Some complaints about the philosophy and direction of Football Manager

[Berbatov9]

Hello, long time no see.

I have played probably every FM released to date, including Football Manager 2014, which I have played only a bit compared to previous iterations at 18 hours of gameplay.

The major complaints I have about this game are very simple. A couple of days ago we saw the Netherlands man-mark Messi and doubling on him and I was impressed by their general tactical approach to the game (just an example). How can I translate this following real-life team talk into instructions in the game engine? "Lads, do not give Messi any space what so ever, I don't care where he is or what he's done, stay tight and tackle hard, Messi cannot get the ball - period. Once we have the ball get it quickly to Robben if he's free, or to RVP to hold it centrally until we have wide men in space. Wing backs only push forwards on overlap, the three at the back I want you to sit tight. And De Jong, DO NOT leave Messi alone. On defense I want a 5-line defense and four midfielders harassing the opposition. RVP stay on the halfway line to get and hold the ball. If their fullbacks are overlapping, Robben you should stay on the halfway line with RVP and one of the five will cover at Robben's side with a CDM".

First of all marking instructions are incredibly tedious and cumbersome to setup, you have to navigate through a bunch of screens and there are no views of the marking in action. You have to go through menus and often get the directions and sides wrong.

The game needs to ditch the text-based origins and focus on real-life coaching situations. Just give me a broad and let me tell my players how to build up play and where, whom and when to mark, how to make transitions with the ball and which areas to try and outnumber the opposition in. It's like the game purposefully builds a wall between the match engine and the match instructions, they are two separate worlds.

It could be I'm just getting old and grumpy, but I can rarely transfer what I want my players to do to the match engine itself.

Here's an example, due to a bonus at work I've had the whole week off, I've decided to start FM and go at it like old times. Turns out I had a good save where I quit before the Chelsea game so I can come back and prepare for it. All I wanted is two banks of four and quick counters with Hazard harassed throughout the match and whoever plays at ST man-marked and tacked hard. I watch the game and my players are literally all over the place switching positions leaving their men and doing illogical things. I quit the game in frustration.

TL;DR: This game suffers from layers and layers of instructions which are vague, and almost every tactical change I come up with leaves me with a big question of "What the **** will that exactly do"?

It needs to approach coaching just as it is approached in real life. More visuals, more boards, more "language" translation into sliders, which is a direction the developers have been going for the past couple of years, but it's still far, far, away from satisfactory. Ditching the sliders was a major step forwards, but things have stagnated or became even more confusing in some cases.

The logic behind Football Manager is that everything can be mathematically translated, with even luck and other factors calculated and factored in as well. I am a firm believer in this type of thinking, and this game actually influenced my life and helped fuel my passion for science and mathematics (I'm a software engineer now) but the game really needs to work harder on showing us less science and more lifelike interactions.

The cynical engineer in me thinks that the team at SI themselves are confused by their own match engine which probably has never been overhauled in ages and suffers from mountains upon mountains of scary code which nobody really wants to touch, but I pray I'm wrong.

[Dagenham_Dave]

How can I translate this real-life team talk into instructions in the game engine? "lads, do not give Messi any space what so ever, I don't care where he is or what he's done, stay tight and tackle hard, Messi cannot get the ball - period.

Once you find the answer to this, email it to every real life coach in the world.

[Berbatov9]

I am after a good, thorough discussion. You seem to have missed my point entirely. This was just an example to open with, it is entirely unimportant.

[HUNT3R]

In the Messi case, I think the closest you can get is to Specific Man-Mark him. You can then also use OIs to close him down whenever he has the ball so that he can't do much. That's how it works in theory. In practice, it may be in different matter!

Overall, I understand your point. Tactical Instructions need to be clearer so that you know what you're instructing your players to do.

[CityAndColour]

The training bit is interesting - I think the next major step is to actually have simulated training sessions, so you can see your ideas play out before implementing them in a match.

[Svenc]

Hello, long time no see.

I have played probably every FM released to date, including Football Manager 2014, which I have played only a bit compared to previous iterations at 18 hours of gameplay.

I find that an interesting statement as FM 2014 has the least "mathematical tactical system" than any of its predecessors. Not that the new system wouldn't have its own niggles, as you outlined, but it is interesting nonetheless, if the culprit is indeed the tactical system. It clearly needs more visual cues though. And there's been an ongoing debate of how much micro-control a real manager actually has in a fluid match of football, one of the reasons why wibble wobble of old and forward arrows were abandoned.

