Join the Football Manager 2019 Public Beta today!

[HUNT3R]

4 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

If there's an ongoing user beta next year, it should be done by invite only, and this thread is exactly the reason why. 

There's a private Beta. Selected users get invited to that. This is just a different approach.

[russell9]

Guys, what's done is done. It's absolutely no point in talking about the past now, it brings zero benefits to the game.
Continue criticizing SI on anything done in the past only bring frustrations and demoralize the development team.
SI is like a football team in a run of bad results now and they need encouragement not criticism.

I think SI has realized that their development team and testers have not done a good enough testing job where key issues were only spotted by the customers after release.
And therefore they organize this open beta so that they won't repeat the history where key issues were not identified until it is released to customers.

So, let's concentrate on providing feedback on the latest version of the game. Anyone has any other opinions not related to the latest state of the beta version should open a new thread and talk about it there.

[andu1]

6 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

If there's an ongoing user beta next year, it should be done by invite only, and this thread is exactly the reason why. 

the users who participate in this public beta have provided a lot of good feedback to SI. I don't think that a private beta would have had the same high user feedback.

[XaW]

I don't want to name anyone here, but there is a lot of people in here who have very strong opinions while at the same time have a very low understanding of how software development works, never mind the testing process of it. I think the initiative SI have done here, with an opt-in public beta is a great way of connecting with users, and to me it seems like many in here are using it as a way to criticize SI instead of contributing. I'm really disappointed that people are misusing this great opportunity for dialog with harassment and idiocy when this could be a great chance for users to impact the game in way we've never had the possibility of before.

I do hope SI have the patience to continue this community involvement and rather filter out the bad seeds, since I think this dialog is a great way of improving the game for all parts. There are, after all, some great feedbacks with good examples to help improve and not all gloom and doom.

There are very few people in here who will argue that the ME is perfect and don't need any tuning, but calling it unusable is hyperbole and just plain wrong. Claiming the idea of a Beta after the initial release an example of bad development is almost too dumb to respond to, but for the record, most development continue after release. Shocking, I know, but most new versions are based on a previous one and not built from the bottom every time.

In general the idea of a public Beta before release is to get more thorough testing done, mostly based on crashes I suspect due to the millions of hardware builds around the world, and to make sure the game don't crash with any random software installed on the same millions of computers. While at the same time gauging how features are received and then toned in tune with user feedback, and of course fixing bugs that had gone unnoticed. When most of that is logged and prioritized as to what will be fixed before release they have a baseline for what to work on the coming updates, while allowing a certain time to high impact bugs. This usually goes alongside planned improvements and changes. This is at least a way to do it.

Then we have the public beta after release. This is a good time to tweak and tone things to get constant feedback from the costumers who have made the explicit choice of using a less tested version with the benefit of trying new things early. And herein lies the key, if you are using the public Beta, you have made the choice of doing so with the consequences that entrails. That also implies that you should give feedback in a constructive manner (as many have done) and not complain about generic ideas or things without examples. Some might say that why should they do the work unpaid? Well, YOU HAVE OPTED IN TO DO SO! If you don't have the time or effort to chip in, then by all means that is ok. But then you shouldn't have time to complain either then?

I'll keep doing my part, posting issues and suggesting things to keep the game improving. I really like the open public beta and I hope SI keep it up despite some of the things being said in here.

[westy8chimp]

8 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

. Example; one has the opinion that 2+2=5 or that the world is flat. You're objectively wrong on both counts. 

Ouch, now who's losing their grip on reality 

To what you commented on the previous page... People being consistently rude to SI staff or moan moan moan about the same issue... And the result eventually will be less interaction from the people that matter. 

There are threads that can have more leeway for a moan... But this isn't one of them. Anyone making these rants about the staff or processes should be removed from the thread immediately.

(no thread should entitle rudeness to staff or other members) 

[Mitja]

45 minutes ago, XaW said:

I don't want to name anyone here, but there is a lot of people in here who have very strong opinions while at the same time have a very low understanding of how software development works, never mind the testing process of it.

not our problem. i have spent hours and hours of providing feedback and timed examples and none of this stuff i reported isn't being looked at after almost 2 months after i bought the game. and all the stuff i reported was just basic football issues most of which were working decently on previous FMs. for example the crossing issue where teams would be able to cross unrealistic numbers, with last few patches they cross double amounts, 100+. if midfielders don't pass forwards and forwards don't move i think many people will consider such issues as fundamental. and this is the thing some of you don't understand or pretend you don't, these two issues can't be classified as football issues because there is no football if players don't pass forwrads or if they don't move in final third.

