Might be done with FM, maybe forever

[jujigatame]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

1) given that you're not learning anything, you'd likely lose the next game and get sacked anyway

2) if your approach is flawed, then odds don't really matter, you're going get stuffed regardless. Which is what's happening right here 

3) no, it really isn't. And your experience is colored by the fact you're stumbling along with an approach that is barely working for you. Hence the slump. Stop narrowly sticking to conclusions that aren't even accurate in the first place. 

4) extended doesn't actually show you that much. You should be watching on comprehensive. 

If you are genuinely trying to get out this slump, then I'd suggest being open minded. This isn't a freak bug costing you a goal or a game, it's a constant slide into decline. And that's entirely on you and the only way out, if there even is at this point, is to fundamentally reassess what you're doing. We still haven't seen how you're setup or the quality of players available to you 

After cheating to beat Chelsea, I went off and won 6 matches in a row, and in fact one of those wins was a surprisingly comfortable one against the exact same Chelsea side that it took 19 tries to beat earlier.  I do not believe there is "scripted momentum" but I do think morale has an outsized effect on performance which leads to streaks that feel scripted.

I did not change tactics, and I am certainly not going to "fundamentally reassess" an approach that got me into the CL twice in a row, against the odds.  I tend to think the importance of tactics in FM is vastly overstated, and most FM tactical discussion is people being fooled by randomness.

And I don't see how you can say the game doesn't encourage you to optimize for chances created when it is the SOLE STATISTIC displayed on the formations analysis page.

[sporadicsmiles]

4 hours ago, jujigatame said:

I did not change tactics, and I am certainly not going to "fundamentally reassess" an approach that got me into the CL twice in a row, against the odds.  I tend to think the importance of tactics in FM is vastly overstated, and most FM tactical discussion is people being fooled by randomness. 

If that is your attitude towards tactics, then there are always going to be times when you struggle, always going to be teams who regularly beat you, and everything that goes along with it. The point is you have reloaded a game until you win it, and apparently you are winning now. However, this is not going to fix the issue, you will have to repeat this process every time you struggle. Everyone plays the game differently, but this would quickly drain my interest.

Does anybody else also note that it is fundamentally impossible to invoke extreme randomness in the ME, and also complain that you get similar results when replaying a game 19 times? Those things are absolutely not compatible statements. Lets assume use the same formation and players for each reload. Most of the input is then identical (players, moral, form, cohesion, all the crap said in the press, etc). So you are putting identical inputs into a system and getting very similar outputs. This directly implies that there is not a huge degree of randomness. You can correlate the inputs with the outputs. It is therefore most logical to assume that people do not understand the inputs.

Of course I am not saying that randomness is not important and does not happen (it clearly does). Random luck plays a huge role in football in real life, as much as it does in FM. However, it is not the single most important factor in most matches (only those which are very close, causing one moment of random luck to have a strong impact). We also are to spot patterns, and our brains do not handle randomness very well at all. You can see this in this discussion. Randomness is "the ME screwing me" or some such. It is, of course, no such thing. We tend to attribute random events that go in our favour to something we did (both in real life and in FM). A random rebound during a tackle is attributed to the user creating a nice pressing tactic, for instance. Or one of those scrappy corner goals to having the correct corner routine. While there is probably some correlation, luck played a huge role. We definitely do not do the same when it comes to randomness going against us. We even have a saying to deal with this - the world is out to get me. Bad luck is never our fault, it is an external force that causes it. This is true for everyone, at some point, and in all areas of life. In FM, you can blame the ME for being biased against you. "It is not possible to hit the post 2 times in the same move, the ME clearly wants me to lose", or say the game is scripted, or any of these things. The truth is, sometimes we get unlucky. I actually think football is 50% about making sure you have more good luck than bad (and I know I read that in a book somewhere, anyone who can find the quote , cheers).

