By the way, a bug from the FM 2005 era just came to my mind and I wanted to mention it because i think it's related to the topic.
In FM 2005, when the match kicked off, if you clicked on the “overview” panel and checked the fixture, you could actually see the final score of the match before it ended. And when the match finished, it always ended with exactly the score shown there. This shows that the score is determined the moment the match kicks off.
They fixed it quickly with a patch, but since Steam wasn’t really popular back then, updates didn’t reach everyone instantly like they do today. So I remember playing with that bug for quite a long time.
I’m not even sure much has changed since then. Not being sure is the scary part. We should be sure about this after 20 years, but SI just doesn't work that way. jesus christ man, SI should’ve gone bankrupt decades ago. They’ve been putting us on this shitshow for 20 years. Thankfully, with FM 26 this whole show is finally over, and at this point waiting for moves from competitor studios makes more sense than waiting for FM 27 tbh.
Panneton0 said: I have recently started to wrap my head around all the info I could find from amazing testers.
First, the concept of "meta" tactics, for which Gerrard feels like the unequaled master. For FM24, most of the best tactics are a variation of some 424 Gegenpress. Others can perform, but those seem to have the best results. Every FM iteration has their "meta" startegies that give statistically better results.
Second, the concept of "meta" attibutes, for which we all agree that Pace/Acceleration dominate for some time now, with some tweaks in the weighting in different opuses. Many have tested this and the quality of data and analysis amazes me.
Where I find myself left with a sense of misunderstanding is the why. So there is my question:
Is the match engine: 1 Complex and as advertised, but with inherent (and unavoidable... this is a simulation) imbalances that make some tactics/attributes stand out more in the "results" department 2 An illusion of complexity, but actually very simplified, with barely any real-time micro-calculations that are attributes-specific
I personnally feel like all the data we have does NOT actually point toward option 2, unlike many comments and analysis I find in FM-Arena. However, I have never done rigorous testing, data mining, code testing, or anything. So I just want to share my hypothesis so I can better understand FM's match engine and, mostly, how much fun us tacticians can have with it
Hypothesis: The match engine is ACTUALLY complex and taking into accounts live micro-computations that use all attributes and tactic tweaks, even if attribute testing shows that many attributes have no impact on results.
How does that hypothesis still fits the concept of meta tactic and meta attributes: Let's say that you want to play positionnal play, based on many passes in tight spaces. If the match engine is made in such a way that no player can find a real good space, you will never achieve good positional play / tiki-taka style. Even a player with 20 Off-the-ball and 1 Pace, could find the best "pocket of space" ACCORDING to the ME, if the ME does not suggest the best spot, his "amazing skill" won't help at all.
On the other hand, if the player is the opposite (20 Pace, 1 Off the Ball), even if he doesn't find a good pocket of space, he'll be the first on the ball anyways. So as a "result", fast players would be better even in "positional play" possession tactics. Not because he finds better pockets, but because the ME can't find good pockets for any of both those players... so the fast one, at least, can still be useful.
Another example: If a player receives the ball and has 3 options. 1 good, 2 bad. Let's say the Engine looks at "decision" for a fast computation of the next play. If the ME is made so a 1-Decision player has 80% chances of taking the right decision while a 20-Decision player has a 95% chance, then, very clearly, the "Decision" attribute ha little-to-no value. Not because it is not used in the computation, but because it does not have a realistic impact ingame.
Many have hypothesised that a player with high Pace makes better decisions (leaning toward the idea that the match engine is actually over-simplified with a "general" rating for each actions). But just looking at the results does not necessarily points toward that. A fast player might provide better results because the ME is not good at providing intelligent options anyways, so the fast player will just be generally way off his marker when he makes his move.
Where my hypothesis falls short Vision, decision, off the ball, positionning are attributes that are very tough to understand. If the ME forces players to find some specific pockets of space depending on their roles/attributes and those pockets are not the "smartest ones" (because you know... football IS complicated), a player with high vision might still do weird stuff ingame. Just because the ME might think it's good.
But when I see someone with 3 Long shots pull a top-corner screamer in, then I feel a little bit weirded out. So this is why I'm still very much wondering how the ME actually works, and how micro-computations within a game are actually made.
