Should FM09 have a difficulty option?

[Falastur]

half the fun is in overcoming those difficulties even if they make you frustrated

No. Not for everyone it's not. For me, fun comes from success, from achieving things which I could never do in real life, and perhaps even from doing these things better than others have. Just because you find overcoming frustrations to be the definition of fun does not mean that others do, and I see that as a fundamental stumbling block on this issue of people here claiming that because they want full realism in the game then every other player should have to experience full realism too. Personally I find overcoming frustrating challenges to be annoying as I am wound up quite easily, as I believe a number of other people probably are, FM players, gamers in general, and regular people alike. When a game gets very hard, some people become very motivated. Others like myself get annoyed at their lack of success and our motivation is seriously weakened. In a life where no two people are exactly the same, and no two gamers play games exactly the same way, I'm not sure why those who get their kicks from realism should take precedence over those who don't. I can buy "we don't have the time to code difficulty levels" as an excuse for leaving FM as is, but I can't buy "well these guys like realism, so you don't get an opinion", as some people here seem to be arguing. (No fingers pointed at SI for this one, this is merely a response to the words of some people on this thread and others).

[Neji]

I know Fm doesn't have two options, that what this thread has been about - implementing that. I don't see a need for two different products

[marcusjm_swe]

Falastur makes the best response in this thread in my opinion. He summarizes what I have thought all along but with

much better wording.

Is there anything else to add?

Neji. It just sounds more dramatic than I meant. I meant more like two different executables, they can recide in the same directory .

I am not kidding, I am prepared to pay for updated databases/patching for FM2006 if that is the only way.

[james4624]

NO youve gone cause you know the answer to my question, the ONLY way an 'easy mode' could work would be for the AIs intelligence or ability/speed to react to your changes to be altered in some way making them all tactical dimwits who could be outsmarted by simple tweaks, and i fail to see how that would be any more real than editing data like i suggested.

Would it be realistic for some tactical genius like Fergie or Benitez to sit with their thumbs up their ***** while you ran rings around them tactically?

NO

It would be no more realistic than say Hyde being bought out be some Billionaire. As such an easy mode already exists, its called the data editor...

But, what might be a simple tweak for you isn't so simple for everyone else and not everyone has the same depth of tactical knowledge to manipulate flaws in the AI's tactics so that they'll be running rings around the likes of United and Liverpool.

What is more, the fact that we are even playing the game and not managing in real life shows that we are not tactical geniuses so I don't see why everyone should have to pay £30 to find something out that they already know, i.e. that they can't cut it as a football manager.

[Neji]

Falastur makes the best response in this thread in my opinion. He summarizes what I have thought all along but with

much better wording.

Is there anything else to add?

Neji. It just sounds more dramatic than I meant. I meant more like two different executables, they can recide in teh same directory .

I am not kidding, I am prepared to pay for updated databases/patching for FM2006 if that is the only way.

Oh, I thought you meant two different products ie two different games

I think Falastur summed it up in his first sentence...

No. Not for everyone it's not. For me, fun comes from success, from achieving things which I could never do in real life

[AmA Deo]

*double post*

[AmA Deo]

The thing about "difficulty option".

It is already a bit implemented. The ass. manager can help you with lots of things, friendlies, teamtalks and so on. Am I right or what? The question should maybe be if SI should make more features like these - maybe minor match-tactical changes by ass. manager for those who really want thing easy.

[Neji]

The thing about "difficulty option".

It is already a bit implemented. The ass. manager can help you with lots of things, friendlies, teamtalks and so on. Am I right or what? The question should maybe be if SI should make more features like these.

Those things don't make it any easier though IMO. Your AM can get it wrong, especially with team talks.

[Falastur]

The thing about "difficulty option".

It is already a bit implemented. The ass. manager can help you with lots of things, friendlies, teamtalks and so on. Am I right or what? The question should maybe be if SI should make more features like these - maybe minor match-tactical changes by ass. manager for those who really want thing easy.

I would describe the AssMan interaction as more of a gamble than a difficulty adjustment. It's not so much the game offering to help you as the game offering to reduce the workload in exchange for a risky chance that it won't pay off and will come back to bite you. Some AssMan features - doing friendlies, for instance - don't actually make the game easier at all anyway; they just allow you to skip part of the game that the more reassured players are less likely to want to be involved with, while retaining squad fitness.

[marcusjm_swe]

I did like that feature in the FM2009 demo though. It shouldn't be taken as the last word but

it adds some flair to the game in my book. Certainly the in match analysis helps a bit when adjusting tactics etc.

Still. I can live without them when playing FM2006. I would actually like to know who in SI thought the Ass.Man team analysis made sense . Don't know how much it has improved over the years either.

[backpackant]

Would be interested if one of the FM programmers could wade in here because with my limited understanding of how FM works, a difficulty option would mean reprogramming the whole match engine. 'Toning down' the difficulty might be more complicated than making Gears of War easier. It wouldn't be a case of Easy, Normal, Hard, but ME1, ME2 or ME3. Meaning 3 different games on one disc. Or would it?