 

[westy8chimp]

We see these cycles throughout releases tho. If something is overpowered one year... The next year the opposite can be overpowered... With some strange behaviour. I. E. Fm16 was wing back heaven... 532 wb guaranteed to win with wbs getting 30+ assists. Win the Premier league first season with Hull or Newcastle... Haidara or Elmohamady player of the year. Fm17 there was a massive gap between wingers and cms... With wingers staying really wide to double up the flank and protect against the crossing demons... This meant central overload was king... Strikerlss tactics with 7 players dominating the 'golden zone'... Win the league. 

Fm18 was then better than 16 & 17 because it was the balance of the two. But tbf defensive movement and logic was very poor. 

Now we start again with new roles and instructions. Defensive style is a lot better... So now central attacks are back to the drawing board.

Overall the game is improving tho... And soon we will have the right ME and it will be better than the final Fm18 product. 

[RemiHarlequin]

17 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

I think judging by some of the more recent posts there's a lack of understanding of how the match engine works. It's a hugely complex balancing act which takes into account a staggering number of factors. One minor change can have knock-ons across the entire game. There are no such thing as quick fixes and huge overhauls - it's just not possible. 

Whilst feedback can help us address areas which require further changes and more examination, given the complexity of the AI it's not just a factor of us coding 'there should be more of this' and the match engine vastly improves. The reality is we're constrained by the process of the code. As has been stated by the match engine team in the public beta forums:

Also to clarify, some posts were removed from this thread due to unacceptable posts. We ask users to raise issues in the public beta forums, to keep their comments civil and any criticism constructive. 

Cheers. 

I'm sorry but this just isn't acceptable for me. If I order a soufflé in a restaurant and when it gets to my table it's collapsed I'm going to send it back. I don't expect the chef to come out of the kitchen and tell me I don't understand how hard it is to make a soufflé so I should just accept the poor attempt at one in front of me. I know how hard it is, that's why I'm paying a chef to do it for me.

I appreciate SI's interaction with us customers, but watching you defend the current ME is like watching Theresa May defend her Brexit deal. At some point we all need to start being truthful with one another and accept that there's a lot of work to be done yet.

In the current ME there are player roles, player instructions, and team instructions which quite simply do not work. Least not as intended. In a football management simulation if our decisions in the tactics creator aren't having an effect on the pitch then as far as I'm concerned the product has failed in its core objective.

 

11 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

People act like there isn't a private beta that has done, and continues to do far more work than anything on the public beta so far. The entitlement from some here, today in particular is unbelievable. No, Neil is unlikely to pm you, because he's frankly got better things to do than justify himself to people who neither appreciate or understand what he is SI does. I wouldn't be surprised if frankly next year there isn't a public beta and they simply add more people to the private beta. 

People have paid damn good money for a product which - as I've just made clear above - they feel does not do what it says on the tin.

The reaction from both the mods and the developers on this forum is akin to what you'd expect if they were receiving this feedback on a free to play.

[molsen]

The thing is.. you can actually see the collapsed souffle before you buy it. And choose to walk out without paying. 

What I think you can do is in a constructive way ask the chef for a non-collapsed soufflé and hope he listens so that you might wanna buy it.

Also, once you have bought it we expect it not to collapse all of a sudden. That happened last year with Long Shot Manager 2018 in my opinion...

[bar333]

2 minutes ago, molsen said:

The thing is.. you can actually see the collapsed souffle before you buy it. And choose to walk out without paying. 

What I think you can do is in a constructive way ask the chef for a non-collapsed soufflé and hope he listens so that you might wanna buy it.

Also, once you have bought it we expect it not to collapse all of a sudden. That happened last year with Long Shot Manager 2018 in my opinion...

I'd take Long Shot Manager over Corner Manager quite happily right about now. 

With that said, I agree with the overall point. The demo is out there allowing you to play half a season and see the issues in the ME in all their glory and make a more educated purchasing decision. 

I too am unhappy with the state of the ME but I know the gaming industry well enough to not be naive about how things work. A demo has been provided which is more than the vast majority of publishers provide, so it's up to us to be responsible with our wallets. I for one will not be buying FM20 without trying the demo first. 

[thejay]

Am 3.12.2018 um 19:42 schrieb rdbayly:

Despite winning the league with nearly 100 points, I've come to realise that for me, winning is irrelevant. How you win is everything. Players have a fundamental need for the ME to pay them off for the hours of work put in to craft their team's identity. The current build is a million miles away from delivering this.

100% agree with this, its the reason why i played this game for so many years, I am also winning with this match engine but stopped playing for the exact same reasons you mentioned 

[baris28]

Game industry isn't as bad as it looks. 25 years earlier there wan't much choice but  now developers sell their product in their own shop, there is quality in products. Some have open beta testing. But you should look further.

As for FM, people can buy for nostalgia or their love of football. For a well established firm 'try the demo first' argument shouldn't be sufficient. 