And early I saw a comment suggesting that they want less randomness, and only attributes + formation to play a role in the ME? What a terrible idea. Basically you buy the best players, and try formations until you find the one that works, and sim forever winning every game? I think FM does a wonderful job of getting many of the things that affect performance in real life into the game. Look at the way Man Utd played under Mourinho and how they played now. Same players, but absolutely different performances. This is clearly not only due to formation and tactics.

[Preveza]

8 hours ago, Andrew_Goats_Gruff said:

@jujigatame

I’ve not played FM now in a couple months or so, I can honestly say I don’t miss the scripted momentum tosh, if I load a game up, I don’t want to examine before things, for example, examining the next opponent, it’s like playing fifa and examining the opponent rather than JUST enjoying playing it your way. On FM you have to stick to what the developers believe in, you can’t put angry without a player then missing an open goal or your defence giving the usual off form penalty away within a couple games. I love the work S.I do, I love FM, but it is milleniums behind other games in the fun department, FIFA career is miles better, even New Star Soccer on phones is more fun, right now I play FC Pro chairman game where you start a club and you’re the chairman obviously by the name.. on this I have done 7 seasons today, Rocket League blows FM out the water in terms of fun, on FIFA you change mentallity based on the flow of the game, on FM, you change mentality, it disprups the players match understanding, if I loaded FM up now and my striker was off form and missed open goals or my off form team kept giving penalties away, i’d turn it off, because it might be realistic but it over emphasises things, I mean crosses have been broke for years on FMs aswell. 

Sorry but thats rubbish. FIFA Career mode is the most shallow, blandest, pathetic mode ever.

[themadsheep2001]

6 hours ago, jujigatame said:

After cheating to beat Chelsea, I went off and won 6 matches in a row, and in fact one of those wins was a surprisingly comfortable one against the exact same Chelsea side that it took 19 tries to beat earlier.  I do not believe there is "scripted momentum" but I do think morale has an outsized effect on performance which leads to streaks that feel scripted.

I did not change tactics, and I am certainly not going to "fundamentally reassess" an approach that got me into the CL twice in a row, against the odds.  I tend to think the importance of tactics in FM is vastly overstated, and most FM tactical discussion is people being fooled by randomness.

And I don't see how you can say the game doesn't encourage you to optimize for chances created when it is the SOLE STATISTIC displayed on the formations analysis page.

This narrow, and partially incorrect conclusion absolutely demonstrates why you end up in the position you do. Ignoring tactics and struggling to the point of failure, and the multiple reloading doesn't mean the value tactics are overstated. It does mean that ignoring a large side of the game when things are going wrong, when they can be catalysts for change is an absolutely terrible idea 

Most people who have changed things much earlier, rather than failing for a large number of games in a row, and then having multiple reloads to get the result they want. It took you 19 tries to beat Chelsea, and then you proudly declare "tactics are overstated". To misquote John Henry slightly - what are you smoking?!

Morale doesn't have an outsized effect. You hamstrung yourself by limiting your choices, which makes it look like it did. 

You realise there's a whole load more statistics in analysis right? It's not encouraging you to optimize for anything. You've forced than entirely on yourself 

Like I said, you have an extremely narrow focus. Which is why you ended up save scumming in the first place. 

Essentially this thread was a long winded way of say "I'm definitely not wrong, the game is wrong" while while ignoring some huge warning signs about what you were doing and being stubborn to the point of failure. Without same scumming, you essentially failed. 

Everyone else, If you hit a run of bad form - the above is a lesson in how to not go about getting out of it. 

[Carninho]

my only advise is to have a team meeting. If moral of the players is low then by giving the moral a boost it tends to lift their performances.

when results take a dip its not normally down to tactics etc but players mental states. Did you appoint a new captain, has it upset anyone? is there a better option within the squad? so any players want to leave? have you upset any players with broken promises etc...

IMO once you have found tactics that work for you there is no need to ever change them again in FM. Have you reviewed all the set piece takers recently? are the relationships between players a solid green line or do you have any reds? are any of your star players in decline? has a player lost their pace or other physical stats without you realising, such as a CB? 

if you are going to 'give up on FM forever' then do us a favour and go quietly, no need for a woe is me session on the forum. 