Let me use the example of the corner cheat. Someone was ranting the other day about how disgraceful it was that SI "couldn't be bothered to fix this game-wrecking exploit of the match engine" (or words to that effect). One of the programmers came on to explain that they tweaked the way defenders and GKs would come out and 'close down, therefore toning down the effectiveness of the 'corner cheat'. However, when they removed this minor issue entirely it had a knock-on effect to other areas of the ME that really DID wreck the game, and fixing this knock-on caused a problem elsewhere, and fixing THAT caused another issue, and so on. So the exploit still works, but to a slightly lesser degree. It is applied to the whole match engine.

Then you have the fact (as I understand it) that the ME runs a lot based on player attributes in relation to what tactic you are using. EG: the ball is floated forward and player X goes for the header along with player Y. If X's jumping and heading is better than Y's the probability is that X will win the ball, and this is translated down to the match graphics. However, if Y's jumping and heading is a little worse than X's but his anticipation and positioning is much better, then the ME could predict that Y will win the header... and so on with many variations and calculations going on in a matter of seconds.

If I understand correctly what DJ Backchat and Neji are suggesting - that the ME favours the human player when in 'easy' mode - then I'm not sure how this example would work. If say the human user has player X and the AI is player Y, but player Y has superior jumping, heading, anticipation, positioning, how would the ME determine that, actually, player X is more likely to win the header? I know attributes don't always mean the best player will come out on top, as in real life players still make mistakes, but in 50-50 situations more often than not the superior player WILL come out on top.

Would toning down tactical requirements not mean that all games would be determined by the players with the best attributes? If not, how would the game decide which player won the tackles, passed through the midfield, scored the one-on-one? At the moment, the pace of the game, the correct passing settings, the depth of the defensive line, all these things have a bearing on the outcome of the game. If you get it right, at present, you can play as Stoke and beat Man United. If you 'toned down' the tactical side of things you wouldn't be able to do that. Or would you?

Is it as easy as the ME saying, in easy-mode, "Okay, I can see the attributes of every player. What I'm going to do is let the human user keep all his attributes the way they are but I'll make my in-game calculations based on HALVING the AI's attributes." In effect when when the human user signs, say, Christiano Ronaldo he may have 18 for dribbling and play for the human user as if he has 18 for dribbling, but when the human plays AGAINST him, the ME sees 18 but calculates Ronaldo's performance based on a 9. Or some other scaling down of attributes. Would THIS be possible?

I'm not trying to argue that difficulty is *BAD* idea, just that I'm not sure how it would work in practical terms. As I indicated, I'm not an expert on programming, but I suspect Gears of War, Sonic the Hedgehog, Star Wars, Mariocart etc do not rely on so many set attributes to determine the outcome of whether Sergeant Joe the Human User blows the head off of the AI's Corporal Barry who's hiding behind that cart over there.

Expert opinion on this?

[marcusjm_swe]

Some features might I am sure but take press conferences for instance, it doesn't seem too complicated to simply

have a yes or no option, how about pre/post match talks etc? I just can't see how making those things optional requires total re-writes. At least not if the code is reasonably oo.

Mainly what I want, is for SI to take a good look at what features they have now and look at what could be made optional and what not, or even discard some features alltogether.

Or they could just make FMH slightly more deeper ala CM 01/02 .

[backpackant]

Some features might I am sure but take press conferences for instance, it doesn't seem too complicated to simply

have a yes or no option, how about pre/post match talks etc? I just can't see how making those things optional requires total re-writes. At least not if the code is reasonably oo.

Mainly what I want, is for SI to take a good look at what features they have now and look at what could be made optional and what not, or even discard some features alltogether.

Or they could just make FMH slightly more deeper ala CM 01/02 .

Yes, I can see by around January/Feb I'm going to be sick to death of press conferences. But since they are linked to morale and confidence of the squad it might be difficult. Perhaps they should add a "press handling" attribute to ass mans, then in game settings hit "ass man to take press conferences".

One for the future maybe.

[Falastur]

backpackant - I'm no expert, but I'd say the cause of and solution to your problem could be a random number generator. I'm not sure how the match engine does it atm, but it takes a lot of stats and circumstances into mind atm when it calculates who wins a header etc, and has some method of determining with a varying degree of regularity what then happens. To my mind, if it is not being done so already, this could be done for different difficulties by making this event dependent on a random number generator in the coding. If the game can work out, say, that Player A has a 76% chance of winning a header against Player B in circumstance C, then it can use random numbers to make player A win the header the right amount, and the way that computers are able to process these days, surely it would be little strain for the ME to make these decisions on a regular basis for every event that has chance involved. If it can do this - and I find it hard to believe that it can't - then surely it is no overcomplication to get the code to then apply a number to weight the odds in favour of the player/the match engine, depending on the difficulty setting. If a Player A has 76% chance of winning a header on medium difficulty then their opponent Player B has a 24% chance of winning it - apply a simple x2 multiplier and easy difficulty could give Player B a 48% chance, whereas hard difficulty could give them a 12% chance. Doesn't have to be a x2 multiplier either, it's very loose for developers to tweak.

Is it the easiest/best way of doing it? Probably not. But does it involve three different match engines? Almost certainly not. Does it allow for difficulty settings within the same game engine? I hope so.