How are attributes testing working with different tactics If attributes testing are done with a "meta tactic" (which is wide/fast/gegenpress-heavy), then maybe we are actually skewing our perception of attributes importance toward physical a lot. Let's say we look at a hyper-conservative possession-heavy tactic, how would attributes scale up? I would guess that whatever the attributes, those tactics will score lower. This has been thoroughly seen. But would Pace/Accel/Dribb still be that high up? Would Vision/Off-the-Ball show their head slightly above the water of "no impact"?
That might provide insight on how the ME actually works.
******************************
I conclude this by saying that I see many amazing analystst and data crunchers in these threads. My question really leads to this:
- As a FM tactician who would LOVE to create club DNAs and "chose" a style, adjusting games and using the complexity of our favorite sport, can the ME actually evolve the right way or is it too simplified and there is no hope in actually finding nuances in performance and style of individuals outside of meta attributes?
If my hypothesis is right, then the problem is simply that the ME is not yet providing players with "smarts", or giving enough weight of some attributes (IMO, 1 vision means the player looks at his feet 99% of the time, maybe the ME just says: let's drop his options by 5%), or just not attributing "success probability" to actions the right way, making a 20 decision player still making decisions that won't help the team. Meaning that possession tactics don't work because smart players don't lead to smart plays. But fast players lead to easy plays.
If my hypothesis is wrong, then yeah... the ME won't realistically evolve anytime soon and we'll have to keep playing pace monsters to reproduce possession-heavy tactics that can't really work anyways.
P.S. Training is not as advertised, that much seems certain. But my questionning here is solely on the ME. Training is it's own subject. Expand
Whendiscussing this, we need to take the following into account:
Players with high Pace and Acceleration make perfect through balls (even though their passing and decisions are low). They finish brilliantly in one on ones with the keeper (even though their finishing is low). They defend extremely well (even though their marking and tackling are low). This has been the case since CM 03/04 (at least as far as I know. I never played the earlier CM games, but it's probably the same in those as well).
You notice this even more clearly when watching matches on comprehensive mode. A fast player doesn’t just run quickly, he plays way above his potential and even scores goals.
This pushes me more toward the second option (illusion of complexity).
None of us have any concrete evidence, we can only make guesses. But I also think this, if it were the first option, this issue wouldn’t have stayed the same for 20 years despite all the resources and the team of coders they have. It’s not that SI doesn’t know how to fix it, fixing it would require a new match engine, and they either won’t or can’t do it.
One last question Are U-18 leagues or custom made friendly tournaments enough matches for development? Or does the player have to play in the senior team’s league instead?
Hi, thanks for your reply. Actually, I’m the one who asked those questions on Discord, and I’m surprised that nobody else seems to care about this topic
I’ve read that answer and all the blog posts as well, but I can’t say I’m completely satisfied with the explanations. I’ve been following the background mechanics and META testing of FM since FM21. The long standing issue with FM’s match engine is this: a player with high Pace and Acceleration doesn’t just run fast, he also somehow becomes an excellent finisher, a great passer, highly technical, and even good at marking, even if all those attributes are below 10. When you watch a match in full detail instead of just highlights, this becomes even more obvious.
Now, the FM Match Lab team claims they’ve fixed this issue by increasing fatigue and injury risk in pace heavy tactics. However, they also admit that Pace and Acceleration are still hard coded METAs and can’t be changed. To me, that doesn’t really solve the core problem. Even if you increase injury risk, a player with high pace/acceleration or strong physical stats can still perform marking, tackling, and passing actions effectively, regardless of their actual attributes (even when using a low-block tactic).
So I’m curious: what’s your personal experience with the FM Match Lab engine in this regard?
Also, I’d like to share a topic-related mod, it removes the UEFA ban on Russian teams in the game: https://sortitoutsi.net/content/65513/russia-and-belarus-back-to-life-before-war I’m not taking sides in the war, I’m just sharing this because I think it’s a useful fix for players doing Journeyman saves who end up getting a job in Russia.
Does FM Match Lab handle counter-attack and low-block tactics properly now? Also, I’ve read that it didn’t completely remove the pace/acc meta but just nerfed it. What exactly does that mean? Can you elaborate a bit more? So with the new Match Lab, does that mean we can’t just rely on pace and acceleration anymore when evaluating players? Are attributes like vision, passing, and technique more important now?