There are some very direct means of actual control in the game (shape mainly in the form of basic formations and roles and duties), whilst other let you just deal in tendencies that influence a player's behavior based on his attributes and inherent personal "traits" and obviously on the dynamic situations that he will find himself in. If none of this mattered, you wouldn't even need to consider transfers, as Robben was a blank page, a robot to obey your orders, not always cutting inside and taking shots -- and all you needed for a maximum pressing game was a button, rather than players with high physical traits and high work rate. More immediate control such as real set piece editors and you being able to edit and train specific moves and similar has always been shrugged off though, in parts because of the ongoing debate about what kind of micro control a manger actually has. In other parts however also because FM aims to recreate a football world where the human manager is supposed to be no different from all the AI Managers, where he isn't able to "reinvent" football from the ground up, and where he isn't made the centre piece of the world, if you will.

but also by older iterations of FM in particular.

I'm not going to defend that, per se. For that there can be made countless of counter arguments, especially from a gamer's point of view, but that is the experience FM has been aiming for. Always has. That's why if you pay attention you'll notice AI managers don't merely deal in tactics, but talk to their players, fall out with their starlets, engage in mind games with their counterparts and storm out of a press conference just as you may be able to do. That's also why none of this ever stops, even if you resign from your club, and the news continue flooding in if so you suscribe. It's kind of like a football soap opera, and it never stops. You're in for it as supporting cast rather than being the main actor, just as everybody else.

That said, to address some specific issues, how were the Chelsea players all over the place? If you want and pick to man man-mark a player, there is the specific marking instruction which is so rigidly followed to the letter that you can mark any player on the pitch by whoever player you like from the very second possession is lost, that is right from an opponent's kick off (yes, as stupid as it obviously is, you can do that even for a CB with your own CB: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGHLx6tEN70). Also WBs by default pretty much drop deep to form a line of 4 or 5 defenders when the team is without the ball. There are limitations, but I think you could emulate Holland in that match reasonably well.

[kris0710]

The training bit is interesting - I think the next major step is to actually have simulated training sessions, so you can see your ideas play out before implementing them in a match.

:applause:

I have just been thinking about exactly the same point.

What i would love is a scout report about your next opposition comes in on a Monday morning. Already in my head i know seven or eight of the starting XI for that match so on reading through the scout report you are on the training pitch, your selected XI vs XI of the players left over reenacting what you think the next opposition will be. From there you can set up your set pieces, select the PI or OI you want and see it acted out, you want to hassle more you see your players move to that instruction. From that i am sure many people would get a better grasp of what exactly every option means.

This would also bring alive training. I only really dip in and out of training, leaving it to my staff mainly. I do specific attribute and individual role myself but the rest is left as it does feel like i'm clicking and seeing little results. It is by far the weakest point about the way i play the game and would love this to be more immersed. Days split so you have training in the morning and/or afternoon. You can join in or take a watching brief, as you do now but with the players in front of you.

I could go on forever on this topic...

[Dagenham_Dave]

Overall, I understand your point. Tactical Instructions need to be clearer so that you know what you're instructing your players to do.

Whilst I agree with this in principle, it's a fine line. If there are crystal clear definitions of what an instruction is supposed to do, this leaves the game open to even sterner criticism when those instructions aren't followed. Which of course if you're attempting to simulate real football, this has to be added, otherwise the game turns into a simple game of cause and effect.

Having at least some level of ambiguity may well be the better option, as it's then up to the player to experiment to see what works for themselves rather than rely on pre-set definitions and instructions.

[Methos]

Whilst I agree with this in principle, it's a fine line. If there are crystal clear definitions of what an instruction is supposed to do, this leaves the game open to even sterner criticism when those instructions aren't followed. Which of course if you're attempting to simulate real football, this has to be added, otherwise the game turns into a simple game of cause and effect.

Having at least some level of ambiguity may well be the better option, as it's then up to the player to experiment to see what works for themselves rather than rely on pre-set definitions and instructions.

completely disagree. I am a fan of crystal clear decisions and outcomes and deep understanding of how the chance element happened in every case.

I am more into a game with rules than a feels_like_a_simulation because of ambiguity.

[Cougar2010]

completely disagree. I am a fan of crystal clear decisions and outcomes and deep understanding of how the chance element happened in every case.

I am more into a game with rules than a feels_like_a_simulation because of ambiguity.

You might be a fan of it but it has no place in a management simulation such as FM.

During a match you manage 11 individuals with a simulated mind of their own in essence, no matter how rigid and clear you give your instructions there should always be a level of ambiguity regarding how well those players follow the instructions.

[Dagenham_Dave]

completely disagree. I am a fan of crystal clear decisions and outcomes and deep understanding of how the chance element happened in every case.

I am more into a game with rules than a feels_like_a_simulation because of ambiguity.

In your scenario, the game would become beatable very quickly, and would lose a lot of what makes it great in the first place. What's the point in having a football management sim that you can just 'beat' by following a pre-determined set of rules? You'd get to a situation where you'd win every match. Trust me, many more people would get bored with the game than they do now.

