Friendly fire: The long-term development of Football Manager

[Svenc]

I've never been a hugely massively part of FM's generally wider community. But recent developments appear to cause rifts in between the development/treatment of the game respectively Sports Interactive and some of its long-term player base. Only recently saw this, but there is Tifo, for instance, a combined effort of some of the more in-depth players to get more in-depth content published and made accessible, which apparently isn't wanted, or at least not very much favored by Sports Interactive anymore. It's got quite a few CM/FM veterans in behind now, including former founding fathers of old CM/FM sites that are now pretty much in limbo compared to their former days, such as Sortitoutsi.

In behind it is also people you may have read from, such as Cleon and rashidi. Some of their posts in the blog made for some disheartening reading though, not only taken the history of the game into account, which at the start was a garage job of brothers of two, and Miles&co who used to connect quite frequently also got to the studio through comm networking initially. Even if it weren't for work commitments, I can see how and why they pretty much all bowed out of posting on forums altogether, as the abuse and tone had changed massively from back then. The anonymity provided by such platforms has that habit of turning even decent folk into massive ducks on occasion. Additionally some of the accusations leveled at Sports Interactive in the blogs, and the experiences shared, seem to hint at that for the long-term, "seen it all" player base, the future might not be as bright indeed. It's not that the game should be targeted at them exclusively, mind, nor could afford to given the team size which has grown hugely. And apparently, still does grow.

Balancing the game is tricky, as there's so many different players playing it. Taking over AFC Wimbledon and getting them to win the Premiership? That's got to be covered for someone. You've got those who sign up for Real Madrid and who expect to field a "bog standard 4-4-2" (whatever that even means) and add some additionally trophies to their cabinet. Then there's those that expect there to be a some hurdles along that way, starlets demanding moves and the world's best paid part-time employees bitching to start some more. And then there's those with their 500 matches runs unbeaten growing a little bored along the way, probably. Whilst I personally think the level of AI management and transfer AI has always improved so far, and the level of assistants, though rarely tried, is enough for newbies to make them guide their side to at least meet expectations mostly, there will come a day when you won't be able to please everyone, and the picture painted here seems to be one of a company that (understandably) can't rely on veterans. They have to bring in new people every year. And not every veteran wants to see the same game too. Some of them stop playing altogether.

Even during regular months off of time, I quite like the game, it's the only game that replicates football somewhat proper really, 90 minutes of madness and one shot in twenty being able to settle a tie. A genuine sim of kinds, and no crooks corrupting and exploiting it to boot. It's getting bigger so far every release. If I'd want any less, I could boot up Fifa Manager or any other F2P management game really. But the official documentation made by SI has been terrible all throughout. There hasn't been a manual proper for almost a decade, a move that may have or may have not been put forward by Sega (imagine an about equally complex Paradox Interactive boxed game shipping like this). There's the online help, which when it works and doesn't prompt a 404 (it does or at least did on occasion), barely acknowledges stuff that is in the game, even some basic content, like players also being modeled by hidden traits. Additionally, whenever there's a quite impactful change, such as this season's improved counter attacks or overhauls in regards to various tactical settings, you'll be lucky for a mod on some tactics forum to slip it somewhere. There's no excuse for that, in particular for the latter, and apparently that ambiguity is actively encouraged even. It's firstly puzzling why SI seem to actively discourage slightly more in-depth stuff, and secondly it makes you wonder what the long-term plans for AI managers really is thus. Initially FM Touch, formerly Classic, had already been pitched as a stand-alone release according to staff, even though it isn't an "easier" game as such, just a little less "baby fat", as its fans may have it. So far nobody could explain the changes in behind the current tactical overhauls either, and how they could possibly improve the AI (as some stuff is actually far less forward than before, perhaps no wonder why). And perhaps more importantly it seems puzzling why people feel disgruntled who cover it all up for free in their spare time.

FM's been always pitched as a game for football fans. That's a broad term. Are SI on a route to be rather selective about it?

[Kriss]

To produce what (I think you envisage) would be a full time project for the whole studio for an awful long time :)If SI even thought it was something they wanted to do.

[fabioke]

FM without Cleon and Rashidi would not be the same. SI should cherish our guide and content creators. They put a lot of work for free in it to enhance our experience.

[bucket]

Totally agree about the manual. It's stupid that it doesn't come with one anymore. I'm trying to get my step-boys in to it. One 17 one 14 and it's hard. Trying to teach them all the little tricks etc and tactics etc. The guide isn't great neither.

[forameuss]

They don't need a manual - at least not a paper-based one. In fact, I'd shy away from that as then all you'd get is a thick list of definitions. The holy grail would be something online that had a bit more of an interactive element to it, but that in itself is difficult to provide with the way the game works.

Essentially, the community - and more accurately, the way a lot of consumers seem to act nowadays - has led to SI withdrawing largely from the forums, and being the more silent company you see today. There's a lot entitlement, and the anonymous nature of the forums means you can pretty much say whatever you want, and all you'll get is a ban from the forums. The same entitlement has become most developers nightmare, and SI especially. As you've covered, this is a game that tries to be all things to all people. It would be bad business to go down one route and alienate a large proportion of their fanbase, so what they do now is probably the best of all Worlds. But then if it's not to someone's taste, they'll just come on and lambast it like it's the worst thing ever, and that it must be fixed. They'll never be able to win in that regard.

Personally, my theory (note, theory) is that the ME has now become so big that it's impossible to truly document, and I'd even go as far as saying that the devs will never fully be able to say scientifically what the ME is doing. Of course they have a general direction, and they're coding towards that, but it isn't a straight action a + action b = action c. More like a hundred actions combining, most of which are hidden away, and are producing a good result. It's good it's doing what you want it to do in the end, but what do those extra hidden actions mean? How do you document that?

[fabioke]

@forameuss

The attacks directed at Miles on Twitter are way more way more vicious than anything I've seen on this forum.

[forameuss]

@forameuss

The attacks directed at Miles on Twitter are way more way more vicious than anything I've seen on this forum.

Yeah, very true. But then Twitter is often like that - baffling when a lot of the time it's attributed to a real live person with a picture, kids these days, country's gone to the dogs, etc etc. It's not that there's anything really bad on the forums, but as a developer myself, I can see why it would be demoralising to get some of the stuff that gets posted on here. And I'd imagine that it wasn't down to the content, it was just down to the fact that they were exposed to it, getting drawn into conversations about certain things with people that wouldn't want to really listen to what they had to say.

I've worked in companies where it's 50% meetings, where you sit on a call and discuss what you're going to do, rather than actually going and doing it. And then I've been in places where you spend your day actually doing things. No prizes for guessing which is more productive.

