Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Romano338

Did FM became too elitist tactic-wise?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, forameuss said:

You keep holding the "simulation" part of it as a stick to beat the game with. 

I do take your point, I was wondering about that myself as I wrote it (how perfect is a sim game supposed to be?)

I still feel that overall it leads to the same conclusion (we are currently too far from any standard)

 

1 minute ago, forameuss said:

most of your posts come across as extremely condescending to anyone you don't believe comes up to your "lofty standards". 

I'm sure I could say it better, but I am confronting the status quo. I feel condescended against when I read how much mods, devs and the SI leadership think that the community is essentially a bunch of loud mouths that come here to vent with little to contribute. I read here over and over excellent ideas and commentary from the community that just get dismissed wholesale. So condescension goes both ways, and I voiced my opinion - albeit contentious and probably said poorly, it is still honest representing a side that feels marginalized - and I meant it less as a rant and more as food for thought towards making improvements.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

I do take your point, I was wondering about that myself as I wrote it (how perfect is a sim game supposed to be?)

I still feel that overall it leads to the same conclusion (we are currently too far from any standard)

 

 

In your opinion.  You've set high standards that the game is unlikely to ever reach, then started beating them with said high standards that they never claimed to be striving for anyway.  

I don't expect people to agree with me, but I'd far rather the game was fun than it continued down the road of being a po-faced spreadsheet with little personality, just so someone can beam because they increased their possession by 1%.  Luckily, SI realise there has to be a balance between what everyone wants, no matter how loud any party shouts.

 

3 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

I'm sure I could say it better, but I am confronting the status quo. I feel condescended against when I read how much mods, devs and the SI leadership think that the community is essentially a bunch of loud mouths that come here to vent with little to contribute. I read here over and over excellent ideas and commentary from the community that just get dismissed wholesale. So condescension goes both ways, and I voiced my opinion - albeit contentious and probably said poorly, it is still honest representing a side that feels marginalized - and I meant it less as a rant and more as food for thought towards making improvements.

Implying the developers don't know anything about football is probably not the best place to start.  You complain about the attitude towards you, do you really think saying things like "To me it shows the level of skill of the people involved in making and supporting the game." and describing their understanding as "amateur-level" is going to make them want to listen to you?  I'd bet that'd be a no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Implying the developers don't know anything about football is probably not the best place to start. 

Some of the most personal growth in my professional life has come from honest (and sometimes painful) criticism. You have to stare at your flaws to improve, and the most impact comes from someone in a position to judge (like a client/customer that takes the thing seriously). I don't mean to be rude and I'd much rather be polite, but I'm also not aiming at stroking anyone's ego when it comes to the current state of FM. The thing is poor, let's stop dismissing criticism and start taking some responsibility for a series in decline (quality-wise).

 

12 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Implying the developers don't know anything about football is probably not the best place to start. 

I didn't say they don't know anything.

I suggested that they don't know enough to code Guardiola into a simulator, and that's a problem when you are building a simulator for a popular sport in which everyone wants to gravitate towards the greatest pros (we expect Messi to play like himself, Mourinho to manage like himself, etc). And then you can argue "well, we are working on expanding" but it's been many years. They expand other stuff like promises and social feed, but the actual tactics are not getting better.

Is it that they are still working on it, or like I suspect that nowhere on a to-do list is an item "make the tactics system better so we can have a hope of representing real modern tactics". And then ask yourself why that isn't a priority - it goes back to the cycle of explaining and dismissing "the current system is fine as-is". Fine according to whom, at what standard? Certainly not at pro level. Not even at a serious aficionado level. If you find that insulting, I'm sorry, I don't aim to offend, but I'm not faking reality to avoid touching someone's feelings.

Honestly, I want to hear how many real Sunday league managers can set their tactics to the options of the FM tactics UI. If it is not good enough to run serious amateur tactics, how is it good enough to command Manchester City?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

Some of the most personal growth in my professional life has come from honest (and sometimes painful) criticism. You have to stare at your flaws to improve, and the most impact comes from someone in a position to judge (like a client/customer that takes the thing seriously). I don't mean to be rude and I'd much rather be polite, but I'm also not aiming at stroking anyone's ego when it comes to the current state of FM. The thing is poor, let's stop dismissing criticism and start taking some responsibility for a series in decline (quality-wise).

 

I didn't say they don't know anything.

I suggested that they don't know enough to code Guardiola into a simulator, and that's a problem when you are building a simulator for a popular sport in which everyone wants to gravitate towards the greatest pros (we expect Messi to play like himself, Mourinho to manage like himself, etc). And then you can argue "well, we are working on expanding" but it's been many years. They expand other stuff like promises and social feed, but the actual tactics are not getting better.

Is it that they are still working on it, or like I suspect that nowhere on a to-do list is an item "make the tactics system better so we can have a hope of representing real modern tactics". And then ask yourself why that isn't a priority - it goes back to the cycle of explaining and dismissing "the current system is fine as-is". Fine according to whom, at what standard? Certainly not at pro level. Not even at a serious aficionado level. If you find that insulting, I'm sorry, I don't aim to offend, but I'm not faking reality to avoid touching someone's feelings.

Honestly, I want to hear how many real Sunday league managers can set their tactics to the options of the FM tactics UI. If it is not good enough to run serious amateur tactics, how is it good enough to command Manchester City?

With respect

a) you were insulting, and lets be up front here, that's never acceptable on any front (see the house rules)

b) whilst it is your opinion, the facts dont actually support your assertion they dont have knowledge. Mostly because you don't even know who the voices are to make that assertion. 

Understanding something doesn't mean coding it is a given

 

Saying the game needs work is one thing, asserting that the people who work on it dont know anything is rude, and isnt acceptable on any level, so please curb how you talk about people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

you were insulting, and lets be up front here, that's never acceptable on any front (see the house rules)

With respect: I had no intention to be insulting. You find my opinion offensive, fine, I'm sorry if my words have created offense, but I meant no insult.