[HUNT3R]

Whilst I agree with this in principle, it's a fine line. If there are crystal clear definitions of what an instruction is supposed to do, this leaves the game open to even sterner criticism when those instructions aren't followed. Which of course if you're attempting to simulate real football, this has to be added, otherwise the game turns into a simple game of cause and effect.

Having at least some level of ambiguity may well be the better option, as it's then up to the player to experiment to see what works for themselves rather than rely on pre-set definitions and instructions.

What you're instructing should be clear. As I mentioned in Clear Cut Chance, how many people know that the D-Line and Tempo automatically adjusts depending on the mentality you choose? I've seen many users build tactics, use an Attacking mentality, only to stack Higher Tempo and/or Push Higher Up on top of that because they just assumed they needed it for an attacking strategy. They had no idea it was already high. Closing down also increases the higher your mentality is. Do people know that? Judging by the amount of Hassle Opponents tactics I see, the answer is generally "No".

I agree that that there should still be room for tactical errors, but all I'm asking for is better explanations or illustrations of the existing instructions. Tactical errors should be tactical errors, not errors because of ambiguity.

[Kenco]

I think you need to compromise - the effects of instructions should be clearly defined but the user should also be aware that players on the field will not always carry out said instructions to the letter.

[CityAndColour]

You might be a fan of it but it has no place in a management simulation such as FM.

During a match you manage 11 individuals with a simulated mind of their own in essence, no matter how rigid and clear you give your instructions there should always be a level of ambiguity regarding how well those players follow the instructions.

I think there's definitely room for clearer advice to the player as to how different shouts and instructions work, and what they are intended to do. That doesn't mean players always follow them, but I would guess there are a lot of players who "stumble across" successful tactics and shout combinations rather than understanding exactly why they are working.

Right now the only place the user has to test tactics and shouts is in a match situation, which is not adequate.

[Chinook2000]

I think there's definitely room for clearer advice to the player as to how different shouts and instructions work, and what they are intended to do. That doesn't mean players always follow them, but I would guess there are a lot of players who "stumble across" successful tactics and shout combinations rather than understanding exactly why they are working.

Right now the only place the user has to test tactics and shouts is in a match situation, which is not adequate.

Or Friendlies like IRL play them against your U21,18'S using your tactics to see how someone else may counteract your Tactic.You will never know how an instruction or Tactic will work unless you see it in action this represents the life of a Manager.You can look at the instructions you get in the game,use a Notepad to picture the movements in relation to your other players.

Training is where FM is severely lacking and I hope is the next big change the chance to see how your actions work on a field.and the effects of Fitness training etc.

Also would it spoil the game if an incompetent Ass man/Scouts gave you too little or wrong information adding realism?

[Dagenham_Dave]

I think you need to compromise - the effects of instructions should be clearly defined but the user should also be aware that players on the field will not always carry out said instructions to the letter.

This.

The problem is the more clear the definition, the more the expectation that it should always be carried out will be raised.

"It clearly says if I do A, then B will be the effect, but in my last game it didn't happen, the game's broken, sort it out!

I don't think it's too much of a coincidence that this topic is so popular in an age where most modern games handhold you through them from start to finish. Gamers are getting lazier, so games where you really need to think for yourself stand out more.

That said, it would be benficial if some of the basics were explained better, I think everyone agrees on that.

[Methos]

In your scenario, the game would become beatable very quickly, and would lose a lot of what makes it great in the first place. What's the point in having a football management sim that you can just 'beat' by following a pre-determined set of rules? You'd get to a situation where you'd win every match. Trust me, many more people would get bored with the game than they do now.

is chess beatable? yet it is the definition of crystal clear commands and consequences

[themadsheep2001]

is chess beatable? yet it is the definition of crystal clear commands and consequences

But this isn't chess, so the comparison isn't really relevant.

[themadsheep2001]

What you're instructing should be clear. As I mentioned in Clear Cut Chance, how many people know that the D-Line and Tempo automatically adjusts depending on the mentality you choose? I've seen many users build tactics, use an Attacking mentality, only to stack Higher Tempo and/or Push Higher Up on top of that because they just assumed they needed it for an attacking strategy. They had no idea it was already high. Closing down also increases the higher your mentality is. Do people know that? Judging by the amount of Hassle Opponents tactics I see, the answer is generally "No".

I agree that that there should still be room for tactical errors, but all I'm asking for is better explanations or illustrations of the existing instructions. Tactical errors should be tactical errors, not errors because of ambiguity.

Spot on. The instruction should be clear, doesn't mean how its carried out will be nailed on. that will come down to your players on the pitch, and the myriad of factors around them.

[Methos]

But this isn't chess, so the comparison isn't really relevant.

I know it isn't chess. I think there is relevance though in the example.

[Cougar2010]

I know it isn't chess. I think there is relevance though in the example.

There is zero relevance in your example.

Chess pieces are like robots which move in fixed specific ways which is nothing like footballers on a pitch.