CryosFeron said: ok I just had an important breakthrough (at least for myself): I was sad about finding out that passing, technique etc. allegedly were so useless in FM24, so I ran my own (very small) test: I started a game with a very bad team that had to go against a strong side in their first match and gave all of my players very good passing attributes - and they now won this match 10 times in a row vs. before losing the same match 10 times in a row!
I played as Dorking in Vanarama National League and the match was against Chesterfield in season 2023/2024.
I believe that the key difference was that I not only gave my players 20 in passing, I gave them 20 in the whole passing package (passing/technique/vision/decisions/flair). I guess at least passing/technique/vision are directly linked together so they should not be treated separatedly. I am very happy about this result as it shows (to me) that while pace/acceleration might be very important, things in FM24 are not as bad as I feared they would be. I mean: Winning 10 times vs losing 10 times is quite the change. Expand
Were the players’ pace/acc fixed and equal in these two teams?
And for the love of God, or whatever you believe in, PLEASE stop using the “SI is not a huge company, FM is not a AAA game” argument. According to official revenue data, SI makes about $145 million per year, That's almost the same as CD Projekt, the studio behind The Witcher 3.
tam1236 said: Actually a great part of video games has a set of meta attributes making most of game concepts worthless, nobody blames them for that, and I mean top games with universal acclaim, FM24 is not the only one here, so just deal with it instead of complaining. By the way we have the same trend in real life where players are more and more phycical. Expand
I don’t want to derail the topic, but this isn’t exactly off-topic either, because what we’re talking about is FM26, a game that’s been delayed for two years, ending up being practically identical to FM24 (with bugs, meta, and all that). And honestly, I’m tired of seeing people like you in every FM community deliberately missing the main point just to defend the game out of pure fanboyism. So, I want to respond properly.
Yes, every game has meta, nobody is criticizing FM because it has one. But in FM, what we’re dealing with isn’t just a “meta”; it’s a broken code system.
1- It’s the fact that the game’s coding is fundamentally flawed. Training sessions that claim to improve certain attributes don’t actually train those attributes at all.
2- SI is straight up lying about this. The real issue is that SI has been using the same underlying match and competition engine since FM10, and for 15 years they’ve been marketing it every year as a “brand new match engine.” FM is basically a 15 year-old, rotten, moldy apple being sold as “fresh and new.
3- In most games with a meta, if you use the meta, you win; if you go against it, you struggle but still win. But FM isn’t like that. In FM, even top tier clubs like Man City or Real Madrid perform terribly with defensive tactics. The game forces you to play the meta if you want to succeed, any deviation from it is punished.
4- Yes, physical strength matters in real football too, but if a physically strong player has poor passing, he’ll still make bad passes. In FM, though, a player with 1 Passing and 20 Pace can play like Modric or Messi, making brilliant key passes and through balls. That clearly shows attributes have little to no real effect on the match engine. The match outcomes are basically pre calculated using mathematical formulas. And the worst part? Those formulas are broken. Players with high Pace and Acceleration perform perfectly in every aspect (movement, shooting, passing) regardless of their other attributes.
5- Everyone can play whatever game they want however they want, but at the same time, everyone should also be free to criticize the games they play however they want. The problem is, we’re not even allowed to criticize FM, because the FM fanboys won’t let us. Do you think that’s "normal"?
I don’t even know why I still play this sh*t. The game is completely stuck at this point. Gegenpress is not only op but almost all tactics other than Gegenpress don't simply work. It's like in a multi-class RPG where only the Warrior class is playable.
When you play defensively with Manchester City against some second-tier Serbian league, you simply lose or the team just plays poorly at best.
Attributes don’t matter at all, and the training system doesn’t do what the in-game explanations say it does. In fact, 90% of the in-game explanations are wrong. We’ve been playing essentially the same game for the past 15 years, and the company that makes it doesn’t care, and they openly show us that every time. They simply says: "we don't care, go play something else" and we're still playing it.
Mods that claim to fix the game engine or some bugs (FM Match Lab, DaveIncid Realism, etc.) haven’t fixed anything; if anything, they’ve added new bugs. That’s because SI has hidden all the code behind closed doors and thick walls as if they’re trying to hide the fact that they release the same game every year so modding the game is almost impossible.