 

 

[themadsheep2001]

4 hours ago, XaW said:

I don't want to name anyone here, but there is a lot of people in here who have very strong opinions while at the same time have a very low understanding of how software development works, never mind the testing process of it. I think the initiative SI have done here, with an opt-in public beta is a great way of connecting with users, and to me it seems like many in here are using it as a way to criticize SI instead of contributing. I'm really disappointed that people are misusing this great opportunity for dialog with harassment and idiocy when this could be a great chance for users to impact the game in way we've never had the possibility of before.

I do hope SI have the patience to continue this community involvement and rather filter out the bad seeds, since I think this dialog is a great way of improving the game for all parts. There are, after all, some great feedbacks with good examples to help improve and not all gloom and doom.

There are very few people in here who will argue that the ME is perfect and don't need any tuning, but calling it unusable is hyperbole and just plain wrong. Claiming the idea of a Beta after the initial release an example of bad development is almost too dumb to respond to, but for the record, most development continue after release. Shocking, I know, but most new versions are based on a previous one and not built from the bottom every time.

In general the idea of a public Beta before release is to get more thorough testing done, mostly based on crashes I suspect due to the millions of hardware builds around the world, and to make sure the game don't crash with any random software installed on the same millions of computers. While at the same time gauging how features are received and then toned in tune with user feedback, and of course fixing bugs that had gone unnoticed. When most of that is logged and prioritized as to what will be fixed before release they have a baseline for what to work on the coming updates, while allowing a certain time to high impact bugs. This usually goes alongside planned improvements and changes. This is at least a way to do it.

Then we have the public beta after release. This is a good time to tweak and tone things to get constant feedback from the costumers who have made the explicit choice of using a less tested version with the benefit of trying new things early. And herein lies the key, if you are using the public Beta, you have made the choice of doing so with the consequences that entrails. That also implies that you should give feedback in a constructive manner (as many have done) and not complain about generic ideas or things without examples. Some might say that why should they do the work unpaid? Well, YOU HAVE OPTED IN TO DO SO! If you don't have the time or effort to chip in, then by all means that is ok. But then you shouldn't have time to complain either then?

I'll keep doing my part, posting issues and suggesting things to keep the game improving. I really like the open public beta and I hope SI keep it up despite some of the things being said in here.

A lot of the replies sum up my point. People want to be listened to, but aren't actually willing to listen. Especially if they don't like the answer. It's not a case if badgering someone until you get an answer you like. Think it's a little telling that Neil has already quite active today but not in here. Why get flak for answering honestly?

[CJ Ramson]

While the Match Engine isn't perfect, consistently harshly critiquing our testing team without providing anything constructive isn't beneficial for anyone.

We have the Public Beta to get feedback from the community. Some people have actually provided great feedback which we can use going forward. 

Some of the issues such as detailed attacking movement aren't simple things to fix. Being aware and having understanding of an issue and being able to release a quick fix for it are two separate things. 

[haffaz77]

Gerade eben schrieb CJ Ramson:

While the Match Engine isn't perfect, consistently harshly critiquing our testing team without providing anything constructive isn't beneficial for anyone.

We have the Public Beta to get feedback from the community. Some people have actually provided great feedback which we can use going forward. 

Some of the issues such as detailed attacking movement aren't simple things to fix. Being aware and having understanding of an issue and being able to release a quick fix for it are two separate things. 

Totally agree. I've been thinking about writing something like that. But due to my bad english (i'm german)  i would probably have to think a week about how to write it   Keep up the good work ! I am 100% sure that the ME goes better by every small update .. Just like the last few days . 

[Mitja]

9 minutes ago, haffaz77 said:

I am 100% sure that the ME goes better by every small update .. Just like the last few days

i have shown in public beta forum with pkms and timed examples that is not the case. many of major problems even got enhanced with last two patches. i guess you are playing on lower mentalites, try attacking mentality. we are not supposed to adapt to ME and AI certenly won't.

[CJ Ramson]

10 hours ago, thejay said:

I also dont understand the constant negative tone from staff members to perfectly legitimate criticism.

Why are we made to feel bad or clueless when obvious flaws are raised to attention 

Many people have provided detailed constructive feedback which has been used when testing and logged as bugs.

Critiquing without providing any constructive feedback isn't beneficial to anyone.

10 hours ago, Mitja said:

i have shown in public beta forum with pkms and timed examples that is not the case. many of major problems even got enhanced with last two patches. i guess you are playing on lower mentalites, try attacking mentality. we are not supposed to adapt to ME and AI certenly won't.

As I said in my other post, not every problem is a simple fix. You have provided many detailed posts which can be useful, however certain fixes potentially have knock-ons and are long term fixes for the coding team. 