 

8 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

whilst it is your opinion, the facts dont actually support your assertion they dont have knowledge

That's your opinion. I stated mine in detail. I find yours wanting of explanation.

 

8 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

asserting that the people who work on it dont know anything is rude

For the second time (see above) I didn't say they don't know anything. I said they don't appear to know enough nor want to make a life-like football sim with modern tactics. Why? See all my reasons above in plenty of detail.

You are welcome to disagree. If you want to state a counter argument I'd like to hear it. Don't point fingers about insults though - I understand my opinion is impolite, but it is not a deliberate insult. I went into a lot of detail to substantiate.

Edited by tacticsdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

With respect: I had no intention to be insulting. You find my opinion offensive, fine, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I meant no insult.

 

That's your opinion. I stated mine in detail. I find yours wanting of explanation.

 

For the second time (see above) I didn't say they don't know anything. I said they don't appear to know enough nor want to make a life-like football sim with modern tactics. Why? See all my reasons above in plenty of detail.

You are welcome to disagree. If you want to state a counter argument I'd like to hear it. Don't point fingers about insults though - I understand my opinion is impolite, but it is not a deliberate insult. I went into a lot of detail to substantiate.

It's not about whether I find it offensive, it's in the house rules

You're splitting hairs, but it's the same thing. Saying they don't know enough to create Guardiola is still insulting (and incorrect, since wwfan, who definitely did, has had involvement in the game)

Here's the counter argument: unlike most users, beta testers and the like actually have direct engagement with devs and see much more discussion. Unlike you, we get to see the some of the knowledge of those involved. Ita hard to us to elaborate more it's private. But knowing the ins ands outs of Barcelona doesn't in any way mean you can create me code out of it from thin air. Before you even worry about that, you still have to add more base levels to the me coding. 

People shouldn't conflate knowledge with coding 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

The other side of the coin is, does SI really need to address this? The game makes as much money as always, as far as I know, so to the majority of players that isn't an issue.

I think that's a core point. Is it a sim if most people think it is? How many users get into a CL matchup against Barcelona and leave unsatisfied that they won easily? Perhaps the majority celebrate a wonderful victory and move right past questioning what kind of Barcelona they just 'outclassed'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minuti fa, tacticsdude ha scritto:

I think that's a core point. Is it a sim if most people think it is? How many users get into a CL matchup against Barcelona and leave unsatisfied that they won easily? Perhaps the majority celebrate a wonderful victory and move right past questioning what kind of Barcelona they just 'outclassed'.

 

the whole point of the game from 90s onwards was to take your team to the top with some elements of simulation. But the most backward part of the game is match/tactics simulation. Yet, it is still the best we have in this point of time. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

the whole point of the game from 90s onwards was to take your team to the top with some elements of simulation. But the most backward part of the game is match/tactics simulation. Yet, it is still the best we have in this point of time. :D 

I think for all the talk about FM as simulation, most users go into it playing it as a football-based power fantasy.  FIFA, but for people who want to be Alex Ferguson rather than Leo Messi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minuto fa, Sunstrikuuu ha scritto:

I think for all the talk about FM as simulation, most users go into it playing it as a football-based power fantasy.  FIFA, but for people who want to be Alex Ferguson rather than Leo Messi.

precisely, and SI delivers in spades. Whole tactics debate is just out of place as the ME doesn't represent football but FM. It behaves according to FM laws, not football laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MBarbaric said:

the whole point of the game from 90s onwards was to take your team to the top with some elements of simulation. But the most backward part of the game is match/tactics simulation. Yet, it is still the best we have in this point of time. :D 

Which is pretty much accurate.  Elements of the game are simulation, elements aren't.  Expecting it to be something it rarely claims to be - I doubt PaulC and co would ever say they are happy with the state of the ME, otherwise they'd stop - isn't FM's fault.  

9 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

precisely, and SI delivers in spades. Whole tactics debate is just out of place as the ME doesn't represent football but FM. It behaves according to FM laws, not football laws. 

And again, spot on.  The disconnect comes when you say "right, I've seen someone do this in real life, let's do it on FM".  People who know the game inside-out will probably be able to approximate something that looks similar, but that's probably because they're thinking of it as being able to control the operator of their input.  Still, you're not going to get something 100% accurate, because the ME has never been able to do that.  The disconnect is believing that you should be able to map real life to FM fairly easily.  Should it?  Probably.  Will it?  Probably not.  Accept that, and treat it as a separate entity from football, and you'll probably have a better time of it.  Less thinking "am I getting the same possession stats as Barcelona in real life" and more "am I getting possession stats I'm happy with in-game".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minuti fa, forameuss ha scritto:

Expecting it to be something it rarely claims to be

however, as they put the TC in the game with roles and styles and whatever, the game already implies you can do things you really can't. The game represents football on so many levels competitions, players, staff, stadiums, referees... ME and tactics follow in footsteps of other well represented modules and wants to convince the player it is on the same level as the rest of the game.  so it is understandable people want to take it for what it wants (but largely fails) to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

however, as they put the TC in the game with roles and styles and whatever, the game already implies you can do things you really can't. The game represents football on so many levels competitions, players, staff, stadiums, referees... ME and tactics follow in footsteps of other well represented modules and wants to convince the player it is on the same level as the rest of the game.  so it is understandable people want to take it for what it wants (but largely fails) to offer.

On one hand, consumers need to recognize the limits of FM.  On the other hand this is what happens when you sell a product as both "recreate Preston North End's unbeaten top-flight season" and "most realistic football sim ever made".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sunstrikuuu said:

On one hand, consumers need to recognize the limits of FM.  On the other hand this is what happens when you sell a product as both "recreate Preston North End's unbeaten top-flight season" and "most realistic football sim ever made".

FM's greatest strength and biggest flaw is being all things to all people. At some point, especially with further higher spec demands needed in future to push it on, SI are going to have to pick a path

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

however, as they put the TC in the game with roles and styles and whatever, the game already implies you can do things you really can't.


