Does This Seem Harsh To Anyone Else?

Harsh?

  • No, Perfectly Normal

    Votes: 14 60.9%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Yes, But That's FM For You

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • Total voters
    23
Status
Not open for further replies.
As we always tell you before you inevitably get banned again, post your tactic. You never seem to wan to do this.
 
bobbymoore100 said:
Both SI and those that defend the game so vehemently always forget that in real life luck works both ways. Looking at any of those screenshots above as a one off would not have me call foul. We all know that these kinds of games exist in real life but they are "freak" occurrences that go both for and against you. Here's another just for the record........
2h728g6.jpg
I could maybe understand it if I was using some kind of weird twisted tactic like you see a few of in the uploaded tactics thread, but this is just a simple balanced tactic that SHOULD yield a nice balance of results.
Click to expand...

To be honest I dont see what odd about this game... Manchester United players had a better average rating than your player. Yes you had 3 clear cut chances but they also managed 3 blocks which just shows that they most likely have some quality defenders... We dont know your tactic, you might be firing in long shots or shooting on sight so you get a lot of shots in, who knows. Also I dont know who your strikers are so missing 3 clear cut chances... as ive said before could be down to low composure, first touch, anticipation, determination, positioning... or he/they might not be very consistent. If your team does dominate though and then fade away at the end of games then maybe fitness, stamina or determination is playing a part.

Really all you have said is that you find it unfair, you should post more screenshots and maybe not just claim your losing because the game is broken.
 
bobbymoore100 said:
I understand what is being said here but the facts remain. I made more chances and conceded less with a better team of players than I started with and in real life those players would be regarded and worth more than they are in FM because a players value in real life is governed by performances(as it also used to be in FM) and NOT the ridiculous in game way where a player who averages 4.2 can be worth more than a player who averages 8.6 playing in the same position. The issue is with the game here not the player/tactic.
Click to expand...

I think that is debatable mate because it relies on your teams reputation as well... In real life you have Delph who has been far better than Cleverly only being rate at 3m with his contract running out yet Cleverly is still rated at 7.5m... so it isnt always true...

I got Jese Lingard in the Champinship for 825k and he became a star in first and second season he was worth 15m but when I started to struggle in the 3rd season and he wasnt playing well it went down to 9m at one point but he managed a spell where it rose back to 11m and I sold for 13m... I do think the system is broken its unfair that the computer will rarely pay ridiculous sums for a player you dont want to sell but they expect crazy sums from you...
 
RichTUK said:
To be honest I dont see what odd about this game... Manchester United players had a better average rating than your player. Yes you had 3 clear cut chances but they also managed 3 blocks which just shows that they most likely have some quality defenders... We dont know your tactic, you might be firing in long shots or shooting on sight so you get a lot of shots in, who knows. Also I dont know who your strikers are so missing 3 clear cut chances... as ive said before could be down to low composure, first touch, anticipation, determination, positioning... or he/they might not be very consistent. If your team does dominate though and then fade away at the end of games then maybe fitness, stamina or determination is playing a part.

Really all you have said is that you find it unfair, you should post more screenshots and maybe not just claim your losing because the game is broken.
Click to expand...
They had better average ratings because they won(do you play FM?) and I posted loads of s/shots in the OP.
 
Good point about the tactics initially making the human overperform this immensely much. However as should have been obvious from the results with such an initially poor side, this was a gamey thing. Hitting upon something that the AI didn't cope with, like overloading it's third with players, playing a high d-line pressing game, as often the case. That the game allows this is a failure (though some might disagree, most notibably the designers of such plug'n'play to immense success tactics regardless of player quality, it's a game after all).

However the point still stands that the lesser results aren't a case of the AI gaining an advantage out of reach for a human player. It simply tends to sit back now more on average, and might actually hit you on the break with the rampaging full backs, the high line, etc. Typically that's always been the one scenario which users of such a tactics failed to cope with. As it initially brought awesome results across the board (these ones still don't look horribad, btw.), the conclusion was this must be inherently awesome regardless of context. The truth is even if this was sorted out and you dominated every match in every season statistically, you could expect not to win a couple of those. That is football. If it was different, people wouldn't even show up when Paris faced Bastia such as this weekend (Bastia scored 4 from 6 shots). And naturally, you won't get "luck" go your way or the result seemingly being against the most basic of statistics (shots/possession) when you insist on taking the game to any opponent 38 match days 90 minutes straight. That is all there is to it. Whether the balance is right is up for debate, personally I think it's a tad easy to just spam the shot count with poor and hurried finishes which is in parts connected to AI opponents dropping off too readily as well as occasionably poor player decision making. Each poor shot= shotcount +1. But this has zero to do with the AI somehow getting an inherent advantage. If it manages to break away, its finishes tend to be of better quality by definition. Always easier to score in open spaces than it a crowded box. And those boxes are far more crowded now than when you started out.