I should point out that this is not my view of how difficulty settings would affect the match engine, but I hope it answers the question.

[DJ Backchat]

thankyou backpackant, u understand what i'm saying and offer a solution

[Hammer1000]

Instead of having two versions, which is a bad idea anyway, why not just add some preset default tactics to the game, designed to get the best out of the players you have at your disposal?

They would not have to be cheat tactics and they could come in sets, like DEFENSIVE, NORMAL and ATTACK, or something like that?

[marcusjm_swe]

Could work if done properly but given how badly the AM Pick team works I am not optimistic.

[kennec]

yes

and also i think all players starting with teams like arsenal and liverpool will get easy difficulty bu deffoult so they dont come and whine so much on the forums when there strikers doesnt do 50 goals a seson or draw 2 matches in row.

enforce an impossible tactic wich forces managers to control a random low leauge team. and from there work the up the system.

getting pretty boring when only upgrades and changes to players in every database is mainly for english clubs.

players from other countries are very poor untill they play good irl and are bought by premeier leauge clubs. after that they get superb attributes 1-2 sesons in FM and then they dissapear and are exchanged for new supertalents.

anyone remeber erik newland and peter prospar late 90s in cm? haha

have 3 difficulties

1:easy for start top clubs , also given extra money and bonus to win and players dont complain so much

2. medium . start with div 2-3 clubs with mayby 1-2 decent players with some money to spend. club should be random

3. random low lvl club at botton of leauge with only possibility to choose low rep manager from start. like old premier manager where u had to start with dover,gateshead or stalybridge.

[DJ Backchat]

i agree hammer 100 the preset tactics just aren't good enough.

at a basic level it should be enough to use the presets and just buy the players for the postitions

[DamianJMcGrath]

Can someone explain something to me, because I'm getting a little confused. People are calling for difficulty levels and the main argument back is that it would more or less be like cheating, editing the AI in some way. I'm not quite sure I see why that is.

In my opinion, CM01/02 was easier to play, easier to win and easier to get into than FM09. I didnt win every game on 01/02 and I didnt want to, but I didnt go on 10-game losing streaks because I misjudged my players morale.

I can't quite put my finger on why it was easier to play - maybe someone can help me out there. But whatever the reason, if I could play FM09 but with the easy-ness of CM01/02 - I'd have the perfect game for me.

Playing CM01/02 wasn't cheating - the AI wasn't disadvantaged from me. I didnt edit any databases. But someone the whole game felt easier than FM09 - so that's how a difficulty control should work.

To my basic mind, why not have something like the following:

Easy - the effect of morale, and some tactical settings is 10%.

Medium - the effect is 50%

Hard - the effect is 100%.

I know that sounds simplistic, but at the moment, the game must do a calculation such as "if more than 5 players morale is less than Good, then the opposition is 10% more likely to win the next game". I know there are a million more variables, and it's obviously not just about morale - it's about form, and your tactics vs. their tactics, but the game must do a calculation where it adds up all your choices, and the qualities of your players and compares them to your opposition's tactics, and players and comes up with a "score" of "The opposition is 10% more likely to win this game", or "your team is 20% more likely to win this game", and it uses that "score" to come up with a winning or losing scoreline at the end of the game, and uses the engine to play the game to that outcome.

Like I said, that simplistic view above might be total wrong but if difficulty settings are used, then it would lower the "weighting" in the calculations for things like morale, and some tactical decisions that the casual gamer might find harder to get into it.

As the difficulty setting was set higher, then the manager would be required to sort out his/her own tactics more in-depth and things like that.

Couldn't something like that work?

[Hammer1000]

i agree hammer 100 the preset tactics just aren't good enough.

at a basic level it should be enough to use the presets and just buy the players for the postitions

Yeah, instead of taking six months trying to work out what the sliders do, these preset tactics would ensure you get the best out of what players you have?

You might still struggle, especially with really poor teams with really poor players, but at least you would know it was because of that or something else YOU were doing wrong as a manager, instead of wondering if you just had 1 or 2 sliders slightly out of place?

[Tricky Dicky]

a lot of guys seem to be missing the point.

my mine gripe is with the level of tactical knowledge now needed to play the game as AcidBurn said the casual user is like his girlfriend and doesn't have time or isn't addicted/geeky enough to go on forums to beat a game.

its lost its straight out of the box pick up and play appeal and if i was a new user say 14+ with no experience of past football managers i could see myself getting frustrated and refusing to play the game.

i know a couple of people who thought fm08 was too hard and as such did not buy fm09.

for the people saying just do this/that or the other.. you've got to remember due to your INCREASED knowledge and EXPERIENCE you're better able to enjoy the game on this tactical level.

and due in part to your level of competence know how to manipulate the dat editor i'd think its safe to presume the average person doesn't

the general population who keep this game in the best seller lists year round aren't the same.

it may not necessitate a difficulty option but the best suggestion i have found so far is better working tactical presets pre loaded into the game

I think sometimes we confuse easy/hard gameplay with easy/hard accessibility. A lot of things in the game are easily accessible. Scouting is logical, transfers are logical (the processes within the game to make them happen), training is somewhat logical, media/player interaction is logical, selecting your team is logical, and suddenly you come to the tactics themselves and you're up against a myriad of sliders. Now I assume that when you understand them they are pretty logical as well, but for the casual gamer and any first time FM player there is no immediate 'football logic' behind them.