[Svenc]

There is zero relevance in your example.

Chess pieces are like robots which move in fixed specific ways which is nothing like footballers on a pitch.

The relevance is that real football managers would surely like football to be exactly like chess and their players to be exactly like chess pieces -- and that the frustrations of their job stem from realizing that after all the careful planning midweek, it can be all drawn moot come Saturday by a single bad touch of the ball and a woeful decision come injury time.

Kind of like Football Manager, innit?

[Methos]

There is zero relevance in your example.

Chess pieces are like robots which move in fixed specific ways which is nothing like footballers on a pitch.

The relevance is that chess pieces which only have 2 functions has not been solved over thousands of years and super powerful computers simulating it.

A footballer which has more than 2 functions, say 10, is not going to be solved and become repetetitive if their interface is crystal clear and not ambiguous.

The relecance is in context of replying to this: You'd get to a situation where you'd win every match.. And that is extremely false, because a simpler game hasn't been solved.

[HUNT3R]

Spot on. The instruction should be clear, doesn't mean how its carried out will be nailed on. that will come down to your players on the pitch, and the myriad of factors around them.

Definitely. This is a point that should be made (clearly) in-game as well. FM is simulating human football players, not robots. They will make mistakes. They will make baffling decisions at times. To a degree you can control it, but they have a mind of their own and sometimes they will deviate depending on their role (creative freedom) and attributes.

It's clear (unanimous?) that users should still be able to make tactical errors. What is more relevant to the thread, is should there be an assistant manager who offers little hints as to what you could do to perform better? "Strikers were snatching at chances because they didn't cope with the high tempo/they were nervous/they watched Nightmare on Elm street before the game".

If yes, how much?

[sporadicsmiles]

The relevance is that chess pieces which only have 2 functions has not been solved over thousands of years and super powerful computers simulating it.

A footballer which has more than 2 functions, say 10, is not going to be solved and become repetetitive if their interface is crystal clear and not ambiguous.

There are essentially infinitely less variables in chess than in football. Football is an example of a chaotic system; which means for a given set of initial conditions (lineup, form, weather etc.) you cannot accurately predict the outcome knowing these alone. And that even the smallest change in any initial condition can lead to wildly different outcomes. That is not true of chess. You can completely solve chess, for every possible outcome. It is not at all an easy thing to do, but it is a rigid, non-chaotic solvable system. I mean, I understand exactly what you are trying to say, but the analogy is flawed.

On the original point of the OP. I am in complete agreement with the idea that there needs to be clear definitions of what each instruction can do. There also needs to be a much clearer indication of how changing things such as mentality changes other parameters; attacking means you play faster football than defensive, for example. I think that the game would significantly benefit from some kind of manual to explain this. Since I have played this game for a long time, and dedicate a lot of spare time to it, I can understand how to play pretty well. I cannot imagine how hard this game may seem to a new or less experienced user. As has been said, you cannot give something along the lines of 'select X, player will always do Y'. You can however make a clear discussion of what you can expect to happen. You can even discuss when players are more likely to deviate from instructions, which stats are important for them to do so.

As much as I love this game, the level of documentation is extremely poor. This is without a doubt on the things that needs to change. It is not just tactically either. The editor is also a horrible lack of documentation for the editor, particularly advanced rules. I do not know what the next step they should take in game is, but this is the next step that SI should take away from actual game-play. Hell I would even donate some of my time to collate material.

[Methos]

I mean, I understand exactly what you are trying to say, but the analogy is flawed.

so can we conclude that even if chess is solvable, eventually, a manager game which is far more complex, will never be? Therefore there is no need to hide behind obscure interfaces?

[Os]

Is there an attribute that refers to "A players adherence to tactical instruction" a discipline attribute as it were.

I'd imagine Mourinho is a coach that looks for this in his players hence his treatment of Joe Cole and Eden Hazard and sale of David Luiz.

[HUNT3R]

Is there an attribute that refers to "A players adherence to tactical instruction" a discipline attribute as it were.

I'd imagine Mourinho is a coach that looks for this in his players hence his treatment of Joe Cole and Eden Hazard and sale of David Luiz.

Well, from the manual about the Teamwork attribute: How well the player follows tactical instructions and works for and alongside his team-mates. A team full of players with a high rating here will work better as a unit. Players with lower ratings will slack off and not 'buy in' to the team ethos.

I imagine that they all follow your instructions. The low teamwork players will just deviate from it more.

[grade]

This.

The problem is the more clear the definition, the more the expectation that it should always be carried out will be raised.

"It clearly says if I do A, then B will be the effect, but in my last game it didn't happen, the game's broken, sort it out!

I don't think it's too much of a coincidence that this topic is so popular in an age where most modern games handhold you through them from start to finish. Gamers are getting lazier, so games where you really need to think for yourself stand out more.

