential for the car, but it takes away the joy.

Besides, I think the ME is again being ignored.  There's been buzz about wide midfielders defending too wide. Again, very friendly and fast feedback about this from SI, but that there's still no solution for this, and, even more, that there's just been announced that it isn't something for FM 2017, that's very frustrating. It makes it impossible for certain users to create the (real life like) tactics they love. It's ridicoulous to have a setting for 'very narrow width' and still see wide midfielders hugging the touchline in defense. That's just afwul.

And then there are ongoing problems in the player roles, for example that there's defensively actually not a whole lotta difference in the behaviour of an advanced forward and a defensive forward, that a defensive forward (defensive) doesn't put (enough) pressure on the most defensive of the opponent's midfielders, that the prevent GK distribution doesn't make the forward harrass the defense, the weird correlation beteen depth and creative freedom... At some point, you can't keep on saying "maybe next year".

I know this game will be played by me for multiple extra hours, so that it'll be worth the money, and I know that there aren't many games where mods and developpers of the games are even half as accessible as here, but... The game is stagnating, in my opinion. I've bought FM always and I'll probably keep on buying FM 18, 19, even though I now can't use a 'finished' product (no crowd without lag), and that's most especially because I love football management games and there's simply no other game like FM. Maybe for the better, the monopoly should be broken, I don't know.

I hope there'll still be some fixes in the next patch (lagging solved, defensive forwards who actually press and defend and track back into midfield like in FM14, narrow midfielders). It would make me (and as I suppose, a lot of other users too) a lot happier - at least about this game. :-)

 

I'm not sure the game is stagnating, but I am still of the opinion the game would be better if there was still competition.  Of  course even without  any competition SI still try to make the game as good as they can, however competition drives inovation and increases focus

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am encountering what I think is a pretty big bug post-patch.  On the tactics screen, I can no longer drag any players to my "substitutes" section.  It's like that part of the screen is non-interactive, it simply doesn't work.  The only way I can set up subs is by using the drop-down list to the left side of each player in the list.

Anyone else experiencing this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

I'm not sure the game is stagnating, but I am still of the opinion the game would be better if there was still competition.  Of  course even without  any competition SI still try to make the game as good as they can, however competition drives inovation and increases focus

Not only is that not particularly accurate, it's also really not relevant to 17.2

Please keep it on topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have re-installed FM17 and updated with the latest patch as I feel SI deserve at least the benefit of the doubt to give it a go and see what it's like with all the new fixes.

Bitterly disappointed that (after my own testing with Borussia Dortmund in multiple matches) wide midfielder defensive positioning (regardless of role/instructions) is still far too wide for my liking, leaving massive open gaps in the half spaces for the opposition to exploit and draw out vulnerable central defenders (I realise maybe not all see this as a problem or even being of any real importance to their tactical preferences/enjoyment of the game, but it's a big deal for me).

I appreciate that SI is taking on feedback about this, investigating the issue and considering appropriate measures to achieve a balanced match engine but it is so very, very disappointing for those of us that obsess about a getting into a compact shape in the defensive phase.

It's not so much the default positioning (even if you disagree with it), it's more the lack of control on the part of us users to tell our players to act in a different manner if we deem it necessary. In real life, if you see a tactical issue that bothers you, it can be addressed by a touchline instruction, half time talk, pre-match preparation, training and so on, but with this issue, those of us that deem it a problem for our defensive structure have no way of rectifying it to achieve our desired shape - I think that's really the most frustrating thing.

For me, it's a game breaker, for others it may not be. In the meantime, I've gone back to playing FM16 with Chievo Verona. Yes, that game has it's flaws with fullbacks/crossing and defending throw-ins, but for the most part, I was able to achieve the compact shape I was looking for defensively and that makes it a lot more playable for someone with my tactical preferences, hence why I've gone back until this FM17 issue is finally resolved (which may not happen until FM18 or later - we just don't know).

On the plus-side, really am rather impressed with the improvement in the inverted wingback with this latest patch - plays a lot like Lahm did on many occasions at Bayern under Guardiola. Credit where credit is due to the match engine team. I'm loving that aspect but just disappointed that I won't be playing around with it until this wide midfielder defensive positioning is tweaked to allow greater flexibility for those of us that want to instruct them to play more compact when our team loses the ball.