My view is that all that is needed is some sort of tactics wizard which is optional and simply sits 'above' the sliders. So you could click 'Attacking', click 'Use Wingers', designate one of your midfielders a 'Holding Midfielder', set your defensive line 'High', set one of your attackers to be a 'Target Man', etc, etc. Then a set of tactics is created by FM where the sliders are automatically set for you.

And make everything visual! If you want to set a target man, right-click on the player on the formation display, set 'Target' and a big T appears above his name.

To me, pulling this off would be a massive step in solving a lot of the issues on this board.

I'm not in any way saying this is an easy step for SI given the complexity of the engine, but it's certainly not impossible. This approach also means the sliders remain, but it is possible for a user to play the game without ever seeing them.

[fgu82]

I am amazed that after all these posts since my last one, there are still a few people around that are against the idea of difficulty levels with the argument "it would kill the realism".

For the 2356th and the last time, in case (just in case) such an option is implemented in any of the future versions, it will definitely not affect those who doesn't want it. They can simply play the game sticking to the "normal" option, whereas people like me, who doesn't have months to spend in order to master this game can choose the "easy" option. Falastur's post at the beginning of the 2nd page really sums up the whole debate. The game is realistic, I can't deny it. But as a loyal FM player (I bought every version of the game since CM3), it really upsets me when I have to go through booklet-like tactic explanation sheets to achieve some success, and even then I fail most of the time.

What we (or at least myself) want is not a "win-all-the-time" FM. A little bit tweaking so that AI's tactics would be less effective would be fine. Transfers, attributes, injuries, everything else can remain the same. Is it too difficult to implement? Please, can someone from SI at least comment on the "theoretical possibility" of the difficulty option?

[DamianJMcGrath]

As my post mentioned, a difficulty option doesnt have to affect the AI.

CM01/02's AI was fine and balanced, but it was an easier game than FM09.

If anyone can figure out why that was and how they would implement the part that made it easier into FM09, then you've got yourself your Easy setting.

It wouldn't even have to be called Easy on the game. Just when you start, the game asks whether you're a Novice manager or an Experienced manager and adjusts the gameplay accordingly, and if it wants to be even more clever about it, it can adjust that setting during the game as your experience grows.

[DJ]

I would not mind difficulty options being there.

I personally would not use anything below the setting 'totally realistic' or 'hardest'.

I would greatly fear the implementation of it breaking something and I also think it would be a massive amount of work, if I understand somewhat what these settings would entail.

Overall, I'm not a fan of the idea.

[SCIAG]

Prepare for a long post.

[SCIAG]

I'm dividing this up into three sections, Arguments for and against, Implementation, and Why Preset Tactics wouldn't work.

Arguments for and against

Oh damn, wrote a few paragraphs on this when I realised it was my answer to "unsackable managers".

The only argument against I can think of is the probable huge amount of time it would take to program. I'd imagine even more bugs would go ignored and we'd get less new features.

However, for it, is the argument that many find it tedious to constantly test tactics. Single clicks on the tactics slider can often be huge over the course of a season. Passes will be slightly shorter, the team will play slightly slower, they'll be slightly wider than needed... perhaps your defensive midfielder could run forward a few times more than he's meant to, or your winger persuaded to try a trick rather than hitting and running. I wouldn't rule out the possiblity of each of these costing several points a season. Training is a long process- possibly 15 minutes to get the required schedules- and scouting adequately also takes a long time.

Any difficultly setting should have one primary aim- helping the user get to grips with FM, and eventually teaching them how to play it on Normal mode.

Implementation

I suggest three difficult modes, normal (what we have now), easy, and very easy (a two season mode that automatically upgrades to easy at the end of the two seasons so as to help with the learning curve.

• A greater volume of tactical advise that is actually accurate.
  

For example, on "normal" the assistant may say "There's a lot of space behind the defence and they are exploiting it."

On "easy" he may say "There's a lot of space in behind the defence and they are exploiting it. Possible solutions include: getting the defenders to play with a very defensive mentality, playing a very deep defensive line, bringing on faster defenders or increasing our left winger's creative freedom" (I don't think all the solutions should actually work). It would then be up to the manager to decide which one, if any, to take.

On "very easy", he may say "they're exploiting the space behind the defence, let's deepen the line and set the defenders' mentality to the far left. If that doesn't work, we can bring on some faster defenders, especially at left back to mark (X pacy winger).

• Logical training schedules ran by assistant
  

Normal mode, obviously, would stay the same here. However, on "very easy" mode, the assistant (or other coach) would set up pre-set training schedules. These would be done logically. It would then be up to the manager to assign certain players to certain schedules (which would be easy, as you'd simply assign your centre backs to the "Centre Backs" schedule.

"Easy" could be done with the help of a coach- you'd be given advice on setting up your schedules. For example, "Your centre backs need to do some Ball Control training, otherwise they may get worse at heading the ball" or "Strikers don't need that much attacking training, as it is only to do with passing".