That last statement isn't very fair to say the least. I don't think gamers have become lazier, I think games have become so much like real life, that majority of people simply don't bother with that sort of games, never had, never will.

Games like Chess and Formula 1 simulation (in the old Spectrum), or games like Tetris (Game Boy), Sim City, Civilization, SimTower (this one added a lot of stress), Railroad Tycoon, Transport Tycoon, even the games like Monkey Island and Broken Sword, required a lot of thinking and were best selling games. Even today games like the last game of Civilization and even Sim City (despite some forced Online features) sold rather well. Games like, Flight Simulator, Hearts of Iron sell well (if they didn't they wouldn't, they would make games after the first one), but never quite reach the best selling category, like the others i mentioned. Even Total War series, latest games don't even sell quite as much like the first one. Why? Because the game (specially the latest Shogun) you need a freaking 800 pages manual just to understand the mechanics of the game. Where is the fun in that.

My point is, while games like Civilization, Railroad Tycoon and Sim City had their massive depth to them, but once you get the basics, you can do pretty much okay with them. That was the advantage of Older CM/FMs (Fms, before FM09) is that you you could easily understand the mechanics of the game rather quickly. I still remember I picked up FM05 since a vacation from the series since CM97/98, that I didn't need anything to understand the mechanics of FM05. Now FM is entering 800 pages manual game category.

Of course the franchise has evolve since then, but the game has become far too complicated for someone new or someone who had long vacation from the franchise, to understand the mechanics of the game. FM lost its easiness to get into the game. Now you need to read several topics to understand the mechanics of the Tactics, with its duties and roles. Not to mention the rest of features.

Sure the game has become more indepth and realistic, but at what cost? The majority of people in these forums seem to enjoy this depthness to the game. For me I fail to see where is the fun of such depthness, since I tend to see, it looks more like a day job, then an actual game.

I don't think people are lazier, but if you work 8 hour daily job, and with the stress in job increasing each passing year, due to lack of job security with the increasing financial crisis, people prefer more and more something that removes that stress and that daily routine. People don't have the patience to play a game that is increasingly becoming and feeling like a job. I that is why I enjoy more from old game FM07, then FM14 with gazillion of improvements and features. That is why SI has caught my attention with FMC, then the last 8 versions of improvements and features.

That said, it would be benficial if some of the basics were explained better, I think everyone agrees on that.

I agree with this!

[grade]

There is zero relevance in your example.

Chess pieces are like robots which move in fixed specific ways which is nothing like footballers on a pitch.

If I may, what is an relevance example?

[Methos]

That last statement isn't very fair to say the least. I don't think gamers have become lazier, I think games have become so much like real life, that majority of people simply don't bother with that sort of games, never had, never will.

Games like Chess and Formula 1 simulation (in the old Spectrum), or games like Tetris (Game Boy), Sim City, Civilization, SimTower (this one added a lot of stress), Railroad Tycoon, Transport Tycoon, even the games like Monkey Island and Broken Sword, required a lot of thinking and were best selling games. Even today games like the last game of Civilization and even Sim City (despite some forced Online features) sold rather well. Games like, Flight Simulator, Hearts of Iron sell well (if they didn't they wouldn't, they would make games after the first one), but never quite reach the best selling category, like the others i mentioned. Even Total War series, latest games don't even sell quite as much like the first one. Why? Because the game (specially the latest Shogun) you need a freaking 800 pages manual just to understand the mechanics of the game. Where is the fun in that.

My point is, while games like Civilization, Railroad Tycoon and Sim City had their massive depth to them, but once you get the basics, you can do pretty much okay with them. That was the advantage of Older CM/FMs (Fms, before FM09) is that you you could easily understand the mechanics of the game rather quickly. I still remember I picked up FM05 since a vacation from the series since CM97/98, that I didn't need anything to understand the mechanics of FM05. Now FM is entering 800 pages manual game category.

Of course the franchise has evolve since then, but the game has become far too complicated for someone new or someone who had long vacation from the franchise, to understand the mechanics of the game. FM lost its easiness to get into the game. Now you need to read several topics to understand the mechanics of the Tactics, with its duties and roles. Not to mention the rest of features.

Sure the game has become more indepth and realistic, but at what cost? The majority of people in these forums seem to enjoy this depthness to the game. For me I fail to see where is the fun of such depthness, since I tend to see, it looks more like a day job, then an actual game.

I don't think people are lazier, but if you work 8 hour daily job, and with the stress in job increasing each passing year, due to lack of job security with the increasing financial crisis, people prefer more and more something that removes that stress and that daily routine. People don't have the patience to play a game that is increasingly becoming and feeling like a job. I that is why I enjoy more from old game FM07, then FM14 with gazillion of improvements and features. That is why SI has caught my attention with FMC, then the last 8 versions of improvements and features.