Yes, unfortunately there is no alternative, but after all, this is a "video game," and there are hundreds of video games in the world that respect their consumers. Honestly, I'm giving up
For everyone's info: gegenpress and acc/pace attributes are still meta.
Of cource I couldn’t run a fully detailed test like the experts here, and more reliable results will surely come from others on the forum who conduct deeper analyses later on. However, in my own experiment with Wolves, I used a high-tempo, high-pressing tactic with a starting eleven built around players who had high pace and acc (while most of their other attributes were average or below). The result: I finished the first half of the season in 2nd place.
Sports Interactive is the biggest joke in the gaming history.
Welcome to the game, I thing a well-rounded training program is better for overall development. Expand
Thank you for your warm welcome and reply.
keithb said: I will try to answer question 1. Jumping reach is very important for centre backs and some strikers like Lucca, Moffi, Sesko or Samu. You definitely shouldn't ignore that. Dribbling is also strong for certain positions
When you say lower than 17 for pace it needs to be more detailed. But for a top side I would want every player to have 15/15 speed, except sometimes DM if overall his physicals are all 14+ and jumping reach is high along with stamina, anticipation and concentration.
Most of your other questions have been answered on this website. Expand
Thank you too. Unfortunately, I could not find the topics that answered my other questions in my searches. I guess I am having trouble finding keywords because my native language is not English. Could you please tell me which correct keywords I should use to search? For example, my searches for "cosmetic ti/pi" did not yield any results.
Hello, I'm a newbie to this game and I just became aware of the sensational "meta attribute" researches on this site.
While the situation is a bit confusing even for veterans who have been playing this game since the CM era, you can imagine that it has become unbelivably incomprehensible for a beginner like me. That's why I wanted to open a thread for the questions in my mind.
1- Is it a good idea to only look at Pace and Acceleration and ignore all other attributes when choosing a player? Let's say I prefer a player whose other attributes are around 5-6, but whose Pace and Acceleration are 17-18, over a player whose highllighted attributes are around 12-15, but whose Pace and Acceleration are lower than 17. Can I create a successful team this way?
2- If only Pace and Acceleration matters, then is it a good idea to give only quickness training troughout the whole season?
3- Does only the fast-paced, high-pressure attack-oriented gegenpress tactic work in the game? Is there a tactic that works other than Gegenpress? Does the match engine allow defending?
4- Do each of the commands in TI and PI actually change something in the match engine or are 80% of them cosmetic? If so which commands are cosmetic?
Good way to implement haramball into match engine
In FM 2005, when the match kicked off, if you clicked on the “overview” panel and checked the fixture, you could actually see the final score of the match before it ended. And when the match finished, it always ended with exactly the score shown there. This shows that the score is determined the moment the match kicks off.
They fixed it quickly with a patch, but since Steam wasn’t really popular back then, updates didn’t reach everyone instantly like they do today. So I remember playing with that bug for quite a long time.
I’m not even sure much has changed since then. Not being sure is the scary part. We should be sure about this after 20 years, but SI just doesn't work that way.
jesus christ man, SI should’ve gone bankrupt decades ago. They’ve been putting us on this shitshow for 20 years. Thankfully, with FM 26 this whole show is finally over, and at this point waiting for moves from competitor studios makes more sense than waiting for FM 27 tbh.
First, the concept of "meta" tactics, for which Gerrard feels like the unequaled master. For FM24, most of the best tactics are a variation of some 424 Gegenpress. Others can perform, but those seem to have the best results. Every FM iteration has their "meta" startegies that give statistically better results.
Second, the concept of "meta" attibutes, for which we all agree that Pace/Acceleration dominate for some time now, with some tweaks in the weighting in different opuses. Many have tested this and the quality of data and analysis amazes me.
It is very obvious to me, after reading all of the rigorous works like
https://fm-arena.com/thread/14009-attribute-testing-football-manager-24/page-1/
https://fm-arena.com/thread/15934-summary-of-recent-findings-for-optimal-play-in-fm24-amp-fm26/page-1/
Plus all the tactics hall of fame that there is indeed a way to play the game to optimize the RESULT.