I hope that we're not left waiting until FM18 for some kind of fix/compromise/workaround/option to vary instructions that affect this - but I'm starting to lose hope on this one which is bitterly disappointing. I know SI don't like to discuss timetables or make promises they can't keep until they've done the requisite testing but it would be nice to have some additional communication about whether or not there is any chance at all of this being dealt with in the FM17 timeframe or whether it's completely out of the question until FM18.

I'm even more gutted because I've got 8 weeks holidays coming up where I was hoping to have a massive FM sessions over that period, but I think that's probably out the window now. :(

I will keep FM17 installed - but only for the purpose of collecting as many PKM's of this problem as possible to post in the bugs forum. At least that way I can feel as though I'm doing something constructive to help the SI match engine testing team to identify more examples of this problem. Hopefully this helps them to tweak in a manner that achieves a better balance for all users, and a more realistic representation of how managers have the ability to influence/instruct wide players to defend in real life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wateronglass said:

Here we have a "Good player for most National League South sides". :applause:

I really hope this issue doesn't stay unresolved in FM17's history.

fm_2016_12_15_05_23_40_568.png

What is the issue? You need to be much clearer in what the problem is, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm by no means a tactical genius, but I fail to understand why there's no possibility to instruct CM/D and DM/D to close down less. Always had good stability in midfield with them closing down less, but now they seem to be all over the place. Not too much of a big deal though as I can perform the same role with support duty and close down less, just interested to know what's the thinking behind that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, RoPS83 said:

I'm by no means a tactical genius, but I fail to understand why there's no possibility to instruct CM/D and DM/D to close down less. Always had good stability in midfield with them closing down less, but now they seem to be all over the place. Not too much of a big deal though as I can perform the same role with support duty and close down less, just interested to know what's the thinking behind that.

You've pretty much answered your own question there tbh...

By definition, setting them to cm defend , is, among other things, setting them to close down more ... what do you think cm/d means?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoPS83 said:

I'm by no means a tactical genius, but I fail to understand why there's no possibility to instruct CM/D and DM/D to close down less. Always had good stability in midfield with them closing down less, but now they seem to be all over the place. Not too much of a big deal though as I can perform the same role with support duty and close down less, just interested to know what's the thinking behind that.

Agree, I now have to go with the role of anchor man to get that sitting DM who roams less. Not much of an issue as I like that concrete stability in front of the back 4 for extra protection, I however can see why some people would be peeved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Welshace said:

You've pretty much answered your own question there tbh...

By definition, setting them to cm defend , is, among other things, setting them to close down more ... what do you think cm/d means?

I disagree, not all CM players close down the ball, some are told to sit, protect and keep that solid base. It would be nice to not have that option forced upon us with the generic role which is now in game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

What is the issue? You need to be much clearer in what the problem is, please.

Alright, sorry. I reported this a while ago and it's under review.

The issue is that it's an absolutely insane amount of money to demand, and clearly not intended behaviour because it happens to many different players. Throughout the season there are periods of time where they will either ask for nonsense like that, and then at some point they switch back to completely reasonable demands that are 10+ times lower. And the cycle continues...

2 hours ago, Per Annum said:

It doesn't mean he wants £2.8k to play. Just that he wants that to play for you and your club. 

Sorry, there's no way. He's at my club right now on a £350 p/w contract. Right now I can pull up a bunch of other players doing this, the best example being my over the hill striker who's been at the club for 5 years and now only rated a leading striker for the 7th tier. He's on a generous £325 p/w, but as I pull up contract discussions he's asking for £1.3K p/a non-contract. There's no logic in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Welshace said:

You've pretty much answered your own question there tbh...

By definition, setting them to cm defend , is, among other things, setting them to close down more ... what do you think cm/d means?

My understanding is that CM/D or DM/D holds position. The role even has hold position ticked as default. I think that kinda contradicts the close down more instruction, he's supposed to hold position but still ventures away to close down opponents more frequently. This now seems especially problematic when playing against 4231 DM, with my CM/D closing down the opposition DM leaving the opposition AMC a lot of space to operate. It even seems that with default instructions the CM/S stays deeper than CM/D (at least when playing against 4231DM), which I guess shouldn't be the case. I know opposition AMC is usually countered with a DM but I've always had good results against that system with my 433 with two CM/D and I'd like to keep it that way.