The engine's always had limitations, that's why it's been upgraded. However the TC as such was primarily introduced  because it arguably had saved the game from dying.  On the tactical end, anyway. It brought a level of optionally added depth and richness to the match day experience that before was a) loads of fiddling b) at best achieved by a handful of users c) even if they tried. Ask Rashidi, ask wwfan, ask Cleon. They each went through the process of replaying a match a hundred times+ to backwards translate what exactly each slider did and how it affected the match play -- which also was prone to change some from release to release. Not very fun. And hugely inaccessible. And if you read through a thread like this, they still needed to be corrected by the coders from time to time as to their observations. Plus there's been creative misconceptions about some instructions until they were taken out.

Even for the most simplistic kind of in-match management, say -- retaining the ball upon taking a lead -- you had to tweak a dozen individual player instructions at once across the team (or have presets saved for each of such a decision). As it was also accessible to the AI, it had the side effect of making it more robust. AI still has its loads of flaws, and I'm nonplussed myself that even after all these years, Guardiola can't even approach much of a possession based style in-game (SI must have gotten good advice from the tactical mods throughout the years). However, that's it about the TC -- and what makes the current trends a little worrying. Despite my aforementioned criticism, the larger options still are all in, and for the most part do as they say on the tin. Whereas in early iterations you needed your PhD in slider speech to translate it into football first. Hitting "retain possession" or picking a "Poacher" didn't do. I hope for some added depth too (which can be made optional with loads of assistant helpers). But the game has always been a power fantasy (as any game). It's advertised as such on Steam, one line reads pretty much "Win stuff with all the teams in the world."

It's also been primarily aimed at football fans, rather than "pro managers". What the game still assumes out of the bat and can't probably teach ever is already quite a bit: That playing a probing possession style of football may completely bog down in the final third for no options or long shots galore if there aren't sufficient passing channels opened up by players up top dropping off, moving into the channels, players from deep advancing, etc. That playing through a Target Man may break down a plenty if that Target Man is without options upon receiving the ball. That channeling all play to a sole focus point may make him easy to crowd out. That having players sitting deeper in midfield makes it easier to retain the ball. Which may be one of the reasons why SI seem reluctant to push it further. As that is most basic of stuff -- and still causes frustration. Of course a pick in duty can have a profound effect, see @FatRonaldo, as duties make behave players differently. They may push further ahead or stay deeper. It says so right in their (TC) description nowadays. But this is basic sports, no tactical guru stuff. Anybody who doesn't get this can't get it from the game (in the meantime)...

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

FM's greatest strength and biggest flaw is being all things to all people. At some point, especially with further higher spec demands needed in future to push it on, SI are going to have to pick a path

This is a very valid point. It may lead to a break within the franchise ala Football Manager and Football Manager Touch.

A simulation type for those who want to invest in the finer points of the game. A lighter version which retains the fun.

Depends if SI and/or Sega want to go down this route. There are not market forces like a viable alternative product to force this upon them. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hoppo1982 said:

This is a very valid point. It may lead to a break within the franchise ala Football Manager and Football Manager Touch.

A simulation type for those who want to invest in the finer points of the game. A lighter version which retains the fun.

Depends if SI and/or Sega want to go down this route. There are not market forces like a viable alternative product to force this upon them. 

While it's possible, I can't see them splitting further, otherwise where do you stop?  It's pretty much already happened too, Touch has always been the more "arcadey" version, with FM being the simulation.  However, I'm not sure it's the right way to go to send the full version right down into the minutaie of simulation, as plenty of people still want to do the extra parts that FM gives you, but don't necessarily want to disappear down that rabbit hole.  It's a tough balancing act.

And "competition" would make no difference.  They've killed it stone dead before and likely would again.  They wouldn't be forced into anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, forameuss said:

While it's possible, I can't see them splitting further, otherwise where do you stop?  It's pretty much already happened too, Touch has always been the more "arcadey" version, with FM being the simulation.  However, I'm not sure it's the right way to go to send the full version right down into the minutaie of simulation, as plenty of people still want to do the extra parts that FM gives you, but don't necessarily want to disappear down that rabbit hole.  It's a tough balancing act.

The arcade version is actually FM Handheld (by official accounts). FM Touch was just conceived as a trimmed down version of the core simulation FM ... which it still is. Same game, just a few stuff taken out that then doesn't affect things for each party involved (including AI managers). In before a few FM Touch players are getting mad at you for suggesting they'd be roughly off the same flock as their girls madly addicted to Candy Crush (wink nudge). :D

The more natural way to add (optionally) depth to the FM experience has always, always been delegating stuff. Lots of evidence that real life managers delegate tons of their tasks. Apparently, some of them don't even appear much on the ground that oftenly, depending on which. And they also work with proper tactical assistants (more prominently back then: Klinsmann -> Löw). Not interested in youth development? Here's that guy, he's good at it. Want to have that magic eye for talent? Here's your own Peter Taylor, have a nice play!

 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a manager, you are the leader of a team of coaches and choosing the best coaches for each discipline is key. The biggest problem in this game is what level you are managing, trying to find coaches at lower levels is difficult due to monies and reputation, I know my own problems managing Hibernian trying to get good coaches, we see coaches from League 1 in England asking for silly wages which my club cannot pay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 ore fa, MBarbaric ha scritto:

however, as they put the TC in the game with roles and styles and whatever, the game already implies you can do things you really can't.

 

That's the main contention point!

When the game is jam-packed with tactical features that borrow heavily from real football terminology and with many many options that seem to point to a very life-like tactical experience, you can't help but feel "cheated" when it turns out "Counter" doesn't mean what 99.999% of the football-watching/playing population think. Or when you start to wonder what the heck "Shape" is. Or why your DLP doesn't do what DLPs do in real life.

Or, even worse, when Barça or City play hoofball while a relegation candidate plays lovely tiki-taka away to a Top Team.