[Armistice]

7 minutes ago, CJ Ramson said:

As I said in my other post, not every problem is a simple fix. You have provided many detailed posts which can be useful, however certain fixes and knock-ons and are long term fixes for the coding team. 

So in other words, we can expect some/most of the problems to be fixed for next year edition?

Edited December 5, 2018 by Armistice

[XaW]

3 hours ago, Mitja said:

not our problem. i have spent hours and hours of providing feedback and timed examples and none of this stuff i reported isn't being looked at after almost 2 months after i bought the game. and all the stuff i reported was just basic football issues most of which were working decently on previous FMs. for example the crossing issue where teams would be able to cross unrealistic numbers, with last few patches they cross double amounts, 100+. if midfielders don't pass forwards and forwards don't move i think many people will consider such issues as fundamental. and this is the thing some of you don't understand or pretend you don't, these two issues can't be classified as football issues because there is no football if players don't pass forwrads or if they don't move in final third.

 

I know it's not your problem, and you are one of the ones who are providing examples of your issues. I were not talking about you in my post, since you document your issues with solid proof, at least the ones I've seen.

But one thing you could take with you, is what @CJ Ramson wrote just above here:

24 minutes ago, CJ Ramson said:

Some of the issues such as detailed attacking movement aren't simple things to fix. Being aware and having understanding of an issue and being able to release a quick fix for it are two separate things. 

Knowing of an issue is far from the same as being able to fix it. Working in software development myself I've seen how seemingly small issues have massive underlying issues that require unknown time to solve. We had a small issue that were seemingly done in an hour or so, but ended up as its own massive project over a few years in the end. This is also why I have more patience when SI say they have the problem as an issue on their side.

What if those attacking passes you are missing are caused by something that has been "dormant" for many years and only now came up as an issue due to something else being tweaked, like crosses. For all we know a team could be working on this trying work out a solution for this, but are unable to because it will need a full re-write of a major code block or something similar.

I really doubt SI are sitting around twiddling their thumbs laughing at our issues with the game.

[baris28]

I remember old board game designer saying: 'We don't sell 'toys' in gameplay, all the choices limited but functional '  Napoleonic game designer.

I don't doubt problems are not well known by the match engine team. Or they don't work hard. But selling the product another thing.

 

[Karnack]

7 minutes ago, baris28 said:

I remember old board game designer saying: 'We don't sell 'toys' in gameplay, all the choices limited but functional '  Napoleonic game designer.

I don't doubt problems are not well known by the match engine team. Or they don't work hard. But selling the product another thing.

 

So how should this work for those of us who fully enjoy the game? We shouldn't be able to purchase it because a vocal minority is unhappy with certain aspects of the game? I have around 400 hours in the game so far and I'm very happy with my purchase.

[Jack Joyce]

34 minutes ago, Armistice said:

So in other words, we can expect some/most of the problems to be fixed for next year edition?

The ME is so complex that we will never say for definite that issues will be fixed, oftentimes we fix one issue and create 4 or 5 more since everything is so interconnected. It takes a huge amount of analysis and balancing to make changes to the ME. For example, we improve attacking movement then it will likely need us to improve defensive positioning to stop a huge increase in the overall amount of goals, and that's just the obvious knock-on effect, there's many more.

However, having said that, these issues in particular are right at the top of our priority list when it comes to working on the ME since we agree it can be improved and we know that a lot of people feel the same way. You're not being ignored at all, and it's certainly not something our brilliant, hard-working QA team hasn't seen themselves either. We're all listening.

[herne79]

This is all starting to descend into us vs them, with both "sides" feeling the need to defend themselves.  (BTW there are no "sides").

Can we just get back to the topic at hand, ie., providing constructive feedback on the public Beta.  Check back through the last x number of posts - there is hardly any constructive feedback whatsoever.  It's pretty much just people being defensive, trying to score a point, not talking about the Beta or simply being destructive.

Honestly right now if I were SI I'd be closing this thread and asking everyone to just use the Bugs forum, because SI are getting bugger all constructive feedback at present.

If anyone feels the need to reply to this post, PM me instead of clogging up this thread further.

[baris28]

1 saat önce, Karnack said:

So how should this work for those of us who fully enjoy the game? We shouldn't be able to purchase it because a vocal minority is unhappy with certain aspects of the game? I have around 400 hours in the game so far and I'm very happy with my purchase.

I'm hardly vocal minority not speaking fluent English myself. It is foreign language and it is a English sports game. I don't post much. I think I joined the forum in 2006.

What I understand from Devs, goal ratio could be higher from further changes. It is though balance with real life statistics. OK.

Edited December 5, 2018 by baris28

[timcliffsmith]

Just wanna say, after having played a season on Beta, it is working very well. Much better variety of goals, one-on-one issue sorted, keeper no longer a bollard. Good work. I'd be happy to keep the ME like this.