Where I find myself left with a sense of misunderstanding is the why. So there is my question:
Is the match engine:
1 Complex and as advertised, but with inherent (and unavoidable... this is a simulation) imbalances that make some tactics/attributes stand out more in the "results" department
2 An illusion of complexity, but actually very simplified, with barely any real-time micro-calculations that are attributes-specific
I personnally feel like all the data we have does NOT actually point toward option 2, unlike many comments and analysis I find in FM-Arena. However, I have never done rigorous testing, data mining, code testing, or anything. So I just want to share my hypothesis so I can better understand FM's match engine and, mostly, how much fun us tacticians can have with it
Hypothesis: The match engine is ACTUALLY complex and taking into accounts live micro-computations that use all attributes and tactic tweaks, even if attribute testing shows that many attributes have no impact on results.
How does that hypothesis still fits the concept of meta tactic and meta attributes:
Let's say that you want to play positionnal play, based on many passes in tight spaces. If the match engine is made in such a way that no player can find a real good space, you will never achieve good positional play / tiki-taka style. Even a player with 20 Off-the-ball and 1 Pace, could find the best "pocket of space" ACCORDING to the ME, if the ME does not suggest the best spot, his "amazing skill" won't help at all.
On the other hand, if the player is the opposite (20 Pace, 1 Off the Ball), even if he doesn't find a good pocket of space, he'll be the first on the ball anyways. So as a "result", fast players would be better even in "positional play" possession tactics. Not because he finds better pockets, but because the ME can't find good pockets for any of both those players... so the fast one, at least, can still be useful.
Another example: If a player receives the ball and has 3 options. 1 good, 2 bad. Let's say the Engine looks at "decision" for a fast computation of the next play. If the ME is made so a 1-Decision player has 80% chances of taking the right decision while a 20-Decision player has a 95% chance, then, very clearly, the "Decision" attribute ha little-to-no value. Not because it is not used in the computation, but because it does not have a realistic impact ingame.
Many have hypothesised that a player with high Pace makes better decisions (leaning toward the idea that the match engine is actually over-simplified with a "general" rating for each actions). But just looking at the results does not necessarily points toward that. A fast player might provide better results because the ME is not good at providing intelligent options anyways, so the fast player will just be generally way off his marker when he makes his move.
Where my hypothesis falls short
Vision, decision, off the ball, positionning are attributes that are very tough to understand. If the ME forces players to find some specific pockets of space depending on their roles/attributes and those pockets are not the "smartest ones" (because you know... football IS complicated), a player with high vision might still do weird stuff ingame. Just because the ME might think it's good.
But when I see someone with 3 Long shots pull a top-corner screamer in, then I feel a little bit weirded out. So this is why I'm still very much wondering how the ME actually works, and how micro-computations within a game are actually made.
How are attributes testing working with different tactics
If attributes testing are done with a "meta tactic" (which is wide/fast/gegenpress-heavy), then maybe we are actually skewing our perception of attributes importance toward physical a lot. Let's say we look at a hyper-conservative possession-heavy tactic, how would attributes scale up? I would guess that whatever the attributes, those tactics will score lower. This has been thoroughly seen. But would Pace/Accel/Dribb still be that high up? Would Vision/Off-the-Ball show their head slightly above the water of "no impact"?
That might provide insight on how the ME actually works.
******************************
I conclude this by saying that I see many amazing analystst and data crunchers in these threads. My question really leads to this:
- As a FM tactician who would LOVE to create club DNAs and "chose" a style, adjusting games and using the complexity of our favorite sport, can the ME actually evolve the right way or is it too simplified and there is no hope in actually finding nuances in performance and style of individuals outside of meta attributes?
If my hypothesis is right, then the problem is simply that the ME is not yet providing players with "smarts", or giving enough weight of some attributes (IMO, 1 vision means the player looks at his feet 99% of the time, maybe the ME just says: let's drop his options by 5%), or just not attributing "success probability" to actions the right way, making a 20 decision player still making decisions that won't help the team. Meaning that possession tactics don't work because smart players don't lead to smart plays. But fast players lead to easy plays.
If my hypothesis is wrong, then yeah... the ME won't realistically evolve anytime soon and we'll have to keep playing pace monsters to reproduce possession-heavy tactics that can't really work anyways.