I agree with this!

I agree with what you said. I feel exactly the same.

[sosasoser]

Definitely. This is a point that should be made (clearly) in-game as well. FM is simulating human football players, not robots. They will make mistakes. They will make baffling decisions at times. To a degree you can control it, but they have a mind of their own and sometimes they will deviate depending on their role (creative freedom) and attributes.

It's clear (unanimous?) that users should still be able to make tactical errors. What is more relevant to the thread, is should there be an assistant manager who offers little hints as to what you could do to perform better? "Strikers were snatching at chances because they didn't cope with the high tempo/they were nervous/they watched Nightmare on Elm street before the game".

If yes, how much?

If the assistant's hints/advice is anything like his suggestions during the match, then it would probably just cause more confusion and rage. Let's take your example and the player sees after the match, "Strikers were snatching at chances because they didn't cope with the high tempo."

Many players, especially those who struggle with tactics, will just lower their tempo automatically. When their striker doesn't score as many goals as they think he should in the next game, they'll complain about the bad advice. If they happen to lose the next match, some of them will declare the game is rigged and SI is sadistically punishing them even though they are doing what the game told them to do. Not that a few of those folks have come by in the last few days or anything like that.

Of course, there are many reasons why changing the tempo might not have worked besides the obvious it was just one game. The tactic might need other changes to work at a lower tempo, the rest of the team might not be used to the lower tempo, the other team might have just parked 8 in the box the entire game, the player could be trying to bang crosses in to Tyrion Lannister, etc.

It would be just like the in-match advice. It's only useful if the assistant and/or player knows the full consequences of the adjustment and if anything else needs to be changed as a result.

When I first started playing FM14 after several years off from the franchise, I wanted some advice from the assistant. But, after regaining my knowledge of how the game works a bit, the less I think it's a good idea. To be really useful, the assistant needs to give so much advice that it would really be the AI telling the player exactly what to do. I do think there is some work to be done in this area, such as with advice in coaching staff meetings about a player's tactics that is more general, e.g., "Our high line is letting strikers get behind it on counters." But, on a game to game basis, I don't want it.

[Kenco]

Sure the game has become more indepth and realistic, but at what cost? The majority of people in these forums seem to enjoy this depthness to the game. For me I fail to see where is the fun of such depthness, since I tend to see, it looks more like a day job, then an actual game.

I don't think people are lazier, but if you work 8 hour daily job, and with the stress in job increasing each passing year, due to lack of job security with the increasing financial crisis, people prefer more and more something that removes that stress and that daily routine. People don't have the patience to play a game that is increasingly becoming and feeling like a job. I that is why I enjoy more from old game FM07, then FM14 with gazillion of improvements and features. That is why SI has caught my attention with FMC, then the last 8 versions of improvements and features.

I have quite a stressful job and sit in front of a computer for 99% of my day, but I love getting home and playing the full-fat version of FM to de-stress. The more in-depth the better for me.

[Dagenham_Dave]

I think games have become so much like real life, that majority of people simply don't bother with that sort of games, never had, never will.

Video game sales are currently higher than they've ever been, so a bit of a swing and a miss there I'm afraid.

I don't think people are lazier, but if you work 8 hour daily job, and with the stress in job increasing each passing year, due to lack of job security with the increasing financial crisis, people prefer more and more something that removes that stress and that daily routine.

2nd best non-sequitur I've read today.

[Methos]

I have quite a stressful job and sit in front of a computer for 99% of my day, but I love getting home and playing the full-fat version of FM to de-stress. The more in-depth the better for me.

That's perfectly acceptable. In reference to a previous argument we had in another topic, should people that prefer a simple game to de-stress oppose those who want the full-fat version to de-stress, and vice versa? As in cannot we all enjoy the same product, each one the way he likes it?

[Candre168]

FM as a game doesn't make a sense and looks nothing like football in the real world. Watch a full game on FM, an AI v AI game, if you want, and you'll see this game is more ping-pong than football. Best you can do is try to put together a random winning formula, don't bother with football logic.

[HUNT3R]

FM as a game doesn't make a sense and looks nothing like football in the real world. Watch a full game on FM, an AI v AI game, if you want, and you'll see this game is more ping-pong than football. Best you can do is try to put together a random winning formula, don't bother with football logic.

I apply football and real life logic to all my decisions in FM. It works very well.

[Methos]

I apply football and real life logic to all my decisions in FM. It works very well.

I will ask you one of my biggest mysteries with FM in a seperate topic

[Kenco]

That's perfectly acceptable. In reference to a previous argument we had in another topic, should people that prefer a simple game to de-stress oppose those who want the full-fat version to de-stress, and vice versa? As in cannot we all enjoy the same product, each one the way he likes it?

Let's not derail this thread with that argument again.