• Scouting and searching for players.
  

I think on easy mode, the assistant should occaisionally alert you.

"There is a very good right winger in the Championship called Winger X. As we have no right wingers better or potentially better than him, I suggest we sign him up."

"One of Team Y's defensive midfielders is unsettled and looking for a move. I think he might be prepared to come here, and he'd probably make the first team."

"We are in desparate need of a goalkeeper. Therefore, I would recommend the following players discovered by the scouts:

Peter Schmichel

Gordon Banks

Peter Shilton

Gigi Buffon (oo, player naming!)

Steve Death"

Alternatively, this could be done by your best scout or the scout who was in a certain region (the one who discovered that player x at Spanish team n was unsettled would be the one scouting Spain, obviously).

Why pre-set tactics wouldn't work

Tactics really have to be indivual to work. It is extremely rare for someone to get the same results with someone else's tactic, as the tactic chooses the manager. Sorry, couldn't resist. Basically, a tactic has to take in mine everything, for the passing stat (length of passes) of every player, the PPMs of every player, etc. I don't have time to explain it in more detail now.

[psucolonel]

No. Not for everyone it's not. For me, fun comes from success, from achieving things which I could never do in real life, and perhaps even from doing these things better than others have. Just because you find overcoming frustrations to be the definition of fun does not mean that others do, and I see that as a fundamental stumbling block on this issue of people here claiming that because they want full realism in the game then every other player should have to experience full realism too. Personally I find overcoming frustrating challenges to be annoying as I am wound up quite easily, as I believe a number of other people probably are, FM players, gamers in general, and regular people alike. When a game gets very hard, some people become very motivated. Others like myself get annoyed at their lack of success and our motivation is seriously weakened. In a life where no two people are exactly the same, and no two gamers play games exactly the same way, I'm not sure why those who get their kicks from realism should take precedence over those who don't. I can buy "we don't have the time to code difficulty levels" as an excuse for leaving FM as is, but I can't buy "well these guys like realism, so you don't get an opinion", as some people here seem to be arguing. (No fingers pointed at SI for this one, this is merely a response to the words of some people on this thread and others).

I always get a kick out of people like you. OOTP has the same kind of people like you complaining the game is too challenging and too tough to win at. I am going to tell you what I tell them: Maybe this isn't the game for you. There are many other games out there...there are plenty of football or baseball sims out there that are not as complex, and therefore not as challenging. Why people always want to take the one that is most complex and detailed and dumb it down is beyond me.

[SCIAG]

I always get a kick out of people like you. OOTP has the same kind of people like you complaining the game is too challenging and too tough to win at. I am going to tell you what I tell them: Maybe this isn't the game for you. There are many other games out there...there are plenty of football or baseball sims out there that are not as complex, and therefore not as challenging. Why people always want to take the one that is most complex and detailed and dumb it down is beyond me.

The old "Go play FIFA manager" argument only holds substance when the person you're using it on it asking for golf lessons on FM.

And the reason is, because it's by far the best.

[psucolonel]

The old "Go play FIFA manager" argument only holds substance when the person you're using it on it asking for golf lessons on FM.

And the reason is, because it's by far the best.

Ahh...then maybe some of us would like to keep it that way.

[Avelives]

Like i mentioned on the last page people main gripe seems to be the ambiguity and abstract nature of tactics and all the sliders and such like.

This could be easily fixed if SI actually gave DETAILED descriptions of what each one does.

So for instance when you switch the passing slider to long it tells you (roughly) the maximum length of any given pass they will attempt. Likewise when you set the mentality setting it displays a band of colour on the formation screen showing exactly what area that player will operate in.

This is all thats needed, the sliders work, the tactics work but SI insist on giving the same misleading and poor descriptions of the tactics settings in every single version.

Also id personally love to get rid of the creative freedom slider, its total nonsense and just further complicates an already complex system. How far outside of your instructions a player operates should be based purely on their creativity and flair.

Anyway im still oposed to difficulty levels i just think SI need to once and for all release a proper set of exact descriptions as to what the sliders do, and maybe more in game feedback displayed like coloured circles around a player showing their sphere of influence and passing ranges etc etc

[Falastur]

I always get a kick out of people like you. OOTP has the same kind of people like you complaining the game is too challenging and too tough to win at. I am going to tell you what I tell them: Maybe this isn't the game for you.