But like I said it's not a big deal as I just have to tailor the roles differently now, just interested to know why they are set like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few issues since the patch (some have been mentioned...)

- its become less easy to remove a substitute from the tactics screen

- min/max wage/asking price have suddenly disappeared from scouting screen. not all players, but a significant amount

- knowledge of scouted players hits 100% quicker than it used to, but with lots less info provided

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • SI Staff
21 minutes ago, wateronglass said:

Alright, sorry. I reported this a while ago and it's under review.

The issue is that it's an absolutely insane amount of money to demand, and clearly not intended behaviour because it happens to many different players. Throughout the season there are periods of time where they will either ask for nonsense like that, and then at some point they switch back to completely reasonable demands that are 10+ times lower. And the cycle continues...

Sorry, there's no way. He's at my club right now on a £350 p/w contract. Right now I can pull up a bunch of other players doing this, the best example being my over the fence striker who's been at the club for 5 years and now only rated a leading striker for the 7th tier. He's on a generous £325 p/w, but as I pull up contract discussions he's asking for £1.3K p/a non-contract. There's no logic in it.

Just to add a little advice here, contract demands are strongly linked to the squad status. What happens if you increase his squad status? Not to say it isn't an issue, but if you are on a non-contract player then that isn't guaranteed money, so I would expect a player to demand more money, especially a Backup GK as he won't get as much game time.

With everything, if you think it is an issue, please post in the relevant forums and someone from SI or a Moderator will be happy to help you further :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, wateronglass said:

 There's no logic in it.

Him having only a slight interest may have something to do with it, but by all means, if you have a new example, report it like you did the first one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only played 3 matches last night but didn't witness any massive changes, seems like this patch was focused exclusively on fixing bugs but didn't really change any dynamics of the game, either within the ME or the transfers/squad management module.

I did find a bug although I was in a hurry to report it properly - my squad's "body language" widget kept disappearing and at some stage it was greyed out and I couldn't add it back anymore. Not a massive problem as I can see that info when I click "make a substitution", but still slightly annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • SI Staff
1 hour ago, SWaRFeGa said:

A few issues since the patch (some have been mentioned...)

- its become less easy to remove a substitute from the tactics screen

- min/max wage/asking price have suddenly disappeared from scouting screen. not all players, but a significant amount

- knowledge of scouted players hits 100% quicker than it used to, but with lots less info provided

Thanks for the feedback. The scouting issues mentioned are currently being investigated. 

Cheers,

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wish there was a warning in the transfer confirmation message for when you're about to sign someone who's already played for two clubs in the same season.

I've just walked mindlessly into a January deadline day loan signing of a striker who'd earlier this season played for Huddersfield in the League Cup, and then signed for Norwich and played for them in the Championship. Of course, he wouldn't be eligible to play for my Millwall team as well, so I sent him straight back to Norwich as soon as I realised that. It's probably my own fault for not looking into the player's club history properly, but surely I could have been given a gentle reminder about this before I confirmed the deal?

Something for the suggestions forum, perhaps?

Otherwise, great job on the update. The tactic familiarity bar for each player on the tactics screen is another nice little addition. :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, CFuller said:

I do wish there was a warning in the transfer confirmation message for when you're about to sign someone who's already played for two clubs in the same season.

I've just walked mindlessly into a January deadline day loan signing of a striker who'd earlier this season played for Huddersfield in the League Cup, and then signed for Norwich and played for them in the Championship. Of course, he wouldn't be eligible to play for my Millwall team as well, so I sent him straight back to Norwich as soon as I realised that. It's probably my own fault for not looking into the player's club history properly, but surely I could have been given a gentle reminder about this before I confirmed the deal?

Something for the suggestions forum, perhaps?

Otherwise, great job on the update. The tactic familiarity bar for each player on the tactics screen is another nice little addition. :thup:

When you are making an offer (can't remember whether it's transfer or contract, but probably transfer bid) there will be text in red warning you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

When you are making an offer (can't remember whether it's transfer or contract, but probably transfer bid) there will be text in red warning you.