[Candre168]

I apply football and real life logic to all my decisions in FM. It works very well.

I do but it comes down to the same old fact of players being unable to finish, something SI have admitted before (that the AI Has a higher CCC to goal ratio) but for some reason now refuse to admit.

[Candre168]

I don't think people are lazier, but if you work 8 hour daily job, and with the stress in job increasing each passing year, due to lack of job security with the increasing financial crisis, people prefer more and more something that removes that stress and that daily routine. People don't have the patience to play a game that is increasingly becoming and feeling like a job. I that is why I enjoy more from old game FM07, then FM14 with gazillion of improvements and features. That is why SI has caught my attention with FMC, then the last 8 versions of improvements and features.

I run two businesses, and have a part-time job, and neither are as stressful or as difficult to manage as FM14.

But then again, I must just be a simpleton idiot like everyone who struggles with FM.

[HUNT3R]

I do but it comes down to the same old fact of players being unable to finish, something SI have admitted before (that the AI Has a higher CCC to goal ratio) but for some reason now refuse to admit.

I would love to see any evidence of SI admitting this.

[Dagenham_Dave]

I run two businesses, and have a part-time job

I'd say you're exactly the sort of person FM isn't aimed at I'm afraid. I'd imagine your spare time is extremely limited, therefore an indepth simulation which takes up a large amount of time to play effectively perhaps just isn't for you. It's not a case of you being a 'simpleton' (running two businesses in itself proves that), it simply just comes down to time management.

[Svenc]

My point is, while games like Civilization, Railroad Tycoon and Sim City had their massive depth to them, but once you get the basics, you can do pretty much okay with them. That was the advantage of Older CM/FMs (Fms, before FM09) is that you you could easily understand the mechanics of the game rather quickly.

Being from Germany where there in twenty years has never been made much fuss about the game, neither by publishers nor anyone, I started out no earlier than FM 2008, and I didn't much even touch and fiddle with many options in big ways until months into the game due to their ambiguity. Going by common football logics, I reasonably was able to set up counter and defending tactics and more pro active ones that appeared to work reasonably enough. But after testing some more I also remember opening a thread wondering if some of the options were all as they seem, which the Collyers entered too.

In parts as I, like many, expected to have some options to have a much more immediate effect to a degree, without realizing to what extent the game was trying to ape management, somewhat actually considering the extent to which a real manager might be actually able to influence players, what was down to their personal traits, and how any decision would behave given the always fluid match situation at hand. Coming off typical football video games, I fully expected it to be more akin to Pro Evolution Soccer

, which in many ways wasn't the case at all. I also remember reading a thread that was a revelation to me, more than a year after I had bought the game. One that explained how some of the instructions actually interlinked -- and some of them interlinked even if they appeared to be completely standalone. It is a thread that is one of the largest still in these forums if you order threads by replies, and it relates to the most basic instruction of yore, and there had been forum regulars from years before I registered who expressed likewise wonderment. Additionally the ambiguity of instructions spawned a massive community documentation that was perceived as either a must or a proof of the failure of the system likewise, and that document was far more complicated, even largely based around numbers and larger than any current community guidelines. For all the issues with the current system, this doesn't compare.

To a degree I can relate to what you mean, as there were options added to the full fat game, and tactically with the roles and duties and all that, options feel more definite when they are "defined" rather than vague and no doubt more ambitious as used to be before. At the sime time in many ways the game hasn't yet caught up with many things, in particular in terms of documentation both in-game and outside of it. But I truly believe that somebody who has a basic grasp of football had never had an easier time to get into the game, that is from when it was called Football Manager onwards. No less because of the less ambiguity, the more slim FMC mode to lure you in and an actual in-game tutorial that whilst basic, SI hadn't bothered about at all for seasons (unless you count Miles' well-intended, but rather superficial series of videos from years ago

). If you feel more overwhelmed by this, this is likely more due to years of habit, and more recent games forcing you to think a little differently all of a sudden, rather than anything.

That doesn't mean it has become an easier game though. The AI has been ramped up, though it is occasionally attributed wonder things SI likely laugh at. Speaking of which, you will likely remember how the AI, any AI, switched to a 4-2-4 formation and went all gung-ho with aggressive global mentality settings when it tried to chase a game from back then (which still a lot of people would claim to be cheating no less), and similar. Alongside a better AI, a lot of possible exploits have disappeared -- as far back as FM 2012, which admittedly was a one-off, in a flat midfield the AI would not even field a holding player at times, someone who would stay deep, being open to the counter every time when going forward. At the same time though, the assistants have gotten better too though, as they are infused with the same basic logics as any AI manager, so letting the ass-man handle match days and more is actually an option too.

I would love to see any evidence of SI admitting this.