[santy001]

This thread started out like someone wanting to get a better understanding of the world, and then coming to the conclusion its flat. 

You are ultimately free to play the game how you want, but you ultimately aren't playing the intended experience so when you decide that's what you want to do it's always going to feel a little less satisfying. 

It gets pretty difficult to respond because it just reaches a point where you're empirically wrong. What you choose to believe is ultimately down to you. You enjoying it is the main thing when you're playing the game, but I do question whether you enjoy the public exasperation you've put out on this forum more than you would enjoy taking points on board and learning how to overcome the obstacles in the game in a way that you can repeat in the future without having to reload 20 times.

[pheelf]

I agree with you that you should quit.

[Baodan]

The game is intentionally vague in a lot of areas. Is it then a surprise that people like the OP comes to some incorrect conclusions while playing the game? I personally learn new stuff about FM almost weekly. Stuff I didn't even consider as possible to misunderstand or stuff the game never made me aware of in the slightest.

I think there are more players like the OP who suffers from the same issues and I feel sad about the fact that they are in this situation because that is how SI wants it to be.

[GerdMuller]

I like that FM ha sbecome so complex it has become vague and an guessing game so often, sometimes it is even fun to think more complicated than the game really is and nothing tunrs me off more than reading on the Forums the Code is actually a lot more simple and that there are 3 soultions actually you only can choose from and x does this and z this. I really enjoy pretending ist really a football world and immerse myself. But that means accepting that there are bad runs of Football and often it does feel the game just decides to punish you and actually thats sometimes jsut the way you feel like in real Football too, the Football gos **** on you no matter what. And i can totally accept that and embrace it in a Career game where i Change Teams when fired or getting better. But i know as lots of others do sometimes just want to play "my" club and go through the times no matter what and it  just turns me off i can get fired everday after 20 years because of a bad run and that having a tremendous overachieving Season only makes things a lot worse. I think SI DOES nanny you and force you to play the game the way THEY want you to instead of providing a simple free " sackings off" button. Yes, i can create a new manager, but ist a new manager and totally kills the Inversion , i get accused of killing by wanting that simple button a lot of people would love for how they play the game.

[sporadicsmiles]

10 minutes ago, GerdMuller said:

I like that FM ha sbecome so complex it has become vague and an guessing game so often

It is all just common sense though. You just have to think how you would handle something in real life. For example, it is really not so vague or obscure that your players will play nervously you put pressure on them to get a result in an important match. Or that they can become complacent after winning a lot of games in a row. Or that when they are on a run of bad form they have low confidence, and heads will drop after conceding a goal. This is something we see every day in football. Something we may experience every day in real life (you are nervous and under pressure in a job interview, and may say/do things you would not normally do, for example). Honestly, I cannot see how this is something people can miss.

The other thing is people do not seem to think that different parts of the game will talk to each other. For example, you have a press conference and say something derogatory about the other team. This can fire up the other team to prove you wrong. These things do not exist in isolation. Press conferences can be used to fire your own side up. Or take pressure of them before a big match, or boost confidence by shifting praise from yourself to the players (or conversely by taking the blame for your players).

Ultimately FM is a football simulator which aims to be as accurate as possible. This means allowing people to get sacked, and letting you roll with the good times and the bad. It is the only way the game can be. There is also no point complaining about there being no "no sacking mode" in the base game. There is a no sacking mode, you just have to pay for it. Which is completely reasonable since it is a feature a minority of people would want use, and it seriously detracts from the simulation nature of the game.

[GerdMuller]

I doubt it is such  a minority that would use a no sack mode, and in a game as i said before,where i can be a Premier league manager ist totally possible that i can stay it because it want to Play that way. Realism  only goes so far.