How did I not notice that? :seagull:

That said, I can't help feeling that I could've done with being given a final warning on the transfer confirmation message before I went through with the deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, CFuller said:

How did I not notice that? :seagull:

That said, I can't help feeling that I could've done with being given a final warning on the transfer confirmation message before I went through with the deal.

One for the suggestions section, definitely.  :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nic Madden said:

Just to add a little advice here, contract demands are strongly linked to the squad status. What happens if you increase his squad status? Not to say it isn't an issue, but if you are on a non-contract player then that isn't guaranteed money, so I would expect a player to demand more money, especially a Backup GK as he won't get as much game time.

With everything, if you think it is an issue, please post in the relevant forums and someone from SI or a Moderator will be happy to help you further :)

 

2 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Him having only a slight interest may have something to do with it, but by all means, if you have a new example, report it like you did the first one.

You have both helped in diagnosing part of this.

I can confirm this affects only players who are contracted. At this moment:

  • All ~20 non-contract players have reasonable demands
  • Only 3 out of ~15 contracted players have reasonable demands.
  • Those 3 players all coincidentally come out the gate with desired terms of a contract offer.
  • While the others are demanding the aforementioned inflated non-contracts.

The kicker here is I tried offering contracts to some of these trouble players based on their current one...and they accept them, even though it's orders of magnitude less money  than what they wanted from their non-contract demand. So it seems as though deep down in their little souls, they actually want a contract, in spite of their pinings. Although this is all good to know, it makes negotiation difficult busywork where you're either going to overpay, or **** them off trying to guess how much they really want, because the stubborn ones who don't accept right away revert back to non-contract demands with every contract offer they don't like. I will update my post on the bug forum with this information and my latest save.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not a bug though, its simple negotiation.

What Nic & Hunt3r have said is right but I'll also add that you are negotiating in December when players still haev over six months left on their current contract.

If you wait until closer to their contract end date their demands will drop as they will be in a weaker bargaining position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Thats not a bug though, its simple negotiation.

What Nic & Hunt3r have said is right but I'll also add that you are negotiating in December when players still haev over six months left on their current contract.

If you wait until closer to their contract end date their demands will drop as they will be in a weaker bargaining position.

Honestly, I'm astonished that anyone sees this as normal. It's not how the series has worked previously and it's not how life works; it's quite clearly a bug.

When players don't want to discuss new terms because they've only just signed or aren't happy, they block talks outright. That's cool. In this case, they come at me with absurd non-contract offers for no reason? That is not a strong bargaining position considering if I (could) accept their crazy appearance, goal and sub fees, they'd be lifted out of their contract and into a state where I can terminate them on the spot without paying a penny. Whoops.

Why would a player not want to open talks about an extended and improved contract at a club they're happy at, anyway? 6 months is nothing. As I mentioned, from what I've tested so far, these players will ultimately accept terms equivalent or within ~15% of their current contract, i.e normalcy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, qwerty22 said:

Still seeing disturbing scorelines, Every other week across all leagues matches are ending 6-5, 7-3, 7-5 and so on.... Very silly.

Add some context please. Are these leagues actually loaded? Are they running in full detail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a blast using the IWB now. Love the flexability I can get from my formation now. GREAT JOB!!

It would be absolutely awesome if we could get it with either less PI ticked or in a defensive version. I would be in heaven if I could get him to move inside to screen when we're in possesion so I could let my other CMs move forward more. But now I'm just pushing it, I know :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wateronglass said:

Honestly, I'm astonished that anyone sees this as normal. It's not how the series has worked previously and it's not how life works; it's quite clearly a bug.

What part is "not how it worked previously"?

In terms of RL you can't really makes any sort of claims either as situations are really isolated cases for each player and his circumstances.

 

7 minutes ago, wateronglass said:

When players don't want to discuss new terms because they've only just signed or aren't happy, they block talks outright. That's cool. In this case, they come at me with absurd non-contract offers for no reason? That is not a strong bargaining position considering if I (could) accept their crazy appearance, goal and sub fees, they'd be lifted out of their contract and into a state where I can terminate them on the spot without paying a penny. Whoops.