I'm personally glad that it appears still possible to frustrate attacking teams, as I'm still a bit struggling with that, though I'm starting to get results. I'm still not convinced whether this ME version may be a bit biased towards proactive tactics, as the occasional throw-in and set piece you will concede more often when dropping back from gut feeling results a bit too often in a serious goal mouth incident or goal. Upon taking a look at the actual statistics, I had to face of another case of perception bias on the most current save. As I from gut feeling I had conceded a goal in every ten corners at least (we currently don't concede much, 1,1 goals as a mid-table team), it was actually myself who had the most goals from corners scored in the league, whilst so far conceding but one or two from them. Still I had other saves.. Evenso, things start to look better now, in more recent matches we lasted bombardments of about 20 shots and got results each (in one case it was a 2-0 win away at the league leaders with both goals coming from two of but five finishes all game). This is what the players reacted like when being exposed for their high line and going 0-2 down seemingly against the run of play.
AMqvgY9.jpg
It seems tougher to do than playing a more proactive game, at least it is a balancing job, but still, you won't ever see such statistics with a tactics that attacks and presses for 90 minutes, that is just football logics.
 
Last edited:
bobbymoore100 said:
They had better average ratings because they won(do you play FM?) and I posted loads of s/shots in the OP.
Click to expand...

lol thats a fair enough point, but you have only posted the "loads of s/shots" for match stats... they dont mean that much... you havnt shown the places that you normally score from, for all we know you might be missing the majority of clear cut chances even when you win but your scoring from long range and corners etc... your having alot of shots so you could be wasting alot by shooting from distance... you could be changing your players and rotating a lot, you could be changing your formation or playing people out of position. you could be loosing to late goals as your fitness is low... who knows. I was just making the point that screen shots would help thats all... and not pointless screen shots of post match stats that doesnt really say how your team plays. :)

If your only looking at the match stats and wondering where your going wrong then thats probably why its frustrating you.
 
Last edited:
bobbymoore100 said:
You mean me? My tactic(s) ARE available to d/load.
Click to expand...

Please, do share where I can find this tactic?

It would also be very helpful if you could upload the PKMs rather than screenshots.
 
vanTiggelen said:
Good point about the tactics initially making the human overperform this immensely much. However as should have been obvious from the results with such an initially poor side, this was a gamey thing. Hitting upon something that the AI didn't cope with, like overloading it's third with players, playing a high d-line pressing game, as often the case. That the game allows this is a failure (though some might disagree, most notibably the designers of such plug'n'play to immense success tactics regardless of player quality, it's a game after all).

However the point still stands that the lesser results aren't a case of the AI gaining an advantage out of reach for a human player. It simply tends to sit back now more on average, and might actually hit you on the break with the rampaging full backs, the high line, etc. Typically that's always been the one scenario which users of such a tactics failed to cope with. As it initially brought awesome results across the board (these ones still don't look horribad, btw.), the conclusion was this must be inherently awesome regardless of context. The truth is even if this was sorted out and you dominated every match in every season statistically, you could expect not to win a couple of those. That is football. If it was different, people wouldn't even show up when Paris faced Bastia such as this weekend (Bastia scored 4 from 6 shots). And naturally, you won't get "luck" go your way or the result seemingly being against the most basic of statistics (shots/possession) when you insist on taking the game to any opponent 38 match days 90 minutes straight. That is all there is to it. Whether the balance is right is up for debate, personally I think it's a tad easy to just spam the shot count with poor and hurried finishes which is in parts connected to AI opponents dropping off too readily as well as occasionably poor player decision making. Each poor shot= shotcount +1. But this has zero to do with the AI somehow getting an inherent advantage. If it manages to break away, its finishes tend to be of better quality by definition. Always easier to score in open spaces than it a crowded box. And those boxes are far more crowded now than when you started out.

I'm personally glad that it appears still possible to frustrate attacking teams, as I'm still a bit struggling with that, though I'm starting to get results. I'm still not convinced whether this ME version may be a bit biased towards proactive tactics, as the occasional throw-in and set piece you will concede more often when dropping back from gut feeling results a bit too often in a serious goal mouth incident or goal. Upon taking a look at the actual statistics, I had to face of another case of perception bias on the most current save. As I from gut feeling I had conceded a goal in every ten corners at least (we currently don't concede much, 1,1 goals as a mid-table team), it was actually myself who had the most goals from corners scored in the league, whilst so far conceding but one or two from them. Still I had other saves.. Evenso, things start to look better now, in more recent matches we lasted bombardments of about 20 shots and got results each (in one case it was a 2-0 win away at the league leaders with both goals coming from two of but five finishes all game). This is what the players reacted like when being exposed for their high line and going 0-2 down seemingly against the run of play.
AMqvgY9.jpg
It seems tougher to do than playing a more proactive game, at least it is a balancing job, but still, you won't ever see such statistics with a tactics that attacks and presses for 90 minutes, that is just football logics.
Click to expand...
Well, I found the answer to the problem, sadly that answer is simply to ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK, making the game completely one dimensional, whilst also completely straying from what SI were attempting to achieve with the game. The super tactic is back with a vengeance and since employing my attacking home tactic in every game I am on a run of 14 wins in a row with little sign of it ending. What am I supposed to do? by playing the game the "right way" I get the wrong results, but by simply attacking every team home and away I win. Doesn't say much for this years game does it?
 