Sure, the casual gamer will celebrate a glorious win at Camp Nou or at Etihad with their smaller side and won't care one bit about how underwhelming and unrealistically drab the Top Club was... But to many FM'ers, that sweet victory will start to lose its taste as time goes by. And we'll start to question the why and the how we were able to outplay Barça with Midtjylland or Maribor in our second or third season.

Wanna debate about "but FM is a football fantasy with a bit of simulation"? Fine... If that's the direction the game is going, then let's revert to CM4 tactical screen and leave the rest of the game to work itself out.
So long annoying rants about "Carrillero or Mezzala?" or about "why is my lone Poacher playing wide?" or about "why can't my FB defend if his life depended on it?"

So long 30-pages essays about mechanics that are "loosely based on real football" and implemented in a confusing, cumbersome and convoluted way into the game.

 

Currently the game is in a weird place, where realism is implicitly invoked by plenty of features, while the "it's only a game" card can be played to justify every instance where the aforementioned realism is nowhere to be found.

So the question is: what does FM want to be when it grows up?

If it wants to be a football management simulation, the tactical/realism part needs to be rewritten completely to reflect realistic wording, instructions and ways to set a tactic up. Both by human players and AI managers

If it wants to be a football management fantasy, do away with all the confusing stuff and keep it simpler. That'll save everyone a lot of hassle.

The current hybrid is hardly a crowd-pleaser, with anyone not living and breathing FM jargon having to either adapt to play the TC/ME instead of a football match, or resign to live with the many questionablr parts of the game.
Ironically, it's only the very casual gamers, those who'll win 4 Quadruple in a row with Barça or City (or with editor-enhanced LL sides) before getting bored and moving on, who don't really mind or notice that.

Edited by RBKalle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's never been a good definition of counter attacking in real life football. Because counter attacking is a phase. You can be super defensive or super attacking, and both ways could involve counter attacking. 

FM definitely needs to change its language, but also I'm not convinced many people know football as well as they think they do 

As for the people getting bored/crowd pleaser argument: Not only are numbers up, but hours played are up too 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

As for the people getting bored/crowd pleaser argument: Not only are numbers up, but hours played are up too 

Never really a reliable metric to judge user enjoyment as FM is the type of game that people leave open or run holiday saves to test edits plus it does take time to really get into the features so 100 hours on FM could still result in a disappointed customer, although not perfect metrics such as average number of seasons per save game, average number of new saves per user, average period between shutdown & launch would in theory provide SI with a more accurate picture & number of launch week users still playing.

A higher attach rate is always good, just need to assess the peaks against deep discounts when compared to previous years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Barside said:

Never really a reliable metric to judge user enjoyment as FM is the type of game that people leave open or run holiday saves to test edits, although not perfect metrics such as average number of seasons per save game, average number of new saves per user, average period between shutdown & launch would in theory provide SI with a more accurate picture.

A higher attach rate is always good, just need to assess the peaks against deep discounts when compared to previous years.

You can't really gauge those either any further than the number of hours. Reasons for enjoyment are largely subjective. I might play 5 saves or 1, neither would tell you how much I'm enjoying it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

There's never been a good definition of counter attacking in real life football. Because counter attacking is a phase. You can be super defensive or super attacking, and both ways could involve counter attacking. 

I think this is the type of thinking that explains away FM flaws by propping up disagreements in concepts or showing things to be too complex for us to get on the same page.

 

Let's take Counter Attack

Counter is seeking to catch your opponent off balance by striking right after they made a move. At its core it is not a particularly complicated idea, and it is an essential component of all situations that pit humans against each other (combat, sports, games).

I agree it is not an on/off thing, because each manager will set their own instructions regarding range of passing, speed of attack, passing risk. But a good place to start would be to at least have it as an on/off thing like it was a few years back, because a countering mentality can happen according to your team's speed and range of play development (you can counter at full speed and directness like Spurs, or you can counter by weaving precise mid range passes like Atletico Madrid).

A next level could be as simple as giving the tactics UI 3 levels of aggression:
1. Counter with low aggression -> seek to exploit the counter but don’t be gratuitous with the ball (Man City)
2. Counter with mid aggression -> seek to exploit and don’t be afraid to try long balls, but do it intermittently (most Italian teams)
3. Counter with high aggression -> we won’t have the ball and won't be able to build up play, so be aggressive with every opportunity to break (a minnow team playing against Barcelona)

----

I don't think that was so hard.

I know those that disagree with the way I'm handling myself here will say I'm being condescending, but PLEASE consider this:
 

27 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

There's never been a good definition of counter attacking in real life football.

Really? So the Italians have been doing it as basic dogma for generations but a good definition is simply not available in 2018? I personally find that offensive, because it is a condescending way to dismiss the argument, and it derails progress to say this stuff is too complicated to figure out and nobody has the answers. I promise you I didn't just invent the first workable short definition of counter attacking in football.

To you there may be no good definitions, to me this stuff is 101 in modern tactics. I'm not being 'elitist' to suggest that this stuff is essential knowledge and should be clear to anyone making decisions regarding FM tactics (not necessarily you, but all the developers that decide on the tactics system). I think it is the opposite of elitism. Your camp is being over simplistic in dismissing a lot of ideas under the guise of 'too complex to sort out'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 ora fa, RBKalle ha scritto:

If it wants to be a football management simulation, the tactical/realism part needs to be rewritten completely to reflect realistic wording, instructions and ways to set a tactic up. Both by human players and AI managers

If it wants to be a football management fantasy, do away with all the confusing stuff and keep it simpler. That'll save everyone a lot of hassle.

this. 

 

1 ora fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

There's never been a good definition of counter attacking in real life football. Because counter attacking is a phase. You can be super defensive or super attacking, and both ways could involve counter attacking.

Really? Let me try then: 

A counter attack starts after the opposition has lost possession and begins defensive transition. It can be executed short handed or with numerical advantage. the key is that the defending team is not in their defensive shape resulting with space that opposition can exploit.