Yeah me too.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/177980-Superkeeper-is-really-disrespectful-to-FM-players

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/303143-Why-is-the-AI-so-much-better-at-finishing

Typically the stance had always been that firstly none of the match sim even knows who is the human player and who is the AI (should it be a match between the human and AI, that is, rather than between two human players, or between two AI managers, mind). Players usually by and large often go with very pro active tactics, to put it that way. Which inherently leads to games in which the conversion rate of their opponents is higher. That is football 101: If you manage to pin your opponent back, he will have less chances to score, and these chances tend to be of better quality due to you likely being hit on the break, if something actually still goes off. The more proactive team has to work hard for its space, the opponent doesn't to the same extent. Additionally, if this was a constant, the issue was always attributed to one-dimensional tactics, see above. Players only fixing on statistics without realizing that they were often encouraging rushed and very samey chances (through balls from the centre to a lone forward often), whilst the AI had always been set up to create in more varied ways. This was sometimes fueled by engine flaws, naturally, such as centre backs splitting apart in ways they shouldn't which only encouraged players MORE to fix solely on their dreaded through balls through the middle, not commiting any wide players forward to provide wide outlets, narrowing play by default always, etc. (something that is adressed if you follow wwfan's guide just like that without understanding it any). Another "issue" is that too unlike Pro Evo/Fifa, unlike any other football video game, SI refer to real football statistics, and that many types of chances, such as one on ones, aren't converted at the rate many think they should be.

[Candre168]

I'd say you're exactly the sort of person FM isn't aimed at I'm afraid. I'd imagine your spare time is extremely limited, therefore an indepth simulation which takes up a large amount of time to play effectively perhaps just isn't for you. It's not a case of you being a 'simpleton' (running two businesses in itself proves that), it simply just comes down to time management.

So the average 9 to 6 worker isn't allowed to play FM now? I'm taking a shot at SI and SI fanboys who act as if there is NOTHING WRONG with the game and if people are complaining that the fun is gone, and the game feels far more like work than fun, they just get branded as simpletons that are too stupid to understand the game.

Anyway I think SI should be applauded for how they've taken what was once and enjoyable game and made it painful for most players.

[jumbohotdog]

But I just want to ask what is the meaning od the word "fun". Is it always winning? If you want to always win then play fifa

[Candre168]

But I just want to ask what is the meaning od the word "fun". Is it always winning? If you want to always win then play fifa

No, not always winning. But not always losing either. And losing in manners that just don't make sense at that.

[kris0710]

So the average 9 to 6 worker isn't allowed to play FM now? I'm taking a shot at SI and SI fanboys who act as if there is NOTHING WRONG with the game and if people are complaining that the fun is gone, and the game feels far more like work than fun, they just get branded as simpletons that are too stupid to understand the game.

Anyway I think SI should be applauded for how they've taken what was once and enjoyable game and made it painful for most players.

I am pretty sure he didn't 9 to 6 workers AREN'T allowed to play the game. The game has developed so much over the years that to fully engage with it you need plenty of time of your hands. He was also referring to a player who runs two businesses and has a part time job...

People will quickly become 'SI Fanboys' when you see the same threads being created over and over, arguing the same arguments. IMO there are far to many people who play this game as they did 10 years ago, for the most part i was one of them until this year.

The constant threads over the AI being better than the player has been answered to death yet it still comes up every week

'My keeper dived away from the slow moving ball' and other animation type issues are always being raised and yet again more answers are given but people are too stubborn to sway from original thinking.

Tactics - well. Enough has been said about that. There is some great threads on the T&T forum to help, more than enough users willing to put time into it and help. What people fail to realise is how gun-ho their tactics leaving more space for the AI to create and score. 99% of the time that is the problem.

I agree SI should be applauded. For creating two options of play with FMC here now. If you are still playing the game as you were 10 years ago then FMC is much more likely to be for you. But if like me you want to have control of everything, read every email and every bit of advice, fully immerse yourself into being a manager then the full fat game has plenty to keep you occupied.

Are their issues in the game? Yes. But for people that listen, read and are willing those issues are not important, they are not game breakers, they do not ruin the fun of the game and those people will be the first in the queue in October to buy the next edition.

[kris0710]

No, not always winning. But not always losing either. And losing in manners that just don't make sense at that.

In Football you will win games, lose games, draw games, win games you should have lost, lose games you should have won. That is it's beauty.

[Methos]

The constant threads over the AI being better than the player has been answered to death yet it still comes up every week

Why do they come up every week?

Why doesn't it come up every week on different games?

I am arguing there should be more clarity in game, in tooltips for example, in the manual and in the forums. If there was more clarity these constant threads would not come up every week.

I made a thread earlier asking for clarity. Asking about how gameplay is affected by fatigue and physical condition. None answered. Is it because it has been asked to death? Is it because they would have to guess? Would I get more replies if I renamed the title to "Fitness has no effect in the game!"? Would then people explain (precisely) how fitness works?