And I get a kick out of people like you. I've read so many arguments on this forum that essentially are "I win at this game. I rock so much. Therefore, my opinion counts and other peoples' don't." You seem to forget that the object of making a game is not to make it as complicated as possible, thus inflating the egos of those who succeed. It is to provide an experience which is both fun and topical. Yes, realism is to be praised in a game such as FM, but there comes a point when adding too much realism detracts from the quality. For instance, would you really enjoy it if SI made it so that you can't look at a players' stats but have to spend literally hours watching DVDs and live performances of each player you want to sign, working out the stats yourself, only to find that the player isn't right for you? Would you like to have directors of football be hired by your club, depriving you of any say in the transfer market? Or maybe your leading striker getting arrested and jailed for commiting some stupid act while drunk after clubbing one night? Yes, the complexity of the tactics makes the game more realistic, but surely if there comes a point where it becomes impossible to win without spending weeks revising your tactics, you have to stand back and say "this is killing the playability of the game". I mean no disrespect to SI, but if this trend continues, it may happen, all the while with the hardcore players egging them on to ever greater levels of difficulty just because it suits their egos to overcome the challenge. I don't doubt that if it ever came to a point where literally only a few hundred or thousand players managed to be successful even to a "mid-table position" level that many of those would still boast of their achievements and campaign for keeping the game as is, but surely if the game gets that hard then sales of the game would be killed and SI would be in major financial trouble. None of us are arguing that SI should dumb the game down completely and make it "easy or nothing". But we seem to be heading to a position where a large percentage of the player base - perhaps well over 50%, we don't really know - are finding the game too hard and are stopping playing in a very short amount of time. We're not even demanding the implementation of a difficulty setting here, we're merely discussing the issue and wondering if SI will make a comment, but I'd like to reiterate that just because you may be good at the game, it doesn't make it your plaything and as purchasers and players of the game, we surely should at least have a chance to think about such things on the forums.

Edit: On a different, and more happy note, having read back through a few posts I'd missed, I broadly agree with SCIAG's implementation ideas. It's that kind of user-friendly system that could really help the less tactically-ingenious get into the game, imo.

[Yallii]

The game shouldn't have difficulty settings. It should have selectable modules. Don't like media? Get rid of media. Don't like team talks? Get rid of team talks. There are too many features in this game that just look good on the box but get really repetitititive after hardly a season. It's killer for the gameplay/fun element. I've totally fallen out of love with the PC version over the past three editions and find myself drifting towards the PSP one. That one gets better each year.

[fgu82]

And I get a kick out of people like you. I've read so many arguments on this forum that essentially are "I win at this game. I rock so much. Therefore, my opinion counts and other peoples' don't." You seem to forget that the object of making a game is not to make it as complicated as possible, thus inflating the egos of those who succeed. It is to provide an experience which is both fun and topical. Yes, realism is to be praised in a game such as FM, but there comes a point when adding too much realism detracts from the quality. For instance, would you really enjoy it if SI made it so that you can't look at a players' stats but have to spend literally hours watching DVDs and live performances of each player you want to sign, working out the stats yourself, only to find that the player isn't right for you? Would you like to have directors of football be hired by your club, depriving you of any say in the transfer market? Or maybe your leading striker getting arrested and jailed for commiting some stupid act while drunk after clubbing one night? Yes, the complexity of the tactics makes the game more realistic, but surely if there comes a point where it becomes impossible to win without spending weeks revising your tactics, you have to stand back and say "this is killing the playability of the game". I mean no disrespect to SI, but if this trend continues, it may happen, all the while with the hardcore players egging them on to ever greater levels of difficulty just because it suits their egos to overcome the challenge. I don't doubt that if it ever came to a point where literally only a few hundred or thousand players managed to be successful even to a "mid-table position" level that many of those would still boast of their achievements and campaign for keeping the game as is, but surely if the game gets that hard then sales of the game would be killed and SI would be in major financial trouble. None of us are arguing that SI should dumb the game down completely and make it "easy or nothing". But we seem to be heading to a position where a large percentage of the player base - perhaps well over 50%, we don't really know - are finding the game too hard and are stopping playing in a very short amount of time. We're not even demanding the implementation of a difficulty setting here, we're merely discussing the issue and wondering if SI will make a comment, but I'd like to reiterate that just because you may be good at the game, it doesn't make it your plaything and as purchasers and players of the game, we surely should at least have a chance to think about such things on the forums.

Edit: On a different, and more happy note, having read back through a few posts I'd missed, I broadly agree with SCIAG's implementation ideas. It's that kind of user-friendly system that could really help the less tactically-ingenious get into the game, imo.

Man, you are my hero

[CaptainPlanet]

I think this would be a big move in the right direction for SI to consider this. I think they have considered it in part due to some implemented items anyway, such as the assistant manager and the wide range of detailed pre-set tactics, ideas that have been put in to try and make the game more accessible to everyone.

I enjoy the difficulty level and realism offered in this game, whereas I know lots of people who don't enjoy it and have stopped playing the series because it caters too much towards hardcore gamers and not enough towards the casual player. It doesn't have the option to "pick up and play" like so many other games on the market do.

The complexity and level of detail is what makes FM stand out above the rest, so that shouldn't be comprimised, but making the game more widely played can only be a good thing for everyone. More money made to put in to development, bigger community and ultimately more happy people!

As far as implementation goes, it is perfectly feasible for the game to feel realistic and yet still be easier - I'm suprised that so many people don't understand this concept. As brought up before FM05 felt realistic, you picked tactics and played games but it was a lot easier to win than it is now. The tactics and the match engine are the main things that would need to be tweaked, simplifying the tactics screen and increasing the chance of your players making a successful pass/tackle/shot can easily be kept within the illusion of realism.

A lot of people have taken the realism aspect too far, and that is to the credit of SI who have clearly created a bit of a monster as the series has evolved. But at the end of the day it is a game, that is played for fun, and is sold to ALL gamers to make money and as such would benefit from widening the scope.