As per occurance, counter attacks can be divided in circumstantial or prepared. Circumstantial usually happen on turnover while prepared counter attacks occure as a deliberate plan (i.e. as a result of pressing trap), on opposition set pieces, or when the goalkeeper regains possession. 

Depending on where the possession was regained, it can start deep, medium or high.

Execution of counter attack is a bit more diverse and depends on one's ideas but let's not drag it that way.

How about that as a definition? It isn't really a phase more than corner kick is a phase. Agree on second bolded part.

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

I think this is the type of thinking that explains away FM flaws by propping up disagreements in concepts or showing things to be too complex for us to get on the same page.

 

Let's take Counter Attack

Counter is seeking to catch your opponent off balance by striking right after they made a move. At its core it is not a particularly complicated idea, and it is an essential component of all situations that pit humans against each other (combat, sports, games).

I agree it is not an on/off thing, because each manager will set their own instructions regarding range of passing, speed of attack, passing risk. But a good place to start would be to at least have it as an on/off thing like it was a few years back, because a countering mentality can happen according to your team's speed and range of play development (you can counter at full speed and directness like Spurs, or you can counter by weaving precise mid range passes like Atletico Madrid).

A next level could be as simple as giving the tactics UI 3 levels of aggression:
1. Counter with low aggression -> seek to exploit the counter but don’t be gratuitous with the ball (Man City)
2. Counter with mid aggression -> seek to exploit and don’t be afraid to try long balls, but do it intermittently (most Italian teams)
3. Counter with high aggression -> we won’t have the ball and won't be able to build up play, so be aggressive with every opportunity to break (a minnow team playing against Barcelona)

----

I don't think that was so hard.

I know those that disagree with the way I'm handling myself here will say I'm being condescending, but PLEASE consider this:
 

Really? So the Italians have been doing it as basic dogma for generations but a good definition is simply not available in 2018? I personally find that offensive, because it is a condescending way to dismiss the argument, and it derails progress to say this stuff is too complicated to figure out and nobody has the answers. I promise you I didn't just invent the first workable short definition of counter attacking in football.

To you there may be no good definitions, to me this stuff is 101 in modern tactics. I'm not being 'elitist' to suggest that this stuff is essential knowledge and should be clear to anyone making decisions regarding FM tactics (not necessarily you, but all the developers that decide on the tactics system). I think it is the opposite of elitism. Your camp is being over simplistic in dismissing a lot of ideas under the guise of 'too complex to sort out'.

It's not explaining away anything. And you've just proven my point. There is no single definition of a counter attacking style. You can trigger it in different ways. Which is exactly what confused people when they pick Counter, or see people using Attacking

Italian sides didn't even all play the same way either

There's no sides or camps to this. And if that's how you want to engage this, then please leave me out of it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

this. 

 

Really? Let me try then: 

A counter attack starts after the opposition has lost possession and starts defensive transition. It can be executed short handed or with numerical advantage. the key is that the defending team is not in their defensive shape resulting with space that opposition can exploit.

As per occurance, counter attacks can be divided in circumstantial or prepared. Circumstantial usually happen on turnover while prepared counter attacks occure as a deliberate plan (i.e. as a result of pressing trap), on opposition set pieces, or when the goalkeeper regains possession. 

Depending on where the possession was regained, it can start deep, medium or high.

How about that as a definition? It isn't really a phase more than corner kick is a phase. Agree on second bolded part.

Again that's not one singular definition of a style is it? 

Just to clarify: I'm talking about the confusion that comes from people using the Counter mentality when wanting to play "counter attacking football", and the fact you can do the same from playing say, Attacking, or Control. All give you the ability to have counter attacking opportunities. 

What about when the counter isn't on. What's the play style then

Consider United: a team known for "counter attacking 2006-2009" yet averaged 55% possession during the same period. This is the point I'm trying to get at. What separates them from that totally gives up possession. And yet both defined the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minuti fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

Again that's not one singular definition of a style is it? 

I belive I've explained what is a counter attack, can we agree on that?

Assuming we agree... 

45 minuti fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

What about when the counter isn't on. What's the play style then

indeed, what would the team do when the counter isn't on? Would they just give the ball to the opposition in order to get a chance to play their style? 

Some teams pay more attention to counter attacks than others but they all counter attack when they have a chance. 

A team that sets up prepared counter attacks can be called a counter attacking team. In that sense Barcelona or Liverpool can be called counter attacking teams. But would you really say that is predominantly their style? Not really. It is just one of the ways they try to deal with the opposition. They have many others.
 

46 minuti fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

Consider United: a team known for "counter attacking 2006-2009" yet averaged 55% possession during the same period. This is the point I'm trying to get at. What separates them from that totally gives up possession. And yet both defined the same way.

A team known for counter attacking? For whole period of three years? Predominantly counter attacking, each match? Really? Who says this? Media?

I have no doubt they counter attacked, but all teams do so. I'd say they did what Barcelona (or anyone else) does, counter attack when they can but play something else when they can't. 

The real counter attacking style I'd consider genuine would be sit deep and hoof direct balls into space. Anything else is just one tool from the toolbox and not a particular style. The level of emphasis on counter attack differs from team to team, from match to match. But to have pure counter attacking style you'd need to look for underdog v the favourite scenario. Anything less than that isn't really a counter attacking style but just one of the options the team uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Again that's not one singular definition of a style is it? 

Just to clarify: I'm talking about the confusion that comes from people using the Counter mentality when wanting to play "counter attacking football", and the fact you can do the same from playing say, Attacking, or Control. All give you the ability to have counter attacking opportunities. 

What about when the counter isn't on. What's the play style then

Consider United: a team known for "counter attacking 2006-2009" yet averaged 55% possession during the same period. This is the point I'm trying to get at. What separates them from that totally gives up possession. And yet both defined the same way.