[Neil Brock]

Just for a bit of clarification, an online manual is published every year and the one for FM16 can be located on our website here - http://www.footballmanager.com/manual/fm2016/introduction/welcome-to-football-manager-2016

It's not to the level requested in here but it does cover some of the basics.

One of our affiliates http://www.guidetofootballmanager.com/ covers a bit more as do various other guides available via other affiliates. On the one hand I'd like it if we produced more general guide based content but the community have always excelled in doing so. It's definitely something that needs thought and discussion to find the best way of providing this information as the in-game tutorial only goes so far.

And as someone who has tried some Paradox games, I found their manuals not of much use considering the depth of the game and basically learnt how to play by watching YouTube videos. I think everyone can be catered for in different ways.

[Lawlore]

To my mind, I had always understood the Tactics Forum as being the place for those who wanted to get knee-deep in tactical analysis to thrive. It was designed for the kinds of think-pieces and discussions and debates that appealed to others with that interest- ways of testing and stretching the ME, developing an intricate knowledge of it for both their own interest and, as a nice side-effect, the betterment of the community as a whole. In some respects, it lines up with the Editors Hideaway for editing, and the Skinning Hideout for graphics.

However, in the last few years, there does seem to have been a shift, culminating in the "It's Your Tactics" peak (and subsequent banning of that phrase) a few versions back, where it felt like every other GD post was directing someone to the Tactics Forum. The game's own documentation, in-game and outside of it, is not up to scratch- that's not a controversial statement. The forum became something of a crutch, where ordinary players were being sent because they did not understand how the game worked, not because they were especially interested in becoming knee-deep in tactical analysis. The game became more complex, and the Tactics Forum were used to fill in the gaps that were left from explaining it- with occasional comments leaking over to GD.

The example that sticks with me will always be someone stating in GD that it was obvious that the first problem with someone's tactic was that all of their defenders were on a Defence mentality. It was at that point that I realised that there was this huge disconnect from what the game was saying and what information was being picked up from the forums- take a step back, close your eyes and ask yourself, why is that "obvious"? Defenders are there to defend. The game wasn't telling you why that could cause a problem. Those who knew how the game worked and what setting a "Defend" mentality actually meant were doing the explaining.

And yet, the big hitters of the Tactics forum, including names mentioned here, generally took the time and effort to get involved with people who had less tactical knowledge or interest in tinkering. They still wrote their long pieces and held their debates and discussions, but they became that crutch, and they did so for the benefit of the game and the wider community. FM has long been a game with roots in the community- from researchers and editors to graphics designers, tacticians and story-tellers. It's a dense game and a complex game and a beautiful game, and their role became a key one, because they were helping people as a whole understand the game better. The lack of documentation leads to "The ME sucks!" posts in GD, which in turn leads to "It's your tactics" replies, which in turn leads to people finding out more from those in the know either in GD or at the Tactics forum. But not everyone makes that complete journey- I shudder to think how many don't get beyond the "The ME sucks!" post. The ME doesn't suck- it is a complex and massive beast, and without a doubt the best simulation of real football, as Sven rightly points out in the OP.

I don't know exactly what's gone down here, what the major issue is or where this schism has come from- I'm way out of the loop, so I may also be way off base, and if that's true, then I apologise. As with Sven, I don't have any involvement in fansites- this is the first I've heard of Tifo, or visited the site, and I don't look at Twitter. I also don't frequent the Tactics forum, but I hugely respect the people who know their stuff there, and have personally received some excellent support from them in the past. However, even someone like me can see how the role of the Tactics Forum and those who are involved there has changed with recent editions, with the game becoming more complex and yet less well documented. If what I'm understanding is that SI are no longer giving support to the people who have dedicated their own time and effort to helping the game and the community grow and develop, then it's a sad day indeed.

[Kenco]

Totally agree about the manual. It's stupid that it doesn't come with one anymore. I'm trying to get my step-boys in to it. One 17 one 14 and it's hard. Trying to teach them all the little tricks etc and tactics etc. The guide isn't great neither.

Personally I don't believe a manual to teach you all the tricks and tactics would be a good thing. The game is trying to simulate being a Football Manager and real football managers don't get manuals. They learn by doing and the game is challenging you to do the same.

[Silent_Thunder]

Personally I don't believe a manual to teach you all the tricks and tactics would be a good thing. The game is trying to simulate being a Football Manager and real football managers don't get manuals. They learn by doing and the game is challenging you to do the same.

Actually real football managers go on coaching courses, and more importantly aren't trying to figure out how to translate the ideas in their heads into specific computer instructions. You just tell the players your idea.

[forameuss]

Actually real football managers go on coaching courses, and more importantly aren't trying to figure out how to translate the ideas in their heads into specific computer instructions. You just tell the players your idea.

But would you really want a manual that says "when this, do this"? Just seems like you're distilling the challenge down into nothing.

[MBarbaric]

But would you really want a manual that says "when this, do this"? Just seems like you're distilling the challenge down into nothing.

nope, but general rules about how to translate your ideas into FM would do everyone a load of good.

i am also way away from any sites or anything and after reading the stuff svenc posted and visiting the site, reading the back story, indeed a sad day for fm. it owes a lot to community and distancing itself from its community is first step towards SI being more like EA than all involving and open to community as we remember it being.

[forameuss]

I missed the link initially actually, so having a read at it now. While there's points I agree with - and let's face it, Cleon has more than deserved to say it given his contribution - there's also points I don't. Particularly around the "no competition, loads of bugs" paragraph, which is just massively oversimplifying and disingenuous.

I'm probably going to get shouted down, but the more I read it, the more it just seems like it wants credit from SI for what they've written, and have them say "look what this person's done". Why is recognition so important? Quite disillusioning really - Cleon has helped hundreds upon hundreds of FM users with his advice, why do you need SI to promote those things? I can understand it's annoying, but seems like a bit of an overreaction.

it owes a lot to community and distancing itself from its community is first step towards SI being more like EA than all involving and open to community as we remember it being.

Come on, comparing them to EA? Even if SI have dropped their game over the years, they're a million miles away from EA. They remain a massively open developer with how many avenues the community has for changing their game, even if they aren't contributing much on the forums. Personally I'd rather they kept developing rather than conversed with people on here. Their social media presence may be a bit ham-fisted and rubbish, but then social media is inherently ham-fisted and rubbish, despite being "the future".

[YKW]

But would you really want a manual that says "when this, do this"? Just seems like you're distilling the challenge down into nothing.

No-one is suggesting that.

Knowing what to do and when to do it is the challenge of being a Football Manager, no-one is asking for this to be explained to them. The issue is, as in the post you quoted, "translating the ideas in their heads into specific computer instructions." Clearly this is a description of not understanding what the tactical instructions do, not one of wanting the 'right' instructions. In my opinion you are distilling his post down into something absurd, which it never was.

