Delicious said: We don't know yet, what they did with AI, let's see, but believe me , if they make it too "adaptative", 99% of the community will start the process = cry like no toworrow. Expand
Half the community already complains about ai adapting to thier tactics when that isn’t even a mechanic, lol.
Delicious said: Now tell me if i am missing something... What do you guys did expect from FM24? Expand
I personally was most hoping for the ai managers to be more competent since that is definitely a weak spot, but to perhaps no surprise, like other more vague new features they promote there isn’t really a noticeable difference. My last FM was 21 so there’s a pretty big improvement to 24 for me so I can’t speak to the year on year upgrade. I do agree that the matches look a lot better though.
Blau said: I agree that it needs to be balanced more. I think if it could be easily accomplished it would've been done already. The match engine might need to have a greater overhaul for that. Hopefully, FM25 will see a match engine overhaul.
Ideally, in my version of a perfect FM it would be better if tactic performance would vary more based on the type of players on the team. For example, Gegenpress wouldn't work without high stamina and physical players, Tiki Taka wouldn't work without great passing players. Tactical instructions should be mostly blank intill you buy specific players fit for the system you want to play. Expand
Totally agree with that, it would also add more depth to the recruitment side of things. I wonder if certain attributes being way more important is a symptom or a cause for the tactical imbalance. I would also like to see more reason to adjust tactics per match. In real life, you often see specific adjustments made to counter opponent tactical approaches, but in FM you don't really have a reason to adjust your tactics or even care what the opponent manager's tactical approach tendencies are.
Blau said: If the game is ruined for you by learning these things then why are you on FMArena. There will always be a meta that is the most efficient way to play a video game. Many video games are like that. If pressing was significantly "nerfed" and low tempo possession football became the best way to play, people would also complain about that. Your not wrong that the game could benefit from more balancing but there will always be a "best/meta" way to play. Expand
I mean, I still enjoy playing the game the optimal way. The problem isn't necessarily that there is a meta, its just that it has remained the same for many releases, and it is significantly better than other tactical options. Obviously, its very difficult to balance a game as "complex" as FM (even if a lot of that complexity is fake), but like many of the other parts of the game, it feels like there hasn't been any real effort to improve.
Blau said: At the end of the day Football Manager is a videogame. If you do not enjoy playing the game then don't buy it. Not giving your money to SI will do more for changes you want then complaining on random forum. It is impossible for developers to make a video game that makes everyone happy. You as the consumer have to make the decision if the game is worth it for you to buy. I'm not saying you can't suggest improvements to the game. However, saying that the game is too easy is ironic. It's literally as difficult as you want it to be. Obviously, if you use or test tactics on FMArena it's going to be easy. Expand
IMO the problem is that once know that high intensity pressing tactics are the best, or that pace and acceleration are the best attributes by far, you can't unlearn that. Since the whole point of the game is to win games it's difficult to play realistically when you know you could win more games by setting 5 players to attack and clicking press much more often.
dzek said: I have them capable of creating exactly the same game just with better graphics! Low expectations is the key! Expand
Yeah, I see no reason to believe that the unity switch will bring anything but better graphics and animations (and even then, regen faces prove that SI's idea of better doesn't quite align with everyone else's).
sponsorkindest said: To ensure a comprehensive analysis covering the entire spectrum of attribute values present in the game (usually ranging from 7 to 17), I propose conducting the same testing with a -5 attribute variation. This adjustment would provide better understanding of player performance across different attribute levels. This change if upvotes by enough members in the community can be easily incorporated into the existing attribute testing table. Expand
I would also be curious to see the results of varying one of the high impact (pace/acc probably) attributes in smaller steps to see if going from, say, +4 to +5 has the same impact as going from 0 to +1. Similarly, I’d be interested in seeing the effect of giving the attribute bonus to only certain roles (eg forwards, wingbacks, cd, etc) to see which roles contribute the most to the current set of results. I’d imagine for example that the effect of central defenders’ jumping reach is a lot more important than their dribbling, despite both attributes having an overall significant effect, and itd be nice to see some results confirming or denying those types of things.
Half the community already complains about ai adapting to thier tactics when that isn’t even a mechanic, lol.
I personally was most hoping for the ai managers to be more competent since that is definitely a weak spot, but to perhaps no surprise, like other more vague new features they promote there isn’t really a noticeable difference. My last FM was 21 so there’s a pretty big improvement to 24 for me so I can’t speak to the year on year upgrade. I do agree that the matches look a lot better though.
Ideally, in my version of a perfect FM it would be better if tactic performance would vary more based on the type of players on the team. For example, Gegenpress wouldn't work without high stamina and physical players, Tiki Taka wouldn't work without great passing players. Tactical instructions should be mostly blank intill you buy specific players fit for the system you want to play.
Totally agree with that, it would also add more depth to the recruitment side of things. I wonder if certain attributes being way more important is a symptom or a cause for the tactical imbalance. I would also like to see more reason to adjust tactics per match. In real life, you often see specific adjustments made to counter opponent tactical approaches, but in FM you don't really have a reason to adjust your tactics or even care what the opponent manager's tactical approach tendencies are.
I mean, I still enjoy playing the game the optimal way. The problem isn't necessarily that there is a meta, its just that it has remained the same for many releases, and it is significantly better than other tactical options. Obviously, its very difficult to balance a game as "complex" as FM (even if a lot of that complexity is fake), but like many of the other parts of the game, it feels like there hasn't been any real effort to improve.
IMO the problem is that once know that high intensity pressing tactics are the best, or that pace and acceleration are the best attributes by far, you can't unlearn that. Since the whole point of the game is to win games it's difficult to play realistically when you know you could win more games by setting 5 players to attack and clicking press much more often.
dzek said: I have them capable of creating exactly the same game just with better graphics!
Low expectations is the key!
Yeah, I see no reason to believe that the unity switch will bring anything but better graphics and animations (and even then, regen faces prove that SI's idea of better doesn't quite align with everyone else's).
I would also be curious to see the results of varying one of the high impact (pace/acc probably) attributes in smaller steps to see if going from, say, +4 to +5 has the same impact as going from 0 to +1. Similarly, I’d be interested in seeing the effect of giving the attribute bonus to only certain roles (eg forwards, wingbacks, cd, etc) to see which roles contribute the most to the current set of results. I’d imagine for example that the effect of central defenders’ jumping reach is a lot more important than their dribbling, despite both attributes having an overall significant effect, and itd be nice to see some results confirming or denying those types of things.