Take this specific thread for instance. People are, as always, bitching about Set Pieces. Some guy had a player who scored 3 past them. Now instead of looking as to why this may have happened, they rush off to the forums to have a whinge. In the most positive circumstances, they try again a few times before running off to the forums, but they always end up on the forums, complaining about the state of the Match Engine and how badly designed the game is, not to mention the fact that this "bug" is totally ruining their experience and they are considering cancelling their subscription.
Did I miss anything there? Does that summarise the thread accurately? I think I got it pretty much right there... It's this attitude that has been the downfall of the previous GameWorlds (pre-Reset) and if we're not careful, it will be the downfall of the new series of GameWorlds, which could usher in the end of the game itsself.
I mean seriously, before you point the finger towards the Match Engine, have you ever stood still to consider that maybe, just maybe, you, the human manager, have made a mistake? Poor tactics perhaps? If you know someone is having their strong headers attack the far post, it may just be a good idea to put your best headers on the far post as well...
Alternatively, when they actually do this, they are expecting their 15 jumping, 15 heading, 1.80 tall defenders to beat a 1.85 tall forward with 18 for jumping and 18 for heading. Granted, the defender will win some duels in the air because of better positioning or maybe a poor cross, but he is bound to lose a fair few as well, which could just lead to goals being conceded.
Bug in the match engine, or unrealistic expectations from the human manager? According to some of the forum members whose posts I've recently had the "pleasure" of trawling through, that's a bug. Then again, their supposedly superior team not winning every match is a bug according to them, so I guess there's just no pleasing some people.
Still, if these whingers and complainers have it their way, the games default tactics should be enough to be successful (in their minds anyway...), but is this not punishing the managers who actually think their tactics through? People who are thinking outside the box in an effort to create new opportunities for themselves. Do we really want to punish these people for being creative by taking away every new option they find?
Making good tactics which people cannot counter immediately is an exploit or bug? Making people actually think about their tactics and not just going with some default system is an exploit or bug?
Surely people can ask in the Tactics Chat or on the forum how to combat this specific setup if they're too lazy to use their own mind or simply lack the know-how regarding the FML engine?
Those who cannot counter a specific setup or tactic should not immediately cry out that it is overpowered, a bug or an exploit, but they should lower their expectations a bit, look at themselves properly and ask around on how to combat a certain setup, before they go off on a rant.
It's these complainers who are giving the game a bad name, not to mention the fact that their "toys-out-of-the-pram" approach to matters actually seems to be successful. If you're vocal enough about your complaints, even if they really aren't that valid, you are listened to and sometimes, if enough people complain about something they are too lazy to change (read: not divert from default settings), it gets changed for them.
Honestly, that's plain wrong. This is a game for managers, not click and drag monkeys who are not capable of analysing a game and trying to learn from their mistakes. Make a new game for these people, called Football Win Live. They get a chat room, a team and one button. Press the button and you win, regardless of who you're playing. That should keep these guys happy for a while...
I do realise that I am generalising and maybe portraying certain things a bit extreme, but I have noticed a tendency to give in to people who are complaining about little things that are not the games fault, but their own. As stated before, that's just wrong. I do realise that I am what you might call a hardcore gamer and that the game should cater for the more casual gamers as well, but surely it shouldn't be pampering them upto a point where it no longer pays off to invest a lot of time into the game?