What i am saying is yes i agree with the thread starter it is horrible to have expactations so high just because you were good with the Team you get fired the next time you hit a low stretch of form. It is realistic , yes, but it is also fun to get through those stretches with the club you love and only one you wanna manage. The current System actually Forces you to Play a game where the only Option is constant success . which in itself is unrealstic and leads to the total unrealistic temptaion to save and load when you get fired because of a bad run. So the aimed for realism actually kills the Immersion and realism for a lost of payers.

The rest we agree, it snice it has become so complex you cant just "Play" the game by knowing every reaction to every action you take. Ist a Special Kind of realism achieved. Tbh i often get more down when i read on the Forum sometimes ist really a much more simple line of code as you would expect.

[Mons]

9 hours ago, jujigatame said:

After cheating to beat Chelsea, I went off and won 6 matches in a row, and in fact one of those wins was a surprisingly comfortable one against the exact same Chelsea side that it took 19 tries to beat earlier.  I do not believe there is "scripted momentum" but I do think morale has an outsized effect on performance which leads to streaks that feel scripted.

I did not change tactics, and I am certainly not going to "fundamentally reassess" an approach that got me into the CL twice in a row, against the odds.  I tend to think the importance of tactics in FM is vastly overstated, and most FM tactical discussion is people being fooled by randomness.

And I don't see how you can say the game doesn't encourage you to optimize for chances created when it is the SOLE STATISTIC displayed on the formations analysis page.

It does irl a bit too, though. How can you explain Man Utd's upturn under Solskjaer? Have you ever been in an unhappy, frustrated and/or disinteresed dressing room? Morale and confidence are, and should be, very important, don't you think?

 

You appear disinclined to change your approach. A wise man will tweak his approach if it isn't working, in whatever field of life. Mourinho didn't and paid for it...

[themadsheep2001]

52 minutes ago, Baodan said:

The game is intentionally vague in a lot of areas. Is it then a surprise that people like the OP comes to some incorrect conclusions while playing the game? I personally learn new stuff about FM almost weekly. Stuff I didn't even consider as possible to misunderstand or stuff the game never made me aware of in the slightest.

I think there are more players like the OP who suffers from the same issues and I feel sad about the fact that they are in this situation because that is how SI wants it to be.

Football can be a vague sport. As a result the game itself has to be open ended. However there's basic things that are obvious. Which the OP initially didn't do, and then when advised, still didn't to. So it's entirely on him. 

I mean outright ignoring tactics while going through a prolonged slump is an unquestionably bad idea. There's no two ways about it 

[GerdMuller]

I dont get Mourinhos compensation though, that might make it eaiser to say..i got fired because it is realistic and hand over my save to another manager to play it. Give me realism and bad runs please but let me the Football manager of my club as long as i want . Every game start off in an unrealstic situation thats why ist a game. Thats why ist fun. I cant believe i am the only one that is ripped of a lot of  fun and realism because he cant life through those bad runs of the club. Yes ist is unrealstic to not get fired as manager. Yes it is killing the fun to only be able to Play yoiur favourite club through the good times. Yes ist called Football manager but dont tell me everyone Plays it to be a Football manager , a lot Play it because they can be their club and are totally ripped of an easy to deliver joy of this game.

 

Where is the realism when i have been a club legend basically training Everton for 30 years and when i have 5 bad games the boss says: Get 12 Points in 5 games or you are history?

Or when i have a 98 percent full stadium for 20 years counting and 700 mill in the bank, but the board says we dont build a new stadium because we have to few fans? Then its a game only suddenly? And a simple "Play my fav. club Option no matter what totally against the philosphie of the game? No, i want a realistic game and that inlcludes very bad runs and it is a part of Football to be able to live through those even when a manager might have to go IRL … do really have so many in mind...i Play that guy...dont most People have in mind...i want to play that club?

[Baodan]

6 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Football can be a vague sport. As a result the game itself has to be open ended. However there's basic things that are obvious. Which the OP initially didn't do, and then when advised, still didn't to. So it's entirely on him. 