There shouldn't be any challenge in terms of knowing what you have instructed. Real managers speak to their players every day and have the benefit of language to communicate their exact wishes to the team. Therefore in a management simulation I should be able to communicate my exact wishes to the team. What I am communicating to the team isn't my exact wishes as I don't fully understand the options and their knock on effects.

Speaking personally, I am finding the tactical side of the game a lot like trying to play a racing game where the button that makes the car accelerate keeps changing. Sure I could keep playing and learn the pattern so that eventually I can accelerate whenever I want, but the fact remains that the challenge of the game is in a place it shouldn't be, and just isn't fun.

In terms of football management the challenges include:

- Knowing which instructions your players are able to perform

- Knowing which instructions your players are willing to perform

- Understanding how the opposition are set up tactically

- Understanding which instructions will benefit your situation the most, be it attack or defence

Knowing what your instructions are should comprise 0% of the challenge. The game is hard enough to figure out without a variable that should be known (my instructions) being fuzzy and uncertain. Personally I am just not finding the tactical side of things fun. Saying that, I am playing almost every day again for the first time since 12, and am pretty absorbed in my game.

In terms of addressing the problem that I think is there, I think we need practical advice. I love the efforts of the guide makers and tactical wizards, but having read all of their guides I still feel I only have a philosophical and/or theoretical understanding of the tactical system at best. This means I'm kind of mindlessly following rules such as setting my fluidity in relation to the number of specialist roles, but still having no idea what fluidity really means in the game, and having too little understanding to try and use it to my advantage. Although I like the help of the backroom in terms of tactics for matches, it gets more confusing when they suggest a drastic change to fluidity in the next match while making no mention of roles. So what does fluidity do?

One thing I think I have noticed is that playing an Advanced Forward tends to attract long balls into space for him to run onto, even at times when that is contrary to my tactical instructions or the role of the passing player. I could be wrong, but I think this is an example of a hardcoded behaviour at the level of the role, meaning it is fairly likely to happen regardless of the player playing the role. In a sense, the roles all come with implied 'tactics.' I'm fine with this, but it could be stated explicitly that this will happen, and so on for the other roles, so that I can actually build a tactic based on specific things I want to happen rather than just a philosophy that I don't understand in practice.

[MBarbaric]

if there ever was need for an upvote on these forums... YKW is deserving it.

i won't even touch on fluidity as i always leave it on balanced. i simply can't get into the depth of it. it has zero football sense and it is a tool for translating football in football management game. and the tool is horrendous.

however, i'd like to know what kind of behaviour is hardcoded into what kind of role. what trequartista means to me and SI is completely different thing and i'd love to know what SI had in mind. the explanation given with it is way to vague to fully understand what he will do on the pitch in the game.

[Lawlore]

if there ever was need for an upvote on these forums... YKW is deserving it.

i won't even touch on fluidity as i always leave it on balanced. i simply can't get into the depth of it. it has zero football sense and it is a tool for translating football in football management game. and the tool is horrendous.

however, i'd like to know what kind of behaviour is hardcoded into what kind of role. what trequartista means to me and SI is completely different thing and i'd love to know what SI had in mind. the explanation given with it is way to vague to fully understand what he will do on the pitch in the game.

This has always been my issue with the descriptions of roles too. If I am setting a player as a Trequartista, what- in game terms- am I telling them to do? Only by knowing that can I decide if that is the right role selection for what I actually want them to try to do. Whether my tactic is sound or not is not the concern- that's management. It's whether the tactic I am trying to implement is actually being put into place by the roles I am selecting.

[Silent_Thunder]

Words Words Words

One of the slight steps in that regard that I've seen from the FM16 demo was the instructions page being graphical now, so it at least makes it easier to paint an entire mental picture. Of course I'm still banging my head against the fm15 one because other things (XCOm 2 among others) ate my video game budget these past few months.

[qwerty22]

For a game about football management, It's pretty embarrassing that at this stage of it's development we still saw unrealistic 5-7 results like FM 15, and overpowered crossing this year that basically negates any tactical philosophies.

I would expect users to post match segments where their regens and teams are playing to the philosophy of the manager, But in reality it's tactical gurus writing paragraph after paragraph of tactical insight then the highlights would be the same goals over and over again. I'm talking 2D btw.

[forameuss]

No-one is suggesting that.

Knowing what to do and when to do it is the challenge of being a Football Manager, no-one is asking for this to be explained to them. The issue is, as in the post you quoted, "translating the ideas in their heads into specific computer instructions." Clearly this is a description of not understanding what the tactical instructions do, not one of wanting the 'right' instructions. In my opinion you are distilling his post down into something absurd, which it never was.

I'd disagree with the no-one, as I'm fairly sure there would be players out there who would love that kind of manual. Go look at the tactics download threads for people that just want an instant win button effectively. Of course they don't represent the majority, but to say no-one would want that is wrong.

Not really sure why the white-knighting either. My post to MBarbaric was meant more generally than I wrote it. MBarbaric clarified what he/she thought, and fair enough, point taken.

The issue of challenge - while it'd be nice if the game could be mapped perfectly against real life, I doubt it ever will be. There's always going to be that degree of trying to map what you want to do against what the engine is going to do. Personally - and other experiences can and will differ - I see the challenge in that disconnect. I can treat the game and real life football as different, and the quest is to find out what inputs give winning as an output. Is it always going to be logical? Maybe not, but more often than not. Will it mean I'm effectively interviewing for a football manager job in real life? Absolutely not.

I already said previously that I'd want more practical guides, rather than just piles and piles of text written at a high level. That would be more accessible to more people, but as I already said they'd be the most difficult to write to a useful standard.

Cliff notes though, documentation continues to need work. They've gone in the right direction with the tactical instructions screen in the way it's presented, so hopefully they're continuing to develop in that vein.

[grade]

For years the Editor sub-forum people have been asking for some sort of guide and what did SI gave us all these years? Just silence, maybe occasional reply from someone at SI. The issue is just that, the lack of communication has been growing. Year after year, specially after SI decided on the stance that game features are there to be find out by the gamers. The guide for the editor has become more important, with the unlock of the Advance Editor and yet, no guides. The guides we get are by users (that is scattered around the web) or simply suggestions from other users to simply download a existing file and see how it works or how it was implemented. Like self-taught kinda vibe to it. That is what we get close to a guide for the Advanced editor.