As I understand it the player hasn't come to you, you've initiated the contract discussion while the player is still under contract which weakens your bargaining position as you've implied you want to strongly want to keep him.

After that wanting the N/C terms is probably down to him expecting backup status and he wants to keep the freedom of moving if an offer of first team football arrives from another club.  The N/C terms and squad status is the entire reason for the high fees, he wants compensation for being a backup & having a lack of job security.  In my experience if you make him a part time or full time offer with a fixed wage/contract then players will tend to view the offer higher than a N/C one.

I understand what you are saying about a player giving up six months of a fixed contract for a N/C offer and I would agree thats maybe something for SI to review as a potential bug.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Add some context please. Are these leagues actually loaded? Are they running in full detail?

Yes

Loaded, full detail. default database.

These freak results are happening everywhere even in the champions league and world cup qualifiers.

I understand it happens irl but how many times a year do you see a 7-5 or a 6-5?

If others can confirm it would be great.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, qwerty22 said:

Yes

Loaded, full detail. default database.

These freak results are happening everywhere even in the champions league and world cup qualifiers.

I understand it happens but how many times a year do you see a 7-5 or a 6-5?

 

I didn't excuse it. I just asked for context. SI would really appreciate those PKMs in the bugs forum, so that they can get to the bottom of these freak results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

What part is "not how it worked previously"?

In terms of RL you can't really makes any sort of claims either as situations are really isolated cases for each player and his circumstances.

 

As I understand it the player hasn't come to you, you've initiated the contract discussion while the player is still under contract which weakens your bargaining position as you've implied you want to strongly want to keep him.

After that wanting the N/C terms is probably down to him expecting backup status and he wants to keep the freedom of moving if an offer of first team football arrives from another club.  The N/C terms and squad status is the entire reason for the high fees, he wants compensation for being a backup & having a lack of job security.  In my experience if you make him a part time or full time offer with a fixed wage/contract then players will tend to view the offer higher than a N/C one.

I understand what you are saying about a player giving up six months of a fixed contract for a N/C offer and I would agree thats maybe something for SI to review as a potential bug.

In a modest 1200 hours of FM14, 15 and 16, players at this level, or hell, any level, have never demanded anywhere near this or exhibited this sort of dissonant behaviour. In higher leagues non-contracts get phased out (reflected IRL) as players start getting anywhere near being worth the £1K p/w/a mark. Yet here in the most extreme case so far, we have a £2.8K p/a demand in National League South for a "Good" National League South Player. If this is some kind of game, then it's not a very fruitful one, and a lot of players seem to be in on it. No club could nor would ever pay them several times over their limit for appearances and other clauses, and they should know this, so why are they trying it? Why are they hiding their desire for a contract several orders of magnitude more reasonable that they'll gladly accept?

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wateronglass said:

In a modest 1200 hours of FM14, 15 and 16, players at this level, or hell, any level, have never demanded anywhere near this or exhibited this sort of dissonant behaviour. In higher leagues non-contracts get phased out (reflected IRL) as players start getting anywhere near being worth the £1K p/w/a mark. Yet here in the most extreme case so far, we have a £2.8K p/a demand in National League South for a "Good" National League South Player. If this is some kind of game, then it's not a very fruitful one, and a lot of players seem to be in on it. No club could nor would ever pay them several times over their limit for appearances and other clauses, and they should know this, so why are they trying it? Why are they hiding their desire for a contract several orders of magnitude more reasonable that they'll gladly accept?

Because thats the basics of negotiation.

They start high and come down, you start low and hopefully come to an agreement somewhere in the middle.

If they are refusing to budge from that figure then its down to the situation and their personality/agent's personality.

As you said why would he give up six months of a fixed contract? well he would if you paid him high fees.  The fact that its outside your wage structure is irrelevant to him as thats what he thinks he is worth.  Out of interest what is his current contract?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any complaints or anything, but just wanted to say it's the first time I've played in the game in at least 10 years. The progress in detail and realism it has made since those days is tremendous. The disappointment/jubilation factor with success/defeat is just how I remember, only now my heart is older and less able to take it. :-)

Thanks for the work you all do to make such an enjoyable gaming experience. Happy Holidays to all at SI (and on this forum).