There are basic things that are obvious, sure. But then there are all the things that the game doesn't tell you about (fx the importance of the character of your youth staff). Or the green circles on the tactic page that should just be ignored (plenty of people get confused by that one).

I'm not arguing for the OP here, just stating the fact that I understand where this all is coming from.

6 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I mean outright ignoring tactics while going through a prolonged slump is an unquestionably bad idea. There's no two ways about it 

I completely agree.

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, Baodan said:

There are basic things that are obvious, sure. But then there are all the things that the game doesn't tell you about (fx the importance of the character of your youth staff). Or the green circles on the tactic page that should just be ignored (plenty of people get confused by that one).

I'm not arguing for the OP here, just stating the fact that I understand where this all is coming from.

I completely agree.

I think you're conflating things that could be clearer (green circles on the tactics page is definitely one), which I somewhat agree with (this game should never become cookie cutter, you've got to be able to fail), with the big picture thinking the OP took. Which was flawed from the start in a number of obvious ways, and continued to be. I'm only talking about the overall thinking the OP took in this case. 

[RBKalle]

5 ore fa, sporadicsmiles ha scritto:

If that is your attitude towards tactics, then there are always going to be times when you struggle, always going to be teams who regularly beat you, and everything that goes along with it. The point is you have reloaded a game until you win it, and apparently you are winning now. However, this is not going to fix the issue, you will have to repeat this process every time you struggle. Everyone plays the game differently, but this would quickly drain my interest.

There are some teams/formations that create much much troubles than they should IMO.

In the early days of FM18 4-1-2-3 wide was a nightmare to play against, even as a Top Club against a bottom-feeder. Not that it's completely unrealistic, but there must be a point where attributes trump morale/tactics etc.

The OP has been stubbornly trying to stick to his original tactic and I can see his point to be honest. If the same approach has brought him relative success with a midtable side, there's no reason for the same tactic to suddenly fail in such a spectacular way.
The fact he had to reload a game against Chelsea 10 times to get a win is barely relevant. A loss would have been reasonable and acceptable in a "regular" campaign, but after he lost to the likes of Preston in a months-long winless streak, it's more a matter of principle than of realism.

The key question is: "why did a successful side suddenly turn into the league's whipping boys?".

Again, unless the OP has completely dropped the ball with his summer transfers, such a collapse is disconcerting.

 

Quote

Does anybody else also note that it is fundamentally impossible to invoke extreme randomness in the ME, and also complain that you get similar results when replaying a game 19 times? Those things are absolutely not compatible statements. Lets assume use the same formation and players for each reload. Most of the input is then identical (players, moral, form, cohesion, all the crap said in the press, etc). So you are putting identical inputs into a system and getting very similar outputs. This directly implies that there is not a huge degree of randomness. You can correlate the inputs with the outputs. It is therefore most logical to assume that people do not understand the inputs.

I think the problem arises when the most common result doesn't make any sense in context.

In the past I've reloaded too the same "game you just can't win", and it was never a big match or a CL final... It was some random pointless game against a relegated side or a lower-league team in an early cup round.

BTW, I've also noticed it in AI v AI games (whenever I was messing around with the outcome of other competitions).

It's a good thing there is some internal consistency, meaning the game isn't just a glorified RNG based on a spreadsheet, but there are times where it feels like the deciding factors are a bit off.

 

 

Quote

And early I saw a comment suggesting that they want less randomness, and only attributes + formation to play a role in the ME? What a terrible idea. Basically you buy the best players, and try formations until you find the one that works, and sim forever winning every game? I think FM does a wonderful job of getting many of the things that affect performance in real life into the game. Look at the way Man Utd played under Mourinho and how they played now. Same players, but absolutely different performances. This is clearly not only due to formation and tactics.

I agree it's a terrible idea to implement in a current videogame.

However, when/if the tactical aspect of the game will have become refined enough, it'd be much more feasible and even desirable.

Mourinho's United was a terrible team, partly because the players didn't want to work hard for him, but it also had something to do with tactics... In the future, FM could become reliable enough tactically to let you know that the players aren't following your lead and that your tactics is otherwise quite sound.