The issue here is that some of user here, work for free on their spare time, (at the cost, we can even imagine) for the love of the game and there is little interest from SI, for the job they do. We are all here, because in some way we love the game, so much that we spent our free time to do the something that improves the game experience. When that work is felt cast a side, or pretty much your work is thrown out the window, because some at SI, change their minds and wanted a more streamline or simplistic guide, throwing two weeks of work out the window, can cause a serious rift between the SI and the writer and potencially the community. It even wonders why SI don't want such a guide in the first place. If I was on the same position, I would probably have the same reaction, I would felt unrespected for the work I produced all these years, specially, as many users here do and do well.

I for one I'm interested in the Tifo project and the potential of bringing the community together, something these forums aren't, for vierity of reasons. It will be a very interesting period...

[shirajzl]

Such a popular video game like FM has to have clearly understandable and transparent game mechanics. It's down to numbers, "x" influences "y" by "z" margin if you do a, b or c.

Paradox games have been brought up and they have just that. While their official guides are not THAT good, they're still miles ahead of what we have in FM. Both out-of-the-game manual and in-game feedback is clear cut. You always KNOW why x happened instead of y.

One would argue you can't really compare grand strategy games with football management simulation, but I think their scope and depth warrants comparisons. Paradox titles are, much like FM, a very popular, albeit a niche product. The level of details is scary for a newcomer, and that's exactly where transparency kicks in.

Another argument would be that you can't really reveal everything because it would lose a sense of realism. Well, grand strategy games simulate managing a nation's military, diplomacy and economy in a historical context while using transparent game mechanics and they work fine. Yes, having your nation's diplomacy at 200 instead of 190 looks and feels gamey and unrealistic, but you can't really have a good PC game without such clarity.

As rashidi mentioned, a lot of things in FM are "under the hood", or as he mocks it, "magical". It's unacceptable for a high-quality video game.

[Svenc]

Well as far as I am concerned this was a bit of a response to Cleon's blog pieces I discovered when I was prompted to the Tifo piece, and some of the commentary underneath by rashidi and others too. Those are pretty established guys rallying against what they perceive to be going on. Bit irritated to read about their experience, though no doubt the thing was written in the heat of the moment, and this after so much time spent on covering the game for so long. There's two sides to it: One that SI have always relied HEAVILY on the community to cover the game / make it more accessible to newcomers. Secondly that it is such long-term writers who felt tempted to quit, revealing that from their side SI don't push more in-depth coverage and support it anymore. Mind, rashidi's gone like 400 games unbeaten, which means he has basically beat random chance which exists in every single match of FM due to it being a sequential simulation, so I'd be a bit suspicious too. But as far as I know he doesn't publish anything game-breaking, contrary I've seen somebody trying to ape his starting formations expecting miracles without understanding that in FM a bit like in football, it isn't the system, it is the understanding of its strength and weaknesses more like that likely make him reign supreme. (He's probably also good at anticipating what the AI does, not sure what his "trick" is). So that is that.

Secondly, if anybody remembers, the tactical theorems that formed (and still form some) of the backbone of the now tactical UI in the game, that at the core mostly all came back off community too. Up until FM 2009ish for instance, the AI managers were working off pretty simply pre-sets, and human players were given very simple and crude positional pre-sets by SI too. You probably might remember how every AI manager switched to a default global max mentality 4-2-4 system to get back into a game late. Some considered it a cheat, others could sniff it from miles away and would simply anticipate when taking the lead and it became that crucially crunch time of the match. That's all changed ever since, and it's become a lot more sophisticated since. I think that is good stuff, whilst others prefer the more simpler times, though no doubt some of them struggled to cope with the universally, predictable 4-2-4 overload tactics already. :-) That's a preference. The comments made though, the experience shared, also some of the tactical overhauls already made as for FM 2016 (which without going into technical details seem to deny or nullify old community concepts that are yet still in the game), it'd be interesting to have more info what the aim is and where they aim to go with this long-term. It also needs be acknowledged somewhere when options look same old but actually saw an overhaul.

You always KNOW why x happened instead of y.

This reminded me of a really old thread. As far as the match play is concerned, you're never going to get that. For many parts of the game, ambiguity will remain. If it won't, the game will be a terribly recreation of a management experience. You're always dealing in probabilities, and there's also simply random chance (every shot is a possibly goal, every tackle is a possibly miss, etc. etc). However I agree (and support) everyone and everything that makes it clearer to newcomers too what you're influencing by clicking on stuff. It was aforementioned too above, but all defenders on defend duty isn't inherently bad, it depends entirelly what you're doing --

:-) Naturally, every lack of official documentation and every writer lost is strengthening the spread of bad theory and the many myths going around that lead to (unneeded) frustration and lack of understanding of the game (cheating AI, predetermined results, opponents playing like Barcelona when they may just have been content with the draw and only push players forward when desired). However even knowing the ins and outs of some match code would likely do you nothing. I remember an anecdote where Paul was accessing the regularly adventurous finishing of a forward but he couldn't tell if it was due his flair attribute or anything else. And he's been the chief coder for long. Doesn't work like that. Strategy games such as the Paradox Titles, they're highly mechanized and abstract, the combat ins and outs for HoI are essentially turn-based battles dating back to board games where division x faces off division y and the outcome is either win for x or y. The ME code isn't at all like that. It doesn't know who's going to win, it goes through motions in sequence, with players moving up and down the pitch according to both managers inputs, and whatever is the result at the end of it is the result.

[Loversleaper]

Well, you are going to have a huge perception clash with what some people (compared to others) would want out of a guide. The guide that Neil Brock included above looks about as close to a guide as it is going to get without actually telling people exactly what to do - telling people what to do is something that is never going to be an option. What other company is going to give away the secrets of their game?

I think that the people pulling the strings are very aware of what type of information regarding the game is passed on to the community - especially in terms of what might be perceived as something factual. There is enough confusion already and throwing more gas onto that fire might not be the best option...

[shirajzl]

What other company is going to give away the secrets of their game?

That's the point. A high profile video game shouldn't have any secrets when it comes to game mechanics. It's basic game development, really.

[themadsheep2001]

That's the point. A high profile video game shouldn't have any secrets when it comes to game mechanics. It's basic game development, really.

That's not true at all. There is not cut and dried one way of game development.

FM couldn't work that way, because football doesn't work that way, and that's what they are trying to get close to

Sven's latest post sums it up.

What I will say is the the documentation of concepts needs to be stronger. Easier said than done.

[puffascruffowitz]

From my perspective as a player, and someone who only started playing a few years ago, a big part of the appeal of FM to me WAS the steep learning curve, and the fact that here in the US it's a very obscure game still. The perceived complexity and intimidating nature of the game is what drew me to it, taking it on as a challenge to see if I could become good at this nerdy game.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Personally, I like the 'find out for yourself' approach to the game. I remember the days of the 'beefy' manual that used to come with the game, and to be honest, I probably skimmed through it once whilst waiting for the game to load and never looked at it again. But then I've been brought up on that type of game. For those of a certain vintage, the software company 'Ultimate' used to give hardly any instructions to their games back in the early 80s (eg, Knight Lore), you had to work it out for yourself, similar to the Dark Souls franchise today.