[CaptainPlanet]

My view is that all that is needed is some sort of tactics wizard which is optional and simply sits 'above' the sliders. So you could click 'Attacking', click 'Use Wingers', designate one of your midfielders a 'Holding Midfielder', set your defensive line 'High', set one of your attackers to be a 'Target Man', etc, etc. Then a set of tactics is created by FM where the sliders are automatically set for you.

Good idea

[Iggy]

I agree with the ones like Tricky Dicky (original nickname) that it's not really the game itself that is too hard, it's the way we have to learn what the tactics we put in really mean that is the tricky part.

[LeoVieira]

I agree that FM should have two difficult levels, as i've been saying for a couple of months since i joined the SI forums.

But if SI decides not to implement diffucult levels, then they should look at making the game harder/more realistic, to those people who doesn't wanna just left click all day and wants a challenge, with w/e team he decides to play. While those who wants to take their favorite BSS team to European glory without losing their heads, they at least have the cheat option, since it IS the same as playing an easy game, because when you play the "easy" mode, like it was in FM08 and previous versions, you're pretty much just exploiting the game flaws (stupid AI etc).

But anyway, give a couple of weeks and you'll see people with their unbeatable tactics again, winning everything season after season, and the game will suddenly become lovely to them. And i fear that with 9.2 patch, SI will assist those who come here to moan that they're struggling making the ME easier for them. I agree there are bugs on the ME right now, and that SI should fix them, but without losing its realism of couse.

[aka.arrogantio]

A difficulty option has been a much needed feature ever since CM/FM moved from being a management to micromanagement.

It's nothing to do with improving the win/loss ratio to ensure your team of potential playoff contenders win the division with something to spare. It's actually nothing to do with winning itself.

It's about having a reasonable chance of victory against marginally inferior opponents without having to show each member of the opposition onto their weaker foot at the start of every game and switch from NormalAway442 to NormalAwayDefensive442 after scoring, NormalAwayPossession442 after scoring a second, back to NormalAwayDefensive442 after conceding and then ShutUpShop442 on 80 minutes when the opposition throw their wingers into the attack...

The problem isn't that match outcomes are too realistic and that player managed teams need artificially boosted abilities to give them an advantage. The problem is quite the opposite - even world class teams in FM behave as automatons who slavishly follow their manager's instructions down to the last metre of width, so not tweaking effectively puts them at an unrealistic disadvantage in all but the most one sided of contests. This isn't helped by official documentation being so poor that people had to read tactics forum experiments to realise the natural interpretation of the "closing down" and "defensive line" sliders is completely different from what they actually do... but the problem is that most casual players want tweaking these sliders to be the exception rather than the rule.

Many people that want an "easy" match engine probably don't want "easy" transfer markets, scouting, and budget balances,* particularly those that like playing long term challenges who love to spot bargains and develop youngsters but want to get routine league fixtures out the way quickly. That doesn't mean they want to win them all, but it does mean they expect that a balanced 4-4-2 with the odd change here and there to get balanced results as in the classic versions.

The "easy" match engine would therefore be best described as a "reduced sensitivity" match engine. These could probably using the exact same sliders but with scaled down impact so that:

i) opposition managers make fewer, less drastic tactical adjustments from their standard setup before and during the game to "counter" your style and/or chase the game

ii) player movement and decision making is governed more by the match situation and their attributes and less by the manager settings.

This wouldn't even be close to a "win" button - actually it would probably make the job of tactically outwitting superior teams to pull off against-the-odds victories harder - but it would make it much harder for a human manager to underperform whilst making sensible but not always optimal decisions. Defending a lead with ten minutes to go, your midfield protecting the lead would automatically drop a little deeper to pick up more attacking opponents, who wouldn't have been asked to stretch you as much as in the full version anyway. Further tactical changes would be a matter of cautious preference rather than necessity.

Naturally, if you wanted instant success, you'd still need a top team to achieve it, but the key point would be that it would be possible for the casual player doing nothing more than playing a balanced default attacking formation with some decent signings and a few sensible adaptations when things go wrong.

Yes, developing and testing two match engines is a lot of work (although in practice it's only 1.5 match engines because the "easy" match engine is derived from the main one and it's probably not so crucial to neutralise exploits since the whole purpose of the "easy" match engine is to satisfy the needs of the type of people that use exploits). But it would also be a massive boost for accessibility for the casual gamer and for those wanting to race through the seasons.

*If you wanted to introduce "easy" selling, "easy" buying, "easy" scouting and "easy" media I think these would also (to a much lesser extent) be desirable, as options which a player not choosing to play on normal difficulty could select. I guess it's possible that some people might even wish to play with the intricate tactical details of the full match engine but the ability to easily buy and sell whole new squads and not face so much hostility from board, fans or players when they do get things wrong. Consequently, I think it's important that difficulty levels in the match engine are kept separately from difficulty levels which might make the other aspects of management a doddle.

[phonicsdude]

The last post hits the nail on the head. I will say briefly why difficulty levels are a good idea and then follow through.

As has been stated FM is a game where the details count. Given that they are important it requires a close attention to these details from the User. The argument for this evolution is that it is more realistic.