[akkm]

13 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

We see these cycles throughout releases tho. If something is overpowered one year... The next year the opposite can be overpowered... With some strange behaviour. I. E. Fm16 was wing back heaven... 532 wb guaranteed to win with wbs getting 30+ assists. Win the Premier league first season with Hull or Newcastle... Haidara or Elmohamady player of the year. Fm17 there was a massive gap between wingers and cms... With wingers staying really wide to double up the flank and protect against the crossing demons... This meant central overload was king... Strikerlss tactics with 7 players dominating the 'golden zone'... Win the league. 

Fm18 was then better than 16 & 17 because it was the balance of the two. But tbf defensive movement and logic was very poor. 

Now we start again with new roles and instructions. Defensive style is a lot better... So now central attacks are back to the drawing board.

Overall the game is improving tho... And soon we will have the right ME and it will be better than the final Fm18 product. 

Defensive style conceptually is better with the nominal appearance of narrow width and defending by numbers depth wise...but the reality is it's almost a reverse exploit in that as central attacking play isn't simulated to degree reflecting anywhere even remotely close to real world then of course defending will appear solid...but what's actually at play is that enables the user the perception it's their tactical setup/nous doing it allowing them to 'set up' a solid tactic but the reality is it's exploiting the weak attacking patterns of the match engine...or put another way just masks the issues of undersimulation of penetrative passes combined with far from dynamic/fluid movement and therefore defending is actually solid by default.

We absolutely have cycles but the problem is bar FM17 since rewrite it's wide play which dominates and even in fm17 there was plenty of goals coming from out wide as well. Last year if you check tactical downloads sections wing backs also dominated with plenty getting double digit assists and taking it back to real world football...that's just not a thing with wing backs and wide play is not how teams overachieve (or at least rarely)...particularly at the top end of the game.

So really by having such a bias towards width in FM we end up having circular knock ons and balancing issues...the core elements of the engine need to be simulated better to reflect higher quality football we see in the real world and wean FM off the effectiveness of width/crossing to create chances/goals year in year out. Until that happens we will continue to have these feedback threads where people (correctly) complain about excessive long shots/excessive crosses/excessive goals from crosses/set pieces/lack of through balls and attacking movement.

Really FM shouldn't allow overachievement from crosses (open play particularly) as a thing in the first place as it's an outlier in the real world...or at least a rarity and certainly more rare as a prolonged way teams will overachieve. Layer on top of that again the way top teams play...the reason they overachieve is they have better players and again put a group of quality player together...they're not overachieving from crossing it...even instinctively put a group of quality players together and their default action is not get it down, get it out wide and get it in box with crosses to create goals.

I get that users will want crossing and like playing that way and if FM allows overachievement that way...firstly that's not reflective of real world football and if it's to the detriment of quality incisive passing and movements attacking play centrally in the top third then that is moving things even further away from how football is played in the real world. So you essentially have a match engine which isn't reflective of real world football and continually 'propping up' this wing play is detrimental to the overall development of the match engine as it's propping up something which shouldn't be happening with the ease that it happens in FM. It's reasonable to have overachievement with width/crossing if similar levels of overachievement is possible by other means...say through the middle with passing incisiveness combined with more fluid movement of attackers and creativity of playmakers but again the balance generally falls in favour of width/crossing.

 

I know this is a little off thread here but a little perspective given some of the 'heat' this thread is generating is no harm in terms of the state of the match engine and a more helicopter view of things and take a step back pondering where the match engine is currently at and where SI wants to take it in terms of how it wants to reflect football

What you're seeing in premiership is continental managers such as guardiola/klopp/silva/pochettino/emery/sarri introduce a whole different dynamic to what has traditionally been seen in England with vibrant front foot football with more sophistication than has been seen in years...some of the game's this year have been tremendous...the arsenal liverpool, arsenal spurs game really stand out. But the trend has been to a better quality of football attempted at least than in the past...even teams like bournemouth/leicester/wolves are playing some really good stuff.

I think some of the feedback maybe 5 years or more back began to direct FM more towards a Jose type reactive approach whereby people wanted a micro level ability to tweak small details and have strong ability to nullify opposition and overall if you compare FM to the past defensively despite what one may perceive certain (valid) defensive weaknesses it has improved quite a lot...but maybe to enable micro level reactive tweaks and with player roles defining a lot of behaviour attacking patterns/pass decision making suffered a little.

There was also a phenomenon where people complained that every team played tiki taka like barca football so that was changed lol

Anyway...the way football has gone in recent years is more of a front foot approach and jose's limited approach is getting left behind but I'm not sure this has been reflected in FM...I think when people watch these games in the real world with these teams and watching any guardiola teams people (not everyone of course) want emulate this within FM and where people are getting frustrated is they're not currently seeing it.