There's far too much handholding in video gaming nowadays and I think this is the problem for a lot of people. FM is refreshing as it lets you jump in and learn as you play. The tools are all there, you just need to know how to use them. Perhaps a basic manual detailing where everything is would be handy, as there's a LOT of screens, but as far as gameplay is concerned, less is more for me.

[PhroX]

Such a popular video game like FM has to have clearly understandable and transparent game mechanics. It's down to numbers, "x" influences "y" by "z" margin if you do a, b or c.

Paradox games have been brought up and they have just that. While their official guides are not THAT good, they're still miles ahead of what we have in FM. Both out-of-the-game manual and in-game feedback is clear cut. You always KNOW why x happened instead of y.

One would argue you can't really compare grand strategy games with football management simulation, but I think their scope and depth warrants comparisons. Paradox titles are, much like FM, a very popular, albeit a niche product. The level of details is scary for a newcomer, and that's exactly where transparency kicks in.

Another argument would be that you can't really reveal everything because it would lose a sense of realism. Well, grand strategy games simulate managing a nation's military, diplomacy and economy in a historical context while using transparent game mechanics and they work fine. Yes, having your nation's diplomacy at 200 instead of 190 looks and feels gamey and unrealistic, but you can't really have a good PC game without such clarity.

As rashidi mentioned, a lot of things in FM are "under the hood", or as he mocks it, "magical". It's unacceptable for a high-quality video game.

It interesting you, and others, have brought up Paradox, as they're moving away from providing explanations for their games, and letting the community do it instead. For example, the tutorial for CK2 has been broken for years but they don't consider it worth fixing, as if you want to learn about the game, you can just go and watch Youtube videos by Arumba (here's an interview with their CEO).

[fabioke]

It interesting you, and others, have brought up Paradox, as they're moving away from providing explanations for their games, and letting the community do it instead. For example, the tutorial for CK2 has been broken for years but they don't consider it worth fixing, as if you want to learn about the game, you can just go and watch Youtube videos by Arumba (here's an interview with their CEO).

FM (never missed a version since 99/00) and EU4 (363hours) are the only games I play.

The whole point is sadly that the FM equivalents of Arumba and others are not getting the same recognition from SI as their Paradox counterparts.

Paradox really cherishes them and I remember that SI did this too in the early days. Seeing my favorite FM mod makers and guide makers being disappointed in SI has really made me less enthusiastic about the game.

Back in the day I would evangelize FM to all my friends and since a few editions there is a certain disconnection growing and for me personally I can connect it directly with the lack of community feeling that is building up for a few years now.

Despite I never had a conversation with people like Cleon and Rashidi, for me they have been an essential part to enjoy this game. To prevent this they just needed to make an in-depth Wednesday or something along those lines. This debacle was perfectly avoidable and the marketing team should never forget to neglect the core of FM in the near future. I fondly remember the split and how hardcore players needed to inform people that FM was the true heir to the throne.

FM 2016 is a great game and people who are playing FM for a long time love the ecosystem behind it (FM Mods, guides, stories,youtube, discussions...). Just to give you an idea my favorite mod didn't came out last year and I only played FM 2015 for 9 hours. The most fun I had on that version was reading guides from LLama, Rashidi and Cleon and benchmarking my rigs on this forum.

[Kriss]

I'm not sure it's even possible to manualise the whole game it's so complex, I do believe SI should engage the Cleon's and Rashidis much more closely in those especially hard areas where they contribute so much.

Even to the point of invitation days at SI Towers which use to be so helpful in the days of FML.

[shirajzl]

That's not true at all. There is not cut and dried one way of game development.

It is true. People forget that FM is only a video game and as such needs to sacrifice certain aspects of realism in favour of approachability and the ease of use.

FM couldn't work that way, because football doesn't work that way, and that's what they are trying to get close to

Managing a country militarily, politically and economically doesn't work that way either, and yet the way it's done in video games works just fine.

One of the important rules of game development is to recognize the line where your game becomes confusing, unintuitive and difficult to handle. It's not spoon-feeding, but common business sense.

[Caleyjag]

I'd like to clarify that the majority of Cleons article here: http://sisportscentre.com/taking-the-community-back/ is actually my views I aired in an email to him when I read his "Goodbye" article, which he then posted with permission (although I don't doubt his views are probably very similar to my own).

To me, it's felt over the years that SI Games are either removing the need for certain sites (challenges are now in the game, the Steam store almost negates the need for download sites) or ignoring them entirely (Cleon's articles) in favour of brand exposure from popular Youtubers or by doing silly "let's see who wins the World Cup" simulations for various papers and websites. They're more interested in increasing sales than advertising what amazing things the community does.

Without the community you'd be left with what comes with the Steam download, or on the disc you buy from Game. You'd pretty much have to guess at what you're doing with tactics, you'd be left wondering why German player names are "broken", why player faces and logos are missing from some teams. WHAT THE HELL IS A TREQUARISTA?!

Essentially, Football Manager is an incomplete game. The community fills in the rest. Perhaps SI have forgotten that?

[PhroX]

FM (never missed a version since 99/00) and EU4 (363hours) are the only games I play.

The whole point is sadly that the FM equivalents of Arumba and others are not getting the same recognition from SI as their Paradox counterparts.

Paradox really cherishes them and I remember that SI did this too in the early days. Seeing my favorite FM mod makers and guide makers being disappointed in SI has really made me less enthusiastic about the game.

Back in the day I would evangelize FM to all my friends and since a few editions there is a certain disconnection growing and for me personally I can connect it directly with the lack of community feeling that is building up for a few years now.

Despite I never had a conversation with people like Cleon and Rashidi, for me they have been an essential part to enjoy this game. To prevent this they just needed to make an in-depth Wednesday or something along those lines. This debacle was perfectly avoidable and the marketing team should never forget to neglect the core of FM in the near future. I fondly remember the split and how hardcore players needed to inform people that FM was the true heir to the throne.

FM 2016 is a great game and people who are playing FM for a long time love the ecosystem behind it (FM Mods, guides, stories,youtube, discussions...). Just to give you an idea my favorite mod didn't came out last year and I only played FM 2015 for 9 hours. The most fun I had on that version was reading guides from LLama, Rashidi and Cleon and benchmarking my rigs on this forum.

Oh yeah, I certainly agree that SI need to interact better with the community contributors (something PDox does very well), my post was just more of a remark on the suggestions of "better documentation" and similar from the developers.