But as things are now, it's impossible to tell if my top-level striker can't score if his life depends on it because the tactical side is flawed or he's not motivated

[themadsheep2001]

Of course there can be reason for it to fail. You don't play in a vacuum, there's two teams on the pitch. And it didn't fail in a spectacular way. It was a prolonged slide that he failed to deal with entirely. 

Also what matter of principle? If we're talking principles then he should be out of a job like any manager to fails to arrest a slide. And it's not like we don't see it happen in real life either

OP dropped the ball and should have been sacked. As he said he started his slide in the last 10 games of last season. He's lucky he had a job to come back to in the summer. 

He stated he wanted a moan and a bit of sympathy and I can't say I have much of the latter for him tbh given his approach 

[jujigatame]

7 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Does anybody else also note that it is fundamentally impossible to invoke extreme randomness in the ME, and also complain that you get similar results when replaying a game 19 times? Those things are absolutely not compatible statements. Lets assume use the same formation and players for each reload. Most of the input is then identical (players, moral, form, cohesion, all the crap said in the press, etc). So you are putting identical inputs into a system and getting very similar outputs. This directly implies that there is not a huge degree of randomness. You can correlate the inputs with the outputs. It is therefore most logical to assume that people do not understand the inputs.

You misunderstand me.  I'm not saying the game is "too random" or anything like that.  The real sport is extremely random, and if anything my experience has been that FM may not be random enough in terms of individual match results.

What I am saying is that most tactical discussion surrounding FM is people being fooled by randomness.  Or to put it another way, people determining causal relationships without having a remotely complete view of all the inputs.  As in, people drawing conclusions like "I switched my BWM to a DLP and won 5 straight matches, therefore that was the right move".  Meanwhile the first win of the 5 was a very close match, and there was a 50% chance of losing it, and if you'd have lost it you could have ended up spiraling downward with 5 straight losses instead of 5 straight wins.  So really you have no basis for concluding the change you made was successful or even meaningful.

If I use the same 2-3 tactics to achieve 7th, 7th, 3rd, 4th, 8th with a mid-table team, and then start my 6th season 5-1-1 with 3 wins over "big 6" clubs, I'm certainly not going to "fundamentally reassess" my tactical approach.  That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and in fact is as likely to hurt me as it is to help me.

This thread has gone a bit off track so I apologize for that.  I don't really want to be overly argumentative or combative here.  I just don't think FM is really for me anymore.  It can be so fascinating and addictive, but it's just terrible for my mental health.  I can't sink 250 hours into a game and then have all that time flushed down the can because of a bad run.  It may be realistic but it's far too stressful for me, and ultimately I want my time playing video games to be fun, first and foremost.  So I think I'm going to finish up this career, whether it's successful or not, and then take a few years away from FM.

[sporadicsmiles]

3 hours ago, RBKalle said:

The key question is: "why did a successful side suddenly turn into the league's whipping boys?".

I am not suggesting the problem is tactical. If you have a sound tactic, it is a sound tactic. However, there are many more things that come into play here. You see this all the time in football. A team plays the same tactics, under the same manager, and have vastly different results. One can point to Mourinho at Man Utd, for instance, and the revival under OGS. This cannot be entirely attributed to tactics, something else is clearly happening there. Complete loss of moral leading to shaky performances, leading to mistakes, leading to heads dropping, leading to poor performances. I always notice that I can play okay when in bad form, but it all falls apart when we go a goal down. In these instances, you can absolutely change things tactically to look for points, clean sheets, games where you sneak a 1 goal win. I do not find the collapse disconcerting at all, it shows the OP has no idea how to drag his team out of a hole. These things happen in football (both real life and FM), and the manager has to stop the rot or be fired.

3 hours ago, RBKalle said:

I think the problem arises when the most common result doesn't make any sense in context.