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Because thats the basics of negotiation.

They start high and come down, you start low and hopefully come to an agreement somewhere in the middle.

If they are refusing to budge from that figure then its down to the situation and their personality/agent's personality.

As you said why would he give up six months of a fixed contract? well he would if you paid him high fees.  The fact that its outside your wage structure is irrelevant to him as thats what he thinks he is worth.  Out of interest what is his current contract?

If you were interviewed for an entry level IT job and ask for £60K a year they will laugh at you. Starting high to such an absurd degree is a great way to end things immediately,

There is no room to negotiate. He literally won't. I bump down appearance and clean sheet bonus to £650, the highest I can offer (which I still would never pay). He says no and keeps asking for dat £2.8K. He's currently on a £275 p/w contract, has no agent, and a balanced personality.

Then there's the other contracted players, ranging from barely decent to good for this level, and no better, also asking for inflated £950-£1.7K p/a. None of them are anywhere near worth it, they don't really think they are either. No one is interested in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, wateronglass said:

If you were interviewed for an entry level IT job and ask for £60K a year they will laugh at you. Starting high to such an absurd degree is a great way to end things immediately,

There is no room to negotiate. He literally won't. I bump down appearance and clean sheet bonus to £650, the highest I can offer (which I still would never pay). He says no and keeps asking for dat £2.8K. He's currently on a £275 p/w contract, has no agent, and a balanced personality.

Then there's the other contracted players, ranging from barely decent to good for this level, and no better, also asking for inflated £950-£1.7K p/a. None of them are anywhere near worth it, they don't really think they are either. No one is interested in them.

I think this is the key issue. It's so far removed from the going rate for that division and that squad status it makes no sense. If he basically doesn't want to negotiate then they should just say so and see his contract out. Also the players don't tend to accept rotation and a wage and will end the negotiations as soon as you insist on a PT contract. This is not logical behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is a bug as I don't follow the competition that closely in real life, but in my current save, I'm playing as Salford and I'm currently in League 2.  I managed to reach the final of the JPT (think it's called the Checkatrade Cup now or something but my real names fix still has it as the JPT). In the final, I came up against Coventry. As I'm in debt quite a bit, I was looking forward to the big gate receipts from the game at Wembley. 

Then I saw the attendance after the match. Just over 13,000 there. It informed me there was 4000 from Salford and the rest from Coventry. I checked Coventry's home attendances in League 1, and they range from 12-14000 for every home game. I know the JPT isn't that glamorous a trophy, but I find it hard to believe they would only bring 9000 fans to a cup final when they average more than 4000 more than this in the league. Looking at last season's final in real life, Oxford took 34000 to Wembley for the game vs Barnsley from an overall crowd of around 60,000. 

Needless to say I was gutted at missing out on a big pay day. I managed to win the cup on penalties, so it wasn't all bad, but I'm sure if this match was replicated in real life, there would be at least three times as many fans there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Wavelberry said:

I think this is the key issue. It's so far removed from the going rate for that division and that squad status it makes no sense. If he basically doesn't want to negotiate then they should just say so and see his contract out. Also the players don't tend to accept rotation and a wage and will end the negotiations as soon as you insist on a PT contract. This is not logical behaviour.

Players at this level move around far more frequently than they do at higher levels, so I would personally take the view that the player will be booted out and a replacement brought in. OK it''s not ideal, but compared to the bug where you couldn't sign German players it''s minor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Extremely disappointed that the CM (D) no longer gives us the opportunity to select "close down much less" as an instruction.

If you select CM (S) with "hold position" and "close down much less" his starting position is too high in both defence and attack, but particularly in attack.

If you select DLP (D) - too deep in possession.

If you select DLP (S), too high in attack.

You can't seem to replicate the old CM (D) with "close down much less" on the new match engine.

I just don't understand why SI would make a change that decreases our tactical options and flexibility. It's beyond belief.

Each one of these match engine changes seems to bring up more and more frustrations each time. I'm just gutted and so very bitterly disappointed in FM17. Wish I had never bought it.

Will have to be very careful before buying another FM. Won't be automatically buying every version anymore, but instead will scout the bugs forum for major issues prior to making a purchase decision. This seems like the only way to go these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...