Man City are known for their possession football and their controlled steady build up play with many many passes, yet are one of the best counter attack teams in the EPL, they break on the counter with incredible speed and in numbers but at the same time they'll have around 65% possession in most games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rashidi said:

I also think you are being a bit harsh.  Football is a passionate subject and there will always be different points of view. When Alsessandro Zauli interviewed Sacchi,  Lippi, Ancelotti  and around 15 other coaches for his look at Italian coaches and their tactics  through 180 situations, counter attacking wasn't even a subject fitting a sidebar. These coaches talked about football in terms of defensive and offensive stages.  Counter attacking itself was usually a strategy within tactics that invite sides to attack leaving themselves vulnerable to a quick series of passes into dangerous areas.  

How teams can do this is varied, some teams play with a low defensive line others don't. Burnley plays with a low block and seeks to hit sides on the counter, Liverpool score their best goals when they hit sides on the counter, yet both teams have different defensive lines. So @themadsheep2001 is correct when he says a good definition of counter attacking football is probably elusive.  If we were to be rigid with the definition of counterattacking as being a form of defensive football where teams sit back and hit teams with direct passes, how we do we incorporate that into Liverpool's style of play? We can say its a form of gegenpressing, but that form of pressing has been around since Lobanovskyi. To say it's uniquely Klopps would be wrong in itself.  What the game needs to do a bit more clearly and this you will find nearly everyone agreeing, is using terms that are universally easy to understand.  However when simple concepts like counter attacking can lead to such a fevered debate, its not surprising to me that SI have quite a challenge on their front. Even match analysts sometimes disagree openly. 

The game is in need of good definitions. I have never been a fan of Philosophy or Shape as a way to describe the mentality splits to create different styles but its far better than saying Structured is Fergie and Fluid is Sacchi.  Mentality as a description is my pet hate, but I can understand from a programming point of view why that was necessary, in fact I can understand why Mentality and Shape are needed. However there has to be a better way of describing stuff, including better ways for me to set up my set piece routines.  There was a time when the slider and notches were the best thing about FM, it made the game intensely customisable so much so that the AI could never win against a human.  I do feel that sometime in the future, SI may need to think of better ways of depicting and making it easier for people to set up defensive and offensive stages of the game. They did do something like that in the past, but it quickly became a match engine exploit. Humans were too crafty and the AI was too basic. 

Cheers for explaining what I was trying to say better than I did. 

Mentality and Shape are needed, but while I think the issue of mentality is solved more easily, I'm not sure how you deal with shape going forwards, I don't think it's current form is clear enough, but equally we need to be able to control compactness between the lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

As for the people getting bored/crowd pleaser argument: Not only are numbers up, but hours played are up too 

Pretty sure user-reviews are on a downward trend though. Consistently so. (Let's not start dismissing them...)

I don't think the hours are a reliable metric either, this a game you can leave to idle for ages, and I've often spent 20 odd hours messing about setting up the first season before I even get going. I wonder how many others do similar. - I've never agreed with those that dismissed critical opinion when the hour count is high either, if anything that lends more weight to the criticism in my opinion. :p

 

6 hours ago, forameuss said:

While it's possible, I can't see them splitting further, otherwise where do you stop? 

I agree. Ideally I want all the (refined) features of the management aspects, with the tactics creator, but more opportunity to just live my football power-fantasy tactic-wise. Which is probably a muddle overall. This is a game that has to cater to a pretty diverse audience, and I think ultimately, it will be fine with *any* direction it chooses to take, because there is absolutely no viable competition out there, and I can't imagine it will be likely to see any for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, isignedupfornorealreason said:

Pretty sure user-reviews are on a downward trend though. Consistently so. (Let's not start dismissing them...)

I don't think the hours are a reliable metric either, this a game you can leave to idle for ages, and I've often spent 20 odd hours messing about setting up the first season before I even get going. I wonder how many others do similar. - I've never agreed with those that dismissed critical opinion when the hour count is high either, if anything that lends more weight to the criticism in my opinion. :p

 

I agree. Ideally I want all the (refined) features of the management aspects, with the tactics creator, but more opportunity to just live my football power-fantasy tactic-wise. Which is probably a muddle overall. This is a game that has to cater to a pretty diverse audience, and I think ultimately, it will be fine with *any* direction it chooses to take, because there is absolutely no viable competition out there, and I can't imagine it will be likely to see any for a long time.

User reviews are at a similar rate, where they are actually applicable, and you can't say let's not start dismissing them without actually looking at them qualitatively. Not all reviews, positive or negative, are equal. 

The hours work, because even if you account for that behaviours that's the exact same behaviour that would occur on previous FMs. The baseline is still the same 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minuti fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

Cheers for explaining what I was trying to say better than I did. 

correct me if I am wrong, but I got an impression you were saying there should be counter attacking style.

 

3 ore fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

What about when the counter isn't on. What's the play style then

Consider United: a team known for "counter attacking 2006-2009" yet averaged 55% possession during the same period. This is the point I'm trying to get at. What separates them from that totally gives up possession. And yet both defined the same way.

Rashidi basically tells you the same thing I did. Counter attack isn't really a complete strategy as counter attack is used alongside other means to break the opposition (hence barcelona/liverpool examples). purely counter attacking side would be pinned down and unable (or deliberately unwilling) to do anything else than counter attack. And usually not out of its choice but as a consequence of inability to set up any other meaningful way to threaten the opposition. That is also (oh so elusive) difference between the counter attacking style and a counter attack.

 

2 ore fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

 However when simple concepts like counter attacking can lead to such a fevered debate, its not surprising to me that SI have quite a challenge on their front.

It is a fevered debate only because people who debate have a limited knowledge about the topic. 

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

correct me if I am wrong, but I got an impression you were saying there should be counter attacking style.

 

Rashidi basically tells you the same thing I did. Counter attack isn't really a complete strategy as counter attack is used alongside other means to break the opposition (hence barcelona/liverpool examples). purely counter attacking side would be pinned down and unable (or deliberately unwilling) to do anything else than counter attack. And usually not out of its choice but as a consequence of inability to set up any other meaningful way to threaten the opposition. That is also (oh so elusive) difference between the counter attacking style and a counter attack.