I do think SI made strides this year to lay the groundwork with this with a lot of work behind the scenes to increase simulation of pressing/gegenpressing/more dynamism in that sense but pressing in the real world requires a tremendous amount of work on the training ground to get right so it's harder again to simulate this for a computer game so it's reasonable to expect this took up a lot of the development cycle with changes to tactical templates and whatever else.

Where this leaves things is pass decision making/attacking fluidity movement wise/creativity/flair/guile/dribbling etc all require enhancement to enable the type of football we see the likes of City/Liverpool/Barca/Madrid/PSG and the likes play being simulated within FM.

Doing this and weaning FM off it's dependence on width/crossing/set pieces to create goals and chances is a more realistic reflection of how higher quality football is played in the real world and the way football is trending. The other benefit of this is the balancing exercise within FM will actually be easier once the fundamentals of football are more accurately reflected as in...less dependence on crosses mean spikes in goals from crosses/long shots/number of crosses won't keep cropping up causing knock ons elsewhere and the from this stronger base starting point further development of attacking patterns can be worked on and indeed defending can be ramped up even further

 

Anyway back to the immediacy of central play via through balls and attacking movement. As the SI team are saying...it's clearly not an easy fix so let's all keep our fingers crossed they can go full Santa and deliver that wonderful present for us all 

 

 

[Tony Wright 747]

1 hour ago, Jack Joyce said:

The ME is so complex that we will never say for definite that issues will be fixed, oftentimes we fix one issue and create 4 or 5 more since everything is so interconnected. It takes a huge amount of analysis and balancing to make changes to the ME. For example, we improve attacking movement then it will likely need us to improve defensive positioning to stop a huge increase in the overall amount of goals, and that's just the obvious knock-on effect, there's many more.

However, having said that, these issues in particular are right at the top of our priority list when it comes to working on the ME since we agree it can be improved and we know that a lot of people feel the same way. You're not being ignored at all, and it's certainly not something our brilliant, hard-working QA team hasn't seen themselves either. We're all listening.

This is why I am still playing FM16 and when I get fed up with that save, am far more likely to buy FM17 than either 18 or 19.  Dont get me wrong this is not a rant at SI, I started playing football management games before we all had pc's let alone laptops (cards and dice) and I think that Fm16/17 is awsome and to me the peak of FM.  Will things be better than that in the future, I certainly hope so and there is no reason why it shouldn't when we look at the improvements over the years.

[Mitja]

2 hours ago, CJ Ramson said:

You have provided many detailed posts which can be useful, however certain fixes and knock-ons and are long term fixes for the coding team. 

i will stop moaning with this post so please let me finish with my thoughts. what i shown with in depth analysis and plenty of timed examples  in beta bugs forum is that most of the issues are conected like big teams, the attacking ones being outpassed by lesser teams, at the same time such teams attempt 100+ crosses par game which happen mostly because of too narrow defensive positioning  of Park the Bus - like tactics vs attacking ones. i have proved there that is not an ME issue per se, since all it would take is to make those lesser teams not using Defensive Mentality tactics as main match tactics and it would actually increase their chances of scoring and wastly improve realism in the game, like possession or crossing stats. this is indeed an old issue but i've been able to improve this issue hugely in fm17 just with changing AI managers attributes like Sitting Back and i defenetely will do that with fm19 too. the Balanced vs Attacking mentality game just can't produce a match with such huge statistical anomalys, unlike the V. Defensive vs Attacking. so two or three major issues at the moment don't even need ME changes to fix them.

https://gyazo.com/998566f17064e994ce28dd9942179bf6 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Mitja

[Lord Rowell]

Ok, on topic i.e. the thread was not solely created to relay information about the Public Beta, but also left open by @Neil Brock so that we could ask questions.

I have a question for everyone here who is playing / testing the Beta, and the devs. at SI.

Re. the issues of lack of striker movement, lack of central play, lack of short to mid-range central through balls, movement and turning issues pertaining to the AMC position, are these just happening in high level games e.g. top division of major European leagues? Or are they also occuring at lower levels of football e.g. League 1, Conference etc?

I'm genuinely curious as my Beta save is PSG, so I play in a quite high level league, mostly against packed defences, or in the Champions League so again high level. I've been active in the bugs forum reporting issues, uploading PKMs (btw thanks to SI staff, I've noticed a few things that I & others reported e.g. corners, have been improved), but at the end of the day my perspective is limited and I suspect this is the case for many of us.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Lord Rowell

[BadAss88]

3 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

A lot of the replies sum up my point. People want to be listened to, but aren't actually willing to listen. Especially if they don't like the answer. It's not a case if badgering someone until you get an answer you like. Think it's a little telling that Neil has already quite active today but not in here. Why get flak for answering honestly?