This strikes to the heart of the problem. A real manager has an infinite number of options. He can literally do whatever he likes. He doesnt have 5 options of what to say or do at half-time. He has thousands. He can be more nuanced than any game can possibly account for. He can be creative!

This is the aspect of real management that a game can never hope to replicate. It is beyond its scope. Short of having thousands of options for a half-time team talk (and any number of aspects of the game) it cannot be as realistic as real life. On this point I am reminded of "Ray Houghton's Incredible Involvement in Making Uber-Realistic Training Options" that was introduced for one edition of FM only to be pulled for the next edition. Why was it unpopular?

Because it was too complicated. In order for those options to have meaning and value you need to be in there in the flesh. Otherwise it is too complicated.

The tension here is illustrated by the Pro Evo/Fifa divide. The former is more playable and arcadey whilst the latter is more realistic, did have real names etc but was less satisfying to play.

FM is a game. And just a game. If it could become more realistic in terms of complexity it would be undesirable.

The direction it should be going in is more realism in terms of bredth (such as moves in the past to add new team talks, new match engines and greater press interaction) but not complexity.

This is not to deny FM geeks the chance to nerd out if they want to. It must be understood that many people want more of an arcadey feel to the game (by which I mean, like Fm 2007 and previously) where the amount of time the User has to invest in the game to see good results is adequately proportional to the extent a game can reflect reality.

On the other hand, these FM geeks, if they want their infinite number options...great! So do I! Go out and get some coaching badges and coach a Sunday Team or a Youth Team. This country, unlike Italy, France and Spain, has a shortage of good quality coaches. Go get the real experience, earn money for it and add to the pool of coaching talent. Come join me! It's great...

To conclude: A game has to reflect reality without trying to be reality. It cannot hope to possibly achieve this whilst being satisfying to play. It is not really more realistic to insert more options. The options added on the game which are paramount in order to win (right down to the movements of individual players) only have value in real life because the manager has an infinite many mental, technical and tactical options. Not because he's constrained to sliders.

Acceptance.

[Surferosa]

I've thought for a good while that it should have a 'Light' (Lite) setting. Difficulty settings just don't seem viable to me within the match engine (not without, as has been suggested- nerfing the database which of course kills realism rather than reduces complexity- which would be my aim).

One key diference though; not really for interests of making the game easier per-se; but making it quicker in terms of time to complete a season. When starting with a new team, I can literally spend 8-10 hours before Ive even played a match- which given job / family / Other RL- is just too long. Even a single match can take 20 minutes or so to play; depending on the amount of tweaking that I have to do.

Its more the ability to have a global setting that turns off some of the functionality. For example, the Light Setting could;

Turn off media interaction

Turn off tactical adjustment (ie only out-of-the-box formations can be used)

Turn off OI

Turn off training

Turn off staff ability & interaction (ie set all staff with to a default ability)

Automated scouting

Etc, etc

Im sure other things could be added; indeed, it would be excellent if you could opt in/out of some of these settings individually.

However, critically the game would need to be recoded to make sure these settings apply to both the AI and the human managers alike; so that the level-playing field is maintained. And my guess is that it is this which is the stumbling block.

[CaptainPlanet]

Stop stealing ideas from me!

[Giarc Ronyag]

In short, I don't think it should have a difficulty option.

[Surferosa]

Stop stealing ideas from me!

Hadn't seen your post- and to be honest although we're thinking along similiar lines I don't think we're quite on the same page. You talk about the features that have added more randomness creating more difficulty (which I agree with).

However, I dont have a problem with the difficulty; I have an issue with the complexity. And complexity has drastically increased the time it takes to complete the average season (I remember on CM2 being able to complete a season in around 12 or so hours). Whereas I can now spend that on pre-season alone.

Where we have ended up at solving both issues in similar manners is a opt in/out approach to selecting/deselecting certain features. Personally, I think if anything like this was ever implemented; it could only be done on a Lite / Pro version (ie advanced features off/on). Maybe Arcade / Simulation modes would be better descriptors. The check boxes would of course be the ultimate in user-configurability.. but nigh on impossible to code I would think (certainly within the typical development time & resource contraints).

No for me this is about no-longer being able to spend the vast amount of time that I used to on the game; even if I wanted to. And, spending a couple of hours every other evening will most likely see me around a month or so to complete a season; which isnt that appealing. Then again, its a very good game, I usually get hooked- so its back to fighting with the wife over the amount of time I spend on it

Oh- and I dont think either suggestion is particularly unique; the debate around 'easy' mode in general has really been around since the complexity ramped up around CM4. There was a fine debate on it on the old forums; its crops up with every new release, recently (Ive mentioned it before many times, and Im sure it'll crop up again).

What the years have seen change though is the time it takes to play (ie per game year). I doubt it'll ever be implemented; and maybe (for me at least) the handheld version is the SI answer to reduced complexity / quicker play-times.

Then again- I never thought I'd see a 3D version

[Mr Sandman]

i think a difficulty setting would be utter nonsense. people who can't do well on the game just read the tactics forum sticky, it's great.

[CaptainPlanet]

i think a difficulty setting would be utter nonsense. people who can't do well on the game just read the tactics forum sticky, it's great.

Way to read the thread