 

It is a fevered debate only because people who debate have a limited knowledge about the topic. 

No I wasn't saying there should be a counter attack style. I was talking about the very confusion for many that exists around it, when they say they want to. I already said it wasn't a complete strategy. 

I wasn't asking a question when I said what's the play style then for United. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think FM needs a bit more of realism in its cores.

The actual ME isn't good,and the 3 strikers problem shows that not only the defensive phase,but the ofensive sometimes struggles when in RL a real team could do fine agaisnt it.

And the representation of the tactical part of the game is being "poor" too. Grab a game this weekend, watch the team play,analyse their moves,their shapes, their strategy, and then go to FM and try to simulate the same game. I already tried,and wasn't even close to what I see.

The mentality should change and give more options for the players. Control mentality should give way more possession options,as players think that control = possession.
Counter mentality should grab option for numerical advantage counter, or hoof the ball and let the forwards decide.
Shape shouldn't have the creative freedom attached to it, just the shape the teams use.

Want it or not,FM is the only game of its kind in the market so far, and we want this to be the best game, because it is the only game we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rashidi said:

There was a time when the slider and notches were the best thing about FM, it made the game intensely customisable so much so that the AI could never win against a human. 

 

Actually, that was the best argument to take them out. Well, the second best. Football Management isn't anything like that. It deals in shifting probabilites, the ebbs and flows of matches, and the **** that can happen at any minute. It doesn't have any kind of precise micro control over inherently necessary match engine mechanics. The kind of Neo-over-The-Matrix influence where you may be able to force the match play to loop into the same undefendable sequences all over again. At least upon dozens of hours of dedicated testing and contemplating and meditating. I think that wwfan would have agreed. :D Plus, probably anybody who'd prefer an immersive management simulation game experience over a "exploit the match engine with its own shticks, quirks and limitations" kind of game. Football vs SI concepts, as argued.

Under the hood, it's all needed, and never going away. The question is, does it need to be explicit, or does it not. :) Is it translateable into football, or is it not. And if not, what's the point of it being there, except micro tweaking match engine play without much strategic management context (e.g. playing the match engine). You talk about transitions in your pieces. I'd argue that's a good place to progress this, as transitions are football 101. Sliders themselves can be pretty cool either way. Pretty football too. But naturally, that's a completely different type of game -- and piece of engine technology.

 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think that we need at least 2 versions of the FM tactics panel in order for this game to move forward. One for new users and those that don't want complexity, and one for advanced users and those trying to set up very specific tactics.

I think we have the firepower in these forums to come up with something good. I understand that from there to the ME there's a long, long distance, but if we can present a model that works it could be the inspiration for a new generation of the TC. (Is anyone with me regarding a need for simple and advanced screens?)

If we were to build such a thing (a visual design of a new TC) do we have hope of the devs giving it a serious thorough look?

----

And on another topic,
I'm very curious as to how exactly pro managers set their tactics in the real world. I have an idea of what managers/coaches would say to players, and I've heard managers talk about their tactics and instructions, but I haven't seen any of their charts or tactics paperwork. Are there any examples, screenshots, apps that show the tactical instructions of first-div managers like Guardiola, Wenger, Mourinho, Conte, etc?

Edited by tacticsdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

And on another topic,
I'm very curious as to how exactly pro managers set their tactics in the real world. I have an idea of what managers/coaches would say to players, and I've heard managers talk about their tactics and instructions, but I haven't seen any of their charts or tactics paperwork. Are there any examples, screenshots, apps that show the tactical instructions of first-div managers like Guardiola, Wenger, Mourinho, Conte, etc?

 

Actually, that's basically my gut feeling. The main input in the last couple years has mainly come from FM players. They can tell you a lot about the game.... how about actual day to day (semi-)professional football management though? It's all from books and media. Naturally, the end product would be where the two sides meet. Not everything translates over. In parts this is the limitations of technology. In parts though that is needed compromise; as more advanced concepts of football management may be a bit too much to where the game is actually always been headed. Playability vs realism. I would love to hear what Koeman set for his shape here, either way, and how he personally settled upon it. :D [On that front, I'm 100% convinced that 76.56% of the SI staff use it quite differently to a more creative user from the tactics community, same as with many options.]

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

 

And on another topic,
I'm very curious as to how exactly pro managers set their tactics in the real world. I have an idea of what managers/coaches would say to players, and I've heard managers talk about their tactics and instructions, but I haven't seen any of their charts or tactics paperwork. Are there any examples, screenshots, apps that show the tactical instructions of first-div managers like Guardiola, Wenger, Mourinho, Conte, etc?

I've never saw a first-div manager do his instructions,but in my country i've saw a lot of Low divisions meet ups, and some youth too. It is way easier to show then how they need to play,because you don't need to read 20 hours of how the field should work and how your instructions affect your player, If you say "don't do long shots,never", probably they won't do,at the other side in FM...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was involved with a Sunday league about 15 years ago. The players get together to play on Sundays and maybe talk a bit of tactics over the week but they all had jobs elsewhere. In a situation like that you are going to want to keep your tactics simple 'cause without having the players available for constant training you are not going to gel them with complex tactics, nor even have enough time to work with each player to make sure they understand a role that includes too much detail. So instructions are simple and verbal, and maybe the team embraces a philosophy but it would be a simple one that could be described in a couple sentences.

But if you have them training at your facility all day every day and you have great smart coaches that understand the game very well, and players like Ronaldo that you can basically set them up any way you want and they can play it, then you are going to gravitate towards very custom tactics and custom roles for each player, then spend months working with each player so that they adopt their custom role and play the way you instruct them.

And you can see this in action even from a distance. Like when Guardiola arrived at City, there was clearly a clash of philosophies and it took months for the team to look like they were at least trying to do the same thing together. I wonder how he conveyed his instructions then, and how he does it now that the team looks gelled and everyone is pulling in the same direction.