This goes the exact same way around! And you can't just delete posts if you don't like our answer! You need to listen to us as well!

[Burbian De Bay]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

This is all starting to descend into us vs them, with both "sides" feeling the need to defend themselves.  (BTW there are no "sides").

Can we just get back to the topic at hand, ie., providing constructive feedback on the public Beta.  Check back through the last x number of posts - there is hardly any constructive feedback whatsoever.  It's pretty much just people being defensive, trying to score a point, not talking about the Beta or simply being destructive.

Honestly right now if I were SI I'd be closing this thread and asking everyone to just use the Bugs forum, because SI are getting bugger all constructive feedback at present.

If anyone feels the need to reply to this post, PM me instead of clogging up this thread further.

I believe many of those who have expressed themselves negatively in this thread wonder why the developers/ testers have not discovered the ME weaknesses before the release date. That must be fair. The feedback saying that SI might not have tested well enough before full release, is in itself constructive criticism, and something they should look into. Instead of threatening to lock the thread, SI should appreciate the non-technical feedback, asking themselves what they could do  better, and what they can do to improve the process before they release the next full version. To me it seems that SI and a lot of users are having different expectations on how the first version of the released game should behave, and what kind of issues that are accepted or not. This is something SI should take seriously.

Peace and love.

[Mitja]

27 minutes ago, Mitja said:

the Balanced vs Attacking mentality game just can't produce a match with such huge statistical anomalys, unlike the V. Defensive vs Attacking. so two or three major issues at the moment don't even need ME changes to fix them.

in FM terms all top level football is ''played'' on mentalities higher than ''Counter'', the EPL even higher.  without tempo, constant dynamic running, blistering counter attacks,etc there's no modern football. when V. Defensive meets Attacking it is like some half-pro brazilian team from '68 meets Klopp's Liverpoool. i would reserve the two most defensive mentalities for lowest levels which naturally shouldn't be able to play on attacking mentalities.

[CJ Ramson]

27 minutes ago, Mitja said:

that is not an ME issue per se, since all it would take is to make those lesser teams not using Defensive Mentality tactics as main match tactics and it would actually increase their chances of scoring and wastly improve realism in the game, like possession or crossing stats.

Firstly, manager attributes is something set by the researchers and not the match team. Secondly, having teams that typically sit back and defend in Premier League games play differently in game just to balance stats would be unrealistic to me. Overall numbers for stats, compared to real life is something we pay close attention to across all the major leagues.

32 minutes ago, Lord Rowell said:

Re. the issues of lack of striker movement, lack of central play, lack of short to mid-range central through balls, movement and turning issues pertaining to the AMC position, are these just happening in high level games e.g. top division of major European leagues? Or are they also occuring at lower levels of football e.g. League 1, Conference etc?

It's something that affects all levels, albeit differently. Having played a lot of matches across all levels on this game I have also seen many good AMC performances where they do all these things. When playing as a top team the areas for the AMC to operate would naturally be congested with opposition DM's etc. This is a similar problem IRL which is probably why many of the top teams no longer play with a natural AMC.

32 minutes ago, BadAss88 said:

This goes the exact same way around! And you can't just delete posts if you don't like our answer! You need to listen to us as well!

Many of the deleted posts were rude or personal. Please feel free to share your views but you still have to be respectful.

22 minutes ago, Burbian De Bay said:

I believe many of those who have expressed themselves negatively in this thread wonder why the developers/ testers have not discovered the ME weaknesses before the release date. That must be fair. The feedback saying that SI might not have tested well enough before full release, is in itself constructive criticism, and something they should look into.

Questioning whether people who's job it is to test the ME, actually done their job properly while not actually offering anything apart from your opinion that they didn't do their job well enough is not constructive. I respect that you feel the ME could be improved and I agree with some of the critiques raised by others. However, having tested the ME extensively I believe there are also many areas which are very good and enjoyable.

[Mitja]

7 minutes ago, CJ Ramson said:

Firstly, manager attributes is something set by the researchers and not the match team. Secondly, having teams that typically sit back and defend in Premier League games play differently in game just to balance stats would be unrealistic to me. Overall numbers for stats, compared to real life is something we pay close attention to across all the major leagues.

52 minutes ago, Lord Rowell said:

you can sit back and defend on any mentality. none of the EPL managers is set lower than mentality 7, by reseachers. the stats are hugely unbalanced and unrealistic, like City having 120 less passes than Newcastle in above pic who managed to dominate possession but failed to attempt one shot.

