If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
After reading the post-patch (6.02) winning runs I waited until the season ended to apply patch. Hmmm, I might have to agree its done something bad, as here is the scenario:
I took over at Stockport Country from Stalybridge (pre-patch); team was bottom of league two. Managed to survive the drop. Next season mid table, followed by promotion to league 1- APPLIED PATCH HERE - promoted to championship following season, and then promoted to Prem (though I made it via GD). Still, successive prmotions without drastically altering the squad has made me suspicious of the patch. I just don't feel that it should have happened, especially given that I have never really had success like that with FM/CM in the past. What is the current consensus? Do we all still feel the patch makes the game too easy?
I am currently bottom of the Conference National with my Hucknall team: 13 games played 0 wins, 4 draws, 9 defeats.
I've followed my scouts advice on a couple of players and improved my squad for the jump up from Conference North (which took me 2 and a half seasons to get out of with Patch 6.02) but I can't buy a win. The patch does not make the game any easier.
If a person is using a tactic A that produces a 14-14-14 record and applies the patch, he has a 50% chance he'll improve that record and another 50% that he won't (supposing he doesn't change his tactic in the meantime ofc). Maybe some features of the tactic will work better in the post-patch match engine than in the pre-patch one.
So, a new patch can be a blessing or it can be a disaster - for every individual. For me, it's usually a disaster.
Kostis and Iaj make sense to me (how rare is that!?!?! ); it may be coincidental or more likley some feature of the tactic I have is more efficient post-patch. Still, I am just not *that* good at FM, and it sort of bothered me to have the kind of success that I did not expect (nor did my arse man, or pundits). But hey, I might as well enjoy it.
I agree with Kostis and Ian. Patching has made very little difference to my results overall, but I felt my tactics and other strategies were pretty good anyway.
I did feel however, and said so in a thread in GQ, that due to the tweaks made with the patch, that the engine would punish 'weaker' tactics/strategies/team-talks/training less, and hence, along with improved default tactics, could lead to the better results seen by many.
In conjuction with the lesser frequency of the infamous 'comeback bug', since the patch, this tends to imply that players are winning those games which they'd formerly draw or lose due to this 'phenomenon'.
Therefore, I think that if you were already doing well then the patch just balances things out a bit more, but, from what I've read, it does seem to make things easier if you were previously struggling a bit...
The only thing I have found with 6.02 is a late goal bug. I seem to concede a goal after 90+ mins in about 75% of my games, whether I am winning, losing or drawing. I have been 4-0 up and completely shutting he opposition out but also 2-0 down and looking terrible. I cannot figure out how to stop if from happening and I seem to have tried everything.
*This is not an advice request it is a rant!*
Patch made no difference to my results, they were poor before and still poor now. I never played FM05 but I think FM06 is harder than 03/04, which in my opinion makes it more interesting.
Post patch 6.02 too easy redux 
); it may be coincidental or more likley some feature of the tactic I have is more efficient post-patch. Still, I am just not *that* good at FM, and it sort of bothered me to have the kind of success that I did not expect (nor did my arse man, or pundits). But hey, I might as well enjoy it.
Linear Mode