"never shoot from distance" is perfect for a Sunday league, but that's not how you'd want to instruct first-div pro players. You probably want to give them a philosophy of play so they can make clever decisions during play, so it would be an ongoing discussion, more like "we don't want long shots from you because we are looking for incisive through balls instead when you draw defenders to yourself, so concentrate on making that happen or play to the wings. If that's not working, pepper in a few long shots to make the defense second guess their movement, and go back to the incisive passes and move the ball wide. We'll adjust from there depending on the day's tactics and how the game is going, so if things are not working look at me during the match and we'll adjust a bit".

So there are few black and white tactics, it would mostly be layers of decisions fitting a philosophy of play. The best teams make it look effortless, but each players is carrying a canon of dozens of instructions given to them over the years. How much of it is in writing or on charts, how much of it is reinforced verbally by the coaching staff over months and years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tacticsdude said:

I was involved with a Sunday league about 15 years ago. The players get together to play on Sundays and maybe talk a bit of tactics over the week but they all had jobs elsewhere. In a situation like that you are going to want to keep your tactics simple 'cause without having the players available for constant training you are not going to gel them with complex tactics, nor even have enough time to work with each player to make sure they understand a role that includes too much detail. So instructions are simple and verbal, and maybe the team embraces a philosophy but it would be a simple one that could be described in a couple sentences.

But if you have them training at your facility all day every day and you have great smart coaches that understand the game very well, and players like Ronaldo that you can basically set them up any way you want and they can play it, then you are going to gravitate towards very custom tactics and custom roles for each player, then spend months working with each player so that they adopt their custom role and play the way you instruct them.

And you can see this in action even from a distance. Like when Guardiola arrived at City, there was clearly a clash of philosophies and it took months for the team to look like they were at least trying to do the same thing together. I wonder how he conveyed his instructions then, and how he does it now that the team looks gelled and everyone is pulling in the same direction.

"never shoot from distance" is perfect for a Sunday league, but that's not how you'd want to instruct first-div pro players. You probably want to give them a philosophy of play so they can make clever decisions during play, so it would be an ongoing discussion, more like "we don't want long shots from you because we are looking for incisive through balls instead when you draw defenders to yourself, so concentrate on making that happen or play to the wings. If that's not working, pepper in a few long shots to make the defense second guess their movement, and go back to the incisive passes and move the ball wide. We'll adjust from there depending on the day's tactics and how the game is going, so if things are not working look at me during the match and we'll adjust a bit".

So there are few black and white tactics, it would mostly be layers of decisions fitting a philosophy of play. The best teams make it look effortless, but each players is carrying a canon of dozens of instructions given to them over the years. How much of it is in writing or on charts, how much of it is reinforced verbally by the coaching staff over months and years?

I've never said that I just wanted my team to never shot from distance,what I am saying is in FM you can give all instruction to not shot outside the area,will alaways have at least one,and in RL, if this is part o the tactic, no one will shot outside the area because they know they have other options.

I also was involved on some sunday leagues during long time, but this lower leagues are actually teams that do training and have this as job (the youth teams too), so they train everyday. I remember one team that had the "philosophie" that they would never play long balls. They trained everyday to always have good positioning so they would always have passing options. We can't have this as philosophie in FM in the same way they had in this team, because player only follow instructions, and don't have the knowledge that this specific instruction is part of bigger picture. Other team that I saw always instructed their players to defend with everybody behind the ball. I'm not saying this would be the next "big tactics in the world", but are particular system and philosophies that I saw instructions been given that players didn't argued about in-field and decided to play their own style, they simply followed it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Svenc said:

 

Actually, that's basically my gut feeling. The main input in the last couple years has mainly come from FM players. They can tell you a lot about the game.... how about actual day to day (semi-)professional football management though? It's all from books and media. Naturally, the end product would be where the two sides meet. Not everything translates over. In parts this is the limitations of technology. In parts though that is needed compromise; as more advanced concepts of football management may be a bit too much to where the game is actually always been headed. Playability vs realism. I would love to hear what Koeman set for his shape here, either way, and how he personally settled upon it. :D [On that front, I'm 100% convinced that 76.56% of the SI staff use it quite differently to a more creative user from the tactics community, same as with many options.]

Spot on. Arguably where the TC struggles is on the bits that havent quite crossed over (mentality and shape). Of course there is always more to add, but of the current incarnation of the TC, they are the two things that stand out. One is considerably easier to deal with than the other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RBKalle said:

If I'm allowed to play Super Devil's Advocate...

The changes in the UI and the increased amount of time-consuming features alone are probably responsible for a fair chunk of those extra hours... ;)

 

FM suffers from the Paradox Paradox.  By the time you've played enough hours to understand what you don't like about about the game you've played so many hours you've forfeited your right to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Spot on. Arguably where the TC struggles is on the bits that havent quite crossed over (mentality and shape). Of course there is always more to add, but of the current incarnation of the TC, they are the two things that stand out. One is considerably easier to deal with than the other

I am confident. It's just a recent trend, which may be my perception partly influenced with so many former tactical mods not being around anymore (THOG too, who had also written a couple of fantastic "football" and "management technique" based stuff during his prime!)

Speaking about restrictions currently in place you refered to earlier. I didn't actually check the system requirements for ages, as my rig could still run most modern AAA 3D games at last passably, so it can FM. But I am surprised that SI officially support (and thus try to offer at least passable performances) on machines as old as Pentium 4s. Those are chips that are almost 20 years old by now. Imagine Champ Man 4 aiming for an Amiga 500 / 80486 target, and you're not that far off. Every small smart phone has multiple times the computing power of those.

But naturally, that's an understandably target in meantime, no less as FM is targeted at sports fans, who don't necessarily own halfway up to date machines. That's still a huge array of hardware to support -- even casual games these day usually target at least dual core machines from ten years ago and up. Which may affect AI development and ME development likewise, as the processing load can't go too much up -- or even with a league loaded up, by the time such a machine has finished a season, the next FM may be due. Whilst we're talking about the Steam playing hours going up.... :D

Edited by Svenc

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...