[Svenc]

I think Paradox work differently as by definition they're only appealing to a very very specifically niche. It's a tightly knit thing, the games they're doing a slightly "nerdist" and "obessionist" by nature, without intending to make this sound bad. Take a look at the games they don't do in-house but pick-up, they're following that same pattern mostly. It's absolutely reliable on word of mouth and community to get going. FM is a far broader thing -- I think SI/Sega have stopped advertising in traditionally gaming media pretty much altogether, and rather go to Sky Sports. That's also how they view the game, more in line with the generally football crowd at large, and that is a massively crowd. Therefore also the recent link-ups and deals with Prozone, various coaching academies, the sponsorshop deals with various Football Legue and Championship/Premiership clubs. I've got a degree in marketing at least formerly and I think that's actually pretty smart a move, as they've also recognized that their player base at large isn't actually much tech-savvy or computer gamers, it's more all kinds of football fans from everywhere, some of them even actually managers or professionally players, who also provide feedback on the game (would love to know their view on some of the tactic/training sides of things in the game too ).

I'm really not in the position to assess this much as I don't follow the comm at large, but in that pursuit they may have neglected some of their core, old player base/comm, without recognizing. [insert the cliché of the indie band who's outgrown its former audience when it was all just friends and garage gigs and two bottles of beer and that now gets thousands rocking at Wembley Stadium with all the hardcore going "sellouts!"]. If this weren't based on football, a simple sports cum phenomenon so silly big that it borderlines on absurdity FM would have never grown this big. Eastside Hockey Manager, which likely has as much attention put to authentic match days and more, has by far a much smaller player base, as have different management games. Naturally, nothing will ever touch Fifa, etc. even though or precisely because it's far from being accurate except in its look and fell (still a fun pasttime, mind).

[tyro]

With respect to the manual, it should be information within the game. I think they are trying to improve that aspect of the game but it is still way off and you really don't know what each thing does. Even in the tactics forum, the "gurus" always say - if you don't know what it does, don't use it. But, why does the average gamer, who picks up the game, not know what something does? This means there is a disconnect between what "instructions" or "settings" you can select and the information provided in the game.

For example:

I select a Target Man. I don't recall the game telling me that this specific role will make everyone cross to that player or try to get the ball to him. Yes, the name itself says "target" but that unique characteristic isn't really explained. Now, this is just a simple example.

If I select a Control Mentality - what does it do? It tells you something along the lines, you should choose this if you think you can win possession of the game but still want to be a bit cautious... At least in FM16 it now shows us through the Team Instructions what it does - a bit. But all the things that it does? Higher Line, slightly wider, defenders will prefer to pass short, while attackers will prefer to pass it long (or was it vice versa?) Where do you see that? How can you know that?

You select Fluid Shape - huh? Ok, Fluid. Not robots, I guess, the roles are implemented in a more grey zone area. Ok. More creative freedom? Ok. Then you read in the tactics forum - the players play more compact, closer to each other vertically. Nice to know. That does affect decision making.

Team Talks or even Match Team Talks - how much impact do they and morale have on a player? There's a discussion on that in the tactics forum. I was quite surprised how veterans stated that it has little impact. I would have thought more like 20 to 40%. But it seems to be 5% or less. Would be good to know too, since this is a game and it could be implemented in various ways.

Personalities, training, tutoring - these all have impacts. There's no guide on that to explain the basics. Again the tactics forum needs to step in.

Facilities - we come from different backgrounds and have different mother tongues. Even if you are a native english speaker - Excellent, Superb, etc. could mean the same. There could be a list on that? Or a number behind the description so we know Excellent is a 10?

To sum it up, there is a lot that can be done in terms of documentation within the game. I have now played since FM10 and am still learning. It is a great game but it has a steep learning curve for new comers. And FMT doesn't really make this easier. Many people say it is a dumped down version - it is not but does away with some things that give more depth or take longer. But setting up tactics and so on still requires you to understand the basics.

This is what we need. In game, the tool tips explaining the basics. It has gotten better but can get much better.

[themadsheep2001]

It is true. People forget that FM is only a video game and as such needs to sacrifice certain aspects of realism in favour of approachability and the ease of use.

Managing a country militarily, politically and economically doesn't work that way either, and yet the way it's done in video games works just fine.

One of the important rules of game development is to recognize the line where your game becomes confusing, unintuitive and difficult to handle. It's not spoon-feeding, but common business sense.

Yeah except those games can be highly mechanised to fit for paradox. Football cannot. It's a pointless comparison.

[themadsheep2001]

I'm not sure it's even possible to manualise the whole game it's so complex, I do believe SI should engage the Cleon's and Rashidis much more closely in those especially hard areas where they contribute so much.

Even to the point of invitation days at SI Towers which use to be so helpful in the days of FML.

You wouldn't. You'd expand on the key concepts of the game, with in game documentation. That's where SI need to improve it, but beyond that, you can't really do it to football like you can when paradox fudge nation building

[themadsheep2001]

I'll be honest and say I could give or take on the social stuff and promotion side of this, personally means very little to me. Where you get an issue, and this arguably more specific to cleon and rashidi than anyone else, is when the content is almost filling in for the manual and in game documentation, because that's an area that affects everyone who plays, some more than others. Their work on the basic concepts is stuff that should have been shipped with the game for the last couple of years

[YKW]

I have only just read Cleon's two blog pieces that were linked in here. URLs seem to blend into walls of text so I had missed them.

My first comment would be that there are undertones of personal resentment that make me question how accurate some of the claims made are. Also, some of his responses to comments are a bit over the top and unnecessary, which again doesn't fill me with confidence about how impartial the piece really is.

For instance

They basically told me their approach this year was different and they only wanted dumbed down content (not in those exact words but the point was the same)

For me personally, I would rather hear the exact words that SI said, rather than Cleon's clearly biased paraphrasing, which for me indicates that as much as he is motivated by his passion and by helping people as much as possible, he also has interest in turning people against SI. I'm not sure this is positive and leaves me unsure what to think overall.

So putting that aside and actually questioning the claims being made, I think there are some interesting points. Such as:

- The main issue relates to SI's support for community created content. I have no personal experience so can't comment on this beyond saying that without the work of rashidi, Cleon, SFraser etc, I would be severely struggling with the game and may not have almost two decades of experience with the series.

- Lack of support for the affiliate scheme. Again I can't comment.

-Mistreatment/disrespect of content creators. Can't comment on this either, however there are usually two sides to every story.

- SI wants 'dumbed down' content as guides. (Maybe SI could help us out with a more constructive replacement for 'dumbed down?') My take is that they want more general, bigger picture philosophy and theoretical advice, with fewer tactics based set-ups and practical advice. Needless to say based on my other post that I am not sure this is positive.