P.S. Training is not as advertised, that much seems certain. But my questionning here is solely on the ME. Training is it's own subject.
Whendiscussing this, we need to take the following into account:
Players with high Pace and Acceleration make perfect through balls (even though their passing and decisions are low). They finish brilliantly in one on ones with the keeper (even though their finishing is low). They defend extremely well (even though their marking and tackling are low). This has been the case since CM 03/04 (at least as far as I know. I never played the earlier CM games, but it's probably the same in those as well).
You notice this even more clearly when watching matches on comprehensive mode. A fast player doesn’t just run quickly, he plays way above his potential and even scores goals.
This pushes me more toward the second option (illusion of complexity).
None of us have any concrete evidence, we can only make guesses. But I also think this, if it were the first option, this issue wouldn’t have stayed the same for 20 years despite all the resources and the team of coders they have. It’s not that SI doesn’t know how to fix it, fixing it would require a new match engine, and they either won’t or can’t do it.
How much do the latest findings indicate the importance of pace/acc/dribbling and overall physical attributes?
Let me explain what I mean:
Player X: 18 Dribbling, 18 Pace, 3 Flair, 2 Technique
Player Y: 15 Dribbling, 15 Pace, 6 Flair, 12 Technique
In this scenario, Player X would clearly perform better than Player Y, right?
Are U-18 leagues or custom made friendly tournaments enough matches for development? Or does the player have to play in the senior team’s league instead?
I’ve read that answer and all the blog posts as well, but I can’t say I’m completely satisfied with the explanations. I’ve been following the background mechanics and META testing of FM since FM21. The long standing issue with FM’s match engine is this: a player with high Pace and Acceleration doesn’t just run fast, he also somehow becomes an excellent finisher, a great passer, highly technical, and even good at marking, even if all those attributes are below 10. When you watch a match in full detail instead of just highlights, this becomes even more obvious.
Now, the FM Match Lab team claims they’ve fixed this issue by increasing fatigue and injury risk in pace heavy tactics. However, they also admit that Pace and Acceleration are still hard coded METAs and can’t be changed. To me, that doesn’t really solve the core problem. Even if you increase injury risk, a player with high pace/acceleration or strong physical stats can still perform marking, tackling, and passing actions effectively, regardless of their actual attributes (even when using a low-block tactic).
So I’m curious: what’s your personal experience with the FM Match Lab engine in this regard?
Also, I’d like to share a topic-related mod, it removes the UEFA ban on Russian teams in the game:
https://sortitoutsi.net/content/65513/russia-and-belarus-back-to-life-before-war
I’m not taking sides in the war, I’m just sharing this because I think it’s a useful fix for players doing Journeyman saves who end up getting a job in Russia.
I was sad about finding out that passing, technique etc. allegedly were so useless in FM24, so I ran my own (very small) test:
I started a game with a very bad team that had to go against a strong side in their first match and gave all of my players very good passing attributes - and they now won this match 10 times in a row vs. before losing the same match 10 times in a row!
I played as Dorking in Vanarama National League and the match was against Chesterfield in season 2023/2024.
I believe that the key difference was that I not only gave my players 20 in passing, I gave them 20 in the whole passing package (passing/technique/vision/decisions/flair). I guess at least passing/technique/vision are directly linked together so they should not be treated separatedly.
I am very happy about this result as it shows (to me) that while pace/acceleration might be very important, things in FM24 are not as bad as I feared they would be. I mean: Winning 10 times vs losing 10 times is quite the change.
Were the players’ pace/acc fixed and equal in these two teams?
By the way we have the same trend in real life where players are more and more phycical.
I don’t want to derail the topic, but this isn’t exactly off-topic either, because what we’re talking about is FM26, a game that’s been delayed for two years, ending up being practically identical to FM24 (with bugs, meta, and all that).
And honestly, I’m tired of seeing people like you in every FM community deliberately missing the main point just to defend the game out of pure fanboyism. So, I want to respond properly.
Yes, every game has meta, nobody is criticizing FM because it has one.
But in FM, what we’re dealing with isn’t just a “meta”; it’s a broken code system.
1- It’s the fact that the game’s coding is fundamentally flawed. Training sessions that claim to improve certain attributes don’t actually train those attributes at all.