If the result doesn't make sense in context, you either are missing the context, or you have misunderstood the context. In my most recent save, I got knocked out of the FA cup by a team struggling in league 1, when I was close to the top of the premiership. I played a pretty strong side. We just came up against a team who were better on the day. All of the context of this game suggests I should have won easily. I was in great form, the opposition was not. I played a lot of my main guys (I wanted to win the cup). Losing was unexpected, but complacency coupled to the other side playing out of their skins was too much. The defended wonderfully, and I could not get the equalizer. I did not reload the game, but was it unwinnable? Absolutely not. I messed up somewhere. I let the players get complacent, I did not pay enough attention to the threats they posed me, I rotated too much. Maybe all of these.

The point there is that this team got an early goal, got their tails up, and defended out of their skins. My players got shocked, and responded poorly. They got nervous and started to snatch at shots, try to force play etc. In the context of the game, the result made sense, even though I did not expect it. If I had scored an early goal, I am 100% sure we would have gone on to a comfortable win. There is nothing wrong there, except the outrage we feel at losing when we know we should have won.

3 hours ago, RBKalle said:

Mourinho's United was a terrible team, partly because the players didn't want to work hard for him, but it also had something to do with tactics... In the future, FM could become reliable enough tactically to let you know that the players aren't following your lead and that your tactics is otherwise quite sound.

The thing is, OGS has not come in and revolutionized things tactically. Sure, he has had a positive impact, but he probably is not the second coming of Guardiola. He has gotten rid of the poor dressing room atmosphere though, I am sure. In FM, there are clear ways to distinguish these things. If a tactic is sound, then it is always sound. You may (read, should) make changes to counter specific threats, and sometimes you come across sides who nullify one aspect of your play so you have to change. But a sound tactic is a sound tactic. Then you have the whole player moral module, the team talk feedback you can get, the body language of a player on the pitch, the player ratings etc. Plus your own eyes, if you keep seeing the same things happen time and again, whoever you play as, then you have tactical issues. If issues come and go with form, moral, etc, you have other issues.

[rp1966]

6 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

There is a no sacking mode, you just have to pay for it. Which is completely reasonable since it is a feature a minority of people would want use

I actually think there are a lot of players who only ever play the team they support and would love the (free) option to just play that team through good times and bad.

(I'm not one of them - I go journeyman after the database update)

 

[themadsheep2001]

6 hours ago, jujigatame said:

You misunderstand me.  I'm not saying the game is "too random" or anything like that.  The real sport is extremely random, and if anything my experience has been that FM may not be random enough in terms of individual match results.

What I am saying is that most tactical discussion surrounding FM is people being fooled by randomness.  Or to put it another way, people determining causal relationships without having a remotely complete view of all the inputs.  As in, people drawing conclusions like "I switched my BWM to a DLP and won 5 straight matches, therefore that was the right move".  Meanwhile the first win of the 5 was a very close match, and there was a 50% chance of losing it, and if you'd have lost it you could have ended up spiraling downward with 5 straight losses instead of 5 straight wins.  So really you have no basis for concluding the change you made was successful or even meaningful.

If I use the same 2-3 tactics to achieve 7th, 7th, 3rd, 4th, 8th with a mid-table team, and then start my 6th season 5-1-1 with 3 wins over "big 6" clubs, I'm certainly not going to "fundamentally reassess" my tactical approach.  That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and in fact is as likely to hurt me as it is to help me.

This thread has gone a bit off track so I apologize for that.  I don't really want to be overly argumentative or combative here.  I just don't think FM is really for me anymore.  It can be so fascinating and addictive, but it's just terrible for my mental health.  I can't sink 250 hours into a game and then have all that time flushed down the can because of a bad run.  It may be realistic but it's far too stressful for me, and ultimately I want my time playing video games to be fun, first and foremost.  So I think I'm going to finish up this career, whether it's successful or not, and then take a few years away from FM.

This is quite a valid point here more than anything else. If it bothers your mental health that much, definitely take a break.

And on that note, this thread has probably run its course. OP feel free to drop a PM, especially on the bolded part