- Social media is being utilised badly. One example that definitely resonated with me is when discussing the failings he says "Especially when the current FM account is more obsessed with being sarcastic towards its users or more focused on real football happening and proving ‘FM points’ than it is anything else." Of all the points made in the article I think this is one of the most clearly correct, and it has bothered me for a while. There is a very, very defensive attitude that comes across in pretty much all of the "official" FM social media accounts, and imo it just isn't fun or a good advert for the game. You have a product at stake here! There is just no excuse for being anything other than pleasant to your customers or potential customers. Just ignore the abuse (which is terrible I admit.) The expression that comes to mind is "never argue with an idiot, because the people watching might not be able to tell the difference."

- I'm going to quote a whole paragraph here. It's particularly worrying but also, I feel, one of the more biased parts of the blogs

t’s worth more to them to get a celebrity to endorse the game or retweet something to tens of thousands of followers than you spending a week writing something. They’re after sales, they’re not bothered about retention. If the game is too complicated this year, then next year’s “new feature” will fix that. The promise is always “next time it’ll be better”. They’ve no competition, so they can make the game as complex, as bug ridden as they like then ask “the community” for ideas that they aren’t going to use anyway, giving you a belief that you have a say in how the game is developed, tricking you into buying next year’s versions. Sold on a promise that is never delivered.

Firstly "They're after sales, they're not bothered about retention." I'm not sure there is substance to this. I agree that the marketing includes a focus on new features, among other things, and this does suggest a focus on getting new customers. However, if there is a large potential market of customers who will be more likely to buy as more new features are announced, and a core of existing players who be likely to buy regardless, then there is a clear business decision in this regard. I don't think there is an issue here in isolation.

The big consideration, and it is one that Cleon then brings up, is that there is no competition for FM. Now when this factor is brought up on here it is often in the context of complacency causing SI staff to become lazy. I think this is totally wrong and bordering on offensive. However I do believe that a lack of competition may be detrimental to the game in two ways:

1. A credible competitor would decrease SI's customer retention. That is to say that the presence of a viable alternative would make the number of buyers fluctuate more severely in relation to their experiences with the game (or announcements of new features for two alternatives.) This alone would necessitate a change in strategy from SI, as above. Think of this as "who the new features/changes are targeted at." A greater proportion would shift towards the previously guaranteed customers, otbe etc.

2. Innovation/Direction of the genre. Now SI are certainly innovators and have been since their inception. However because FM is pretty much the only game in the genre it means there is a smaller number of total ideas in the genre, and also that there is a smaller number of features or mechanisms being tested by consumers and being deemed fun or not. This means that what consumers actually want from a management game is not totally clear, and at the moment I would say is defined by default.

The final point made in the quote above "then ask “the community” for ideas that they aren’t going to use anyway, giving you a belief that you have a say in how the game is developed." This struck a chord with me because actually it is exactly what I have believed for while. Aside from the general air of negativity thrown towards new ideas and discussions of the game mechanics etc, I believe that it was in a PM to Lucas Weatherby in which I had described that the generally accepted view of the Feedback Threads being a way of containing all of the raving lunatics who shouldn't be heard, seemed to extend to the Wishlist thread, making it appear to me as a similar way of keeping unwanted opinions out of view. That's why I personally refuse to use it.

If the above isn't accurate, and actually SI do value the contributions of their fans in terms of the direction of the game, then perhaps there is room for a more suitable platform for discussion of that kind?

Hopefully the parties reconcile their differences in time for FM17.

[HUNT3R]

You wouldn't. You'd expand on the key concepts of the game, with in game documentation. That's where SI need to improve it, but beyond that, you can't really do it to football like you can when paradox fudge nation building

As usual, we're in agreement here. I can't add anything beyond the fact that I agree with your points. Better explanations/documentation is needed, but lets not mechanise it. It goes against where the game is clearly going - away from sliders etc.

[forameuss]

A lot of good in the below post, but a few things I wanted to comment on (I've probably butchered the quoting...)

I have only just read Cleon's two blog pieces that were linked in here. URLs seem to blend into walls of text so I had missed them.

My first comment would be that there are undertones of personal resentment that make me question how accurate some of the claims made are. Also, some of his responses to comments are a bit over the top and unnecessary, which again doesn't fill me with confidence about how impartial the piece really is.

Agree with this. As I said earlier, I totally respect what those figures have done, but some of the writings in that article put them down in my own estimations (from a purely personal perspective), and seemed a bit needy. I can understand their frustrations, but still.

So putting that aside and actually questioning the claims being made, I think there are some interesting points. Such as:

- The main issue relates to SI's support for community created content. I have no personal experience so can't comment on this beyond saying that without the work of rashidi, Cleon, SFraser etc, I would be severely struggling with the game and may not have almost two decades of experience with the series.

- Lack of support for the affiliate scheme. Again I can't comment.

-Mistreatment/disrespect of content creators. Can't comment on this either, however there are usually two sides to every story.

- SI wants 'dumbed down' content as guides. (Maybe SI could help us out with a more constructive replacement for 'dumbed down?') My take is that they want more general, bigger picture philosophy and theoretical advice, with fewer tactics based set-ups and practical advice. Needless to say based on my other post that I am not sure this is positive.

- Social media is being utilised badly. One example that definitely resonated with me is when discussing the failings he says "Especially when the current FM account is more obsessed with being sarcastic towards its users or more focused on real football happening and proving ‘FM points’ than it is anything else." Of all the points made in the article I think this is one of the most clearly correct, and it has bothered me for a while. There is a very, very defensive attitude that comes across in pretty much all of the "official" FM social media accounts, and imo it just isn't fun or a good advert for the game. You have a product at stake here! There is just no excuse for being anything other than pleasant to your customers or potential customers. Just ignore the abuse (which is terrible I admit.) The expression that comes to mind is "never argue with an idiot, because the people watching might not be able to tell the difference."

Again, hard to disagree with any of this. I'm maybe slightly less onside around the social media part though. In a small way, it's refreshing to see a company that isn't just a faceless comment machine communicating on Twitter/Facebook etc. That's what you'll get with most public faces of companies, even in the face of abuse, which every company is going to get in some form. In that respect, I think it's good if they give some back when they get unwarranted criticism. HOWEVER, although it may be satisfying, and amusing to the more well-adjusted ones, it's only going to further the cause of the less adjusted ones, who are happy to dish out ridiculous abuse, but will turn into a frothy mess when they get it back.

When you add the promotion for this years game into the social media bracket - which I thought was absolutely dreadful compared to FM15 - then they don't have a great record here. It doesn't really bother me, as I prefer to avoid the vacuous social media promotion, but if they want to go down that avenue as a priority then they'll need to improve.