[Jack Joyce]

24 minutes ago, Mitja said:

you can sit back and defend on any mentality. none of the EPL managers is set lower than mentality 7, by reseachers. the stats are hugely unbalanced and unrealistic, like City having 120 less passes than Newcastle in above pic who managed to dominate possession but failed to attempt one shot.

For the AI their Duty selections are directly influenced by their current match mentality so this isn't the case. There's wider issues at play here.

[baris28]

I think there is background of militia for 'likes' and such to threads. joking of course . But 'upvote' such as how I enjoy the game makes it suspicious, maybe for positive motivation.

[Mitja]

here's random game between two normal - researchers based mentalities. normal stats, Wolves crosses could be lower but nothing alarming.

 

here's a match between Attacking and V. Defensive mentality

https://gyazo.com/46f19d72e3be19f43092dd3b644ce2bf

[RocheBag]

4 minutes ago, baris28 said:

I think there is background of militia for 'likes' and such to threads. joking of course . But 'upvote' such as how I enjoy the game makes it suspicious, maybe for positive motivation.

I upvote positive posts because the constant moaning is tiresome. If I wanted to listen to that I'd ring my mom. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by RocheBag

[RocheBag]

2 minutes ago, Mitja said:

here's random game between two normal - researchers based mentalities. normal stats, Wolves crosses could be lower but nothing alarming.

 

here's a match between Attacking and V. Defensive mentality

https://gyazo.com/46f19d72e3be19f43092dd3b644ce2bf

So it appears that as I expected, attacking mentality is for chasing a goal gung-ho and isn't to be used as a starting mentality for long periods. 

[Mitja]

18 minutes ago, Jack Joyce said:

There's wider issues at play here.

when can these issue be expected to be fixed roughly?

[Mitja]

Just now, RocheBag said:

So it appears that as I expected, attacking mentality is for chasing a goal gung-ho and isn't to be used as a starting mentality for long periods. 

why half of EPL AI managers are attacking?

[Mitja]

it was AI vs AI match i don't know what ment it was.

[badger100]

I am actually enjoying the latest build and have seen some good changes as the new ME builds are released to us.

better goal types, good passing football which sometime end in good finishing or a quality save, less goals from crosses, different range of headed goals, downward, bullet or near or far post headers.

yes it could still be better as still too many red cards in games and some dodgy decisions when defending but I am thinking of using the current build for a full save now instead of waiting.

keep up the good work SI and I am a supporter as I have every game released from Atari/Amiga onwards (old I know) and it was a lot simpler with 2d but I do enjoy 3D games.

[baris28]

12 dakika önce, RocheBag said:

I upvote positive posts because the constant moaning is tiresome. If I wanted to listen to that I'd ring my mom. 

Ok thanks for explaining. I should return to my wargaming then. Not very friendly mature community. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by baris28

[Rashidi]

18 minutes ago, RocheBag said:

So it appears that as I expected, attacking mentality is for chasing a goal gung-ho and isn't to be used as a starting mentality for long periods. 

I should change my name to General Gungho then.

[Lord Rowell]

38 minutes ago, RocheBag said:

So it appears that as I expected, attacking mentality is for chasing a goal gung-ho and isn't to be used as a starting mentality for long periods. 

I have not found that to be the case. On plenty of occasions I have started with an attacking mentality, and quickly scored goals.

Whether attacking mentality works or not depends on a variety of factors such as the relative strengths of the teams, your roles and duties within the shape of your team, TIs, PIs and so on.

[westy8chimp]

Also playing attacking mentality, but I'll hastily add...im not playing for possession, nor obtaining possession... So not in disagreement with what I assume Roche was eluding to

[callamity]

if i opt in, and the updates are applied.

 

Can I go back and play on the older, released version?

[XaW]

1 hour ago, RocheBag said:

So it appears that as I expected, attacking mentality is for chasing a goal gung-ho and isn't to be used as a starting mentality for long periods. 

Been playing on attacking mentality for most of this (tweaked a lot during 23/24 and 24/25), and I've done so without a single purchased player in my youth-only challenge:

So much for Attacking never working, eh?

 

[Mitja]

1 hour ago, Jack Joyce said:

For the AI their Duty selections are directly influenced by their current match mentality so this isn't the case. There's wider issues at play here.

and AI current match mentality (which mentality will be used?) is influenced by Sitting Back attribute? which meens we're spinning in circles. my point is that ''normal'' mentality tactics set by researchers would give those teams bigger chance of getting something out of game and it would keep normal statistics. also the way such tactics are played in ME would never happen irl. defensive Newcastle would never be able to outpass City and in FM it happens only because of too defensive AI tactics. those 100+ crossing attempts are happening only because of too defensive and narrow AI tactics. all proved.  ''normal'' vs ''normal'' tactics produce normal results and stats. this is not even ME issue.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Mitja