WJ said:
So no screenshots of the actual tactic or pkms so we can see the problems you're having?
Click to expand...
The problems are blatantly obvious, if you want to do what I expect you want to do(as so many do in these situations) then d/load the tactics and see for yourself. I am going to go back and test the "all out attack" theory with a few other sh*t teams.
 
bobbymoore100 said:
The problems are blatantly obvious, if you want to do what I expect you want to do(as so many do in these situations) then d/load the tactics and see for yourself. I am going to go back and test the "all out attack" theory with a few other sh*t teams.
Click to expand...
Okay, so what exactly are these obvious problems? I haven't seen anything so far that shows what the problems are, so that's why I'm struggling with this. A simple screenshot of your tactic would already help immensely.
 
WJ said:
Okay, so what exactly are these obvious problems? I haven't seen anything so far that shows what the problems are, so that's why I'm struggling with this. A simple screenshot of your tactic would already help immensely.
Click to expand...

The obvious problems are..........well..................obvious and if you can't see that via the screenshots then i'd probably just not bother if I were you. The tactic(s) are there for d/load if you still want to take a look.
 
bobbymoore100 said:
The obvious problems are..........well..................obvious and if you can't see that via the screenshots then i'd probably just not bother if I were you. The tactic(s) are there for d/load if you still want to take a look.
Click to expand...
You're completely right. I can't see it from those screenshots.

I'm struggling to see what type of chances you give up regularly or in the matches you failed to win. I can't see the positions your attacking players take up before shooting and whether it was rushed or not. I can't see how the teams defended against you; deep or high and aggressive. I can't where you failed in the games you didn't win, because your screenshots show stats only and that needs context.

Downloading your tactic is half the equation. You're not in the first season anymore, so I can't recreate the situations you faced.

But, you're right, it's me.
 
bobbymoore100 said:
Well, I found the answer to the problem, sadly that answer is simply to ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK, making the game completely one dimensional, whilst also completely straying from what SI were attempting to achieve with the game. The super tactic is back with a vengeance and since employing my attacking home tactic in every game I am on a run of 14 wins in a row with little sign of it ending. What am I supposed to do? by playing the game the "right way" I get the wrong results, but by simply attacking every team home and away I win. Doesn't say much for this years game does it?
Click to expand...


Going by that standard, there've always been tactics the AI couldn't cope with in any version, which could always make large parts of the game pretty redundant (and boring). :D FM Live, the online FM, was an entirelly different playing field though, and some theories have it that because people couldn't stand losing was why it failed. What did you change in particular though? I thought your tactics was already set to go. Fielding different players may also make it to become less efficient, as players have positional traits, i.e. if your tactic relies on an inside forward cutting inside into space created by a false 9 (just as an example), and you field or have just bought someone on the wing with the "runs down the right/left flank" ppm, he frequently won't cut inside even when fielded an inside forward that usually would. I think that is why many download tactics are as reportedly by users less efficient with some teams, whilst they cause Burnley to go Champions League first season.
 
Last edited:
Im sorry but I think your theory of all out attack affects only the first season. I think you need to test 2 to 3 seasons to see if your hypothesis is true.
 
WJ said:
You're completely right. I can't see it from those screenshots.

I'm struggling to see what type of chances you give up regularly or in the matches you failed to win. I can't see the positions your attacking players take up before shooting and whether it was rushed or not. I can't see how the teams defended against you; deep or high and aggressive. I can't where you failed in the games you didn't win, because your screenshots show stats only and that needs context.

Downloading your tactic is half the equation. You're not in the first season anymore, so I can't recreate the situations you faced.

But, you're right, it's me.
Click to expand...

Okey dokey.
 
ludwig118 said:
Im sorry but I think your theory of all out attack affects only the first season. I think you need to test 2 to 3 seasons to see if your hypothesis is true.
Click to expand...

Well i'm in season 4 and have now won my last 18 games playing this way. As I've said, I WILL go back and test with a few sides from the start. This hypothesis also appears to be the general consensus over at the SI Forums too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top