2- SI is straight up lying about this. The real issue is that SI has been using the same underlying match and competition engine since FM10, and for 15 years they’ve been marketing it every year as a “brand new match engine.” FM is basically a 15 year-old, rotten, moldy apple being sold as “fresh and new.
3- In most games with a meta, if you use the meta, you win; if you go against it, you struggle but still win. But FM isn’t like that. In FM, even top tier clubs like Man City or Real Madrid perform terribly with defensive tactics. The game forces you to play the meta if you want to succeed, any deviation from it is punished.
4- Yes, physical strength matters in real football too, but if a physically strong player has poor passing, he’ll still make bad passes. In FM, though, a player with 1 Passing and 20 Pace can play like Modric or Messi, making brilliant key passes and through balls. That clearly shows attributes have little to no real effect on the match engine. The match outcomes are basically pre calculated using mathematical formulas. And the worst part? Those formulas are broken. Players with high Pace and Acceleration perform perfectly in every aspect (movement, shooting, passing) regardless of their other attributes.
5- Everyone can play whatever game they want however they want, but at the same time, everyone should also be free to criticize the games they play however they want.
The problem is, we’re not even allowed to criticize FM, because the FM fanboys won’t let us.
Do you think that’s "normal"?
When you play defensively with Manchester City against some second-tier Serbian league, you simply lose or the team just plays poorly at best.
Attributes don’t matter at all, and the training system doesn’t do what the in-game explanations say it does. In fact, 90% of the in-game explanations are wrong. We’ve been playing essentially the same game for the past 15 years, and the company that makes it doesn’t care, and they openly show us that every time. They simply says: "we don't care, go play something else" and we're still playing it.
Mods that claim to fix the game engine or some bugs (FM Match Lab, DaveIncid Realism, etc.) haven’t fixed anything; if anything, they’ve added new bugs. That’s because SI has hidden all the code behind closed doors and thick walls as if they’re trying to hide the fact that they release the same game every year so modding the game is almost impossible.
Yes, unfortunately there is no alternative, but after all, this is a "video game," and there are hundreds of video games in the world that respect their consumers. Honestly, I'm giving up
Of cource I couldn’t run a fully detailed test like the experts here, and more reliable results will surely come from others on the forum who conduct deeper analyses later on. However, in my own experiment with Wolves, I used a high-tempo, high-pressing tactic with a starting eleven built around players who had high pace and acc (while most of their other attributes were average or below).
The result: I finished the first half of the season in 2nd place.
Sports Interactive is the biggest joke in the gaming history.
Welcome to the game,
I thing a well-rounded training program is better for overall development.
Thank you for your warm welcome and reply.
keithb said: I will try to answer question 1. Jumping reach is very important for centre backs and some strikers like Lucca, Moffi, Sesko or Samu. You definitely shouldn't ignore that. Dribbling is also strong for certain positions
When you say lower than 17 for pace it needs to be more detailed. But for a top side I would want every player to have 15/15 speed, except sometimes DM if overall his physicals are all 14+ and jumping reach is high along with stamina, anticipation and concentration.
Most of your other questions have been answered on this website.
Thank you too. Unfortunately, I could not find the topics that answered my other questions in my searches. I guess I am having trouble finding keywords because my native language is not English. Could you please tell me which correct keywords I should use to search? For example, my searches for "cosmetic ti/pi" did not yield any results.
While the situation is a bit confusing even for veterans who have been playing this game since the CM era, you can imagine that it has become unbelivably incomprehensible for a beginner like me. That's why I wanted to open a thread for the questions in my mind.
1- Is it a good idea to only look at Pace and Acceleration and ignore all other attributes when choosing a player? Let's say I prefer a player whose other attributes are around 5-6, but whose Pace and Acceleration are 17-18, over a player whose highllighted attributes are around 12-15, but whose Pace and Acceleration are lower than 17. Can I create a successful team this way?
2- If only Pace and Acceleration matters, then is it a good idea to give only quickness training troughout the whole season?
3- Does only the fast-paced, high-pressure attack-oriented gegenpress tactic work in the game? Is there a tactic that works other than Gegenpress? Does the match engine allow defending?
4- Do each of the commands in TI and PI actually change something in the match engine or are 80% of them cosmetic? If so which commands are cosmetic?
Thank you in advance.