Firstly "They're after sales, they're not bothered about retention." I'm not sure there is substance to this. I agree that the marketing includes a focus on new features, among other things, and this does suggest a focus on getting new customers. However, if there is a large potential market of customers who will be more likely to buy as more new features are announced, and a core of existing players who be likely to buy regardless, then there is a clear business decision in this regard. I don't think there is an issue here in isolation.

The big consideration, and it is one that Cleon then brings up, is that there is no competition for FM. Now when this factor is brought up on here it is often in the context of complacency causing SI staff to become lazy. I think this is totally wrong and bordering on offensive. However I do believe that a lack of competition may be detrimental to the game in two ways:

1. A credible competitor would decrease SI's customer retention. That is to say that the presence of a viable alternative would make the number of buyers fluctuate more severely in relation to their experiences with the game (or announcements of new features for two alternatives.) This alone would necessitate a change in strategy from SI, as above. Think of this as "who the new features/changes are targeted at." A greater proportion would shift towards the previously guaranteed customers, otbe etc.

2. Innovation/Direction of the genre. Now SI are certainly innovators and have been since their inception. However because FM is pretty much the only game in the genre it means there is a smaller number of total ideas in the genre, and also that there is a smaller number of features or mechanisms being tested by consumers and being deemed fun or not. This means that what consumers actually want from a management game is not totally clear, and at the moment I would say is defined by default.

The competition argument is one of my pet hates, because it's thrown out by those that don't really think it through. It's usually accompanied by the complacency argument, which is as you say, bordering on offensive.

The two points you mention...yeah, I kind of get where you're coming from, but I don't really agree. The innovation point would hold more if they just released tweaked games. They are constantly trying to add new things in, and even if they don't work perfectly off the bat, they're trying to throw new things in to keep it fresh. You mention the smaller number of total ideas in the genre, but is this because there's only one game, or because there's a finite number of ideas that you can throw in to the genre? If you take it as being a football manager in the purest sense, then there's a limit as to what you can do.

The customer retention point is probably the one thing that would happen, should a competitor arise (which I don't think can really ever happen now, unless there's another brand split)

The final point made in the quote above "then ask “the community” for ideas that they aren’t going to use anyway, giving you a belief that you have a say in how the game is developed." This struck a chord with me because actually it is exactly what I have believed for while. Aside from the general air of negativity thrown towards new ideas and discussions of the game mechanics etc, I believe that it was in a PM to Lucas Weatherby in which I had described that the generally accepted view of the Feedback Threads being a way of containing all of the raving lunatics who shouldn't be heard, seemed to extend to the Wishlist thread, making it appear to me as a similar way of keeping unwanted opinions out of view. That's why I personally refuse to use it.

If the above isn't accurate, and actually SI do value the contributions of their fans in terms of the direction of the game, then perhaps there is room for a more suitable platform for discussion of that kind?

Hopefully the parties reconcile their differences in time for FM17.

The PM you talk about, it wasn't clear as to who said that. It's written like you described the threads as that, or was it Lucas? If it's the latter, I can kind of see where it's coming from. They'll be monitoring both threads, but by definition, they're a way of making sure everyone - including the raving lunatics - say their piece in the same space. 95% of what goes into the wishlist thread can be filed under either "we've talked about it already" or "that's just lunacy". But just because they're, by and large, nonsense, doesn't mean that SI won't take notice of the good in them.

As for a suitable platform, I see this as the best of a bad bunch. The way communication of this kind is going, you're never going to stop the polarising opinions. It'd be brilliant if they could have a forum where the only feedback they got was 100% constructive, and every idea was written up in a perfect way, but they're never going to get that. The lunatics will continue to bleed out of the asylum and muddy the waters. I guess for SI, the improvement could be in making sure that those that do contribute feel valued. Maybe if a person posts up a great idea in the wishlist thread, and it makes it onto the long list, then one of the mods/devs/testers/Miles drops them a template PM about it, telling them that they're taking it onboard?

[luka_zg]

Why did Cleon write all those articles/guides in the first place? Did he do it beacuse of SI or because the players who play the game? If it was for the SI than I can understand his decision not to do it ever again. If it was for the FM community then I don't really get the point of his quiting..

Anyway as far as official guides , I think they are really bad and without Cleon and the guys like him I personally would struggle and quit the game long time ago. Especially FM16.

[YKW]

The PM you talk about, it wasn't clear as to who said that. It's written like you described the threads as that, or was it Lucas? If it's the latter, I can kind of see where it's coming from. They'll be monitoring both threads, but by definition, they're a way of making sure everyone - including the raving lunatics - say their piece in the same space. 95% of what goes into the wishlist thread can be filed under either "we've talked about it already" or "that's just lunacy". But just because they're, by and large, nonsense, doesn't mean that SI won't take notice of the good in them.

Thanks for the reply. Just to quickly clarify so as to avoid confusion, it was me that described the threads as that, and it's purely my opinion.

[Kenco]

For years the Editor sub-forum people have been asking for some sort of guide and what did SI gave us all these years? Just silence, maybe occasional reply from someone at SI. The issue is just that, the lack of communication has been growing. Year after year, specially after SI decided on the stance that game features are there to be find out by the gamers. The guide for the editor has become more important, with the unlock of the Advance Editor and yet, no guides. The guides we get are by users (that is scattered around the web) or simply suggestions from other users to simply download a existing file and see how it works or how it was implemented. Like self-taught kinda vibe to it. That is what we get close to a guide for the Advanced editor.

The issue here is that some of user here, work for free on their spare time, (at the cost, we can even imagine) for the love of the game and there is little interest from SI, for the job they do. We are all here, because in some way we love the game, so much that we spent our free time to do the something that improves the game experience. When that work is felt cast a side, or pretty much your work is thrown out the window, because some at SI, change their minds and wanted a more streamline or simplistic guide, throwing two weeks of work out the window, can cause a serious rift between the SI and the writer and potencially the community. It even wonders why SI don't want such a guide in the first place. If I was on the same position, I would probably have the same reaction, I would felt unrespected for the work I produced all these years, specially, as many users here do and do well.

I for one I'm interested in the Tifo project and the potential of bringing the community together, something these forums aren't, for vierity of reasons. It will be a very interesting period...

I agree with this. I used to do a lot of editing, to start with for my own personal enjoyment of the game but later I shared this with the community. Hundreds upon hundreds of hours of my own time were put into various projects and some of my edits were very popular, getting a few thousand downloads.

But the game changed, certain areas of editing were suddenly not possible or altered in a way that my game just wouldn't work in the way I intended it. I posted many questions and requests for improvements for the editor but never got anything from SI, other than the restrictions. I personally felt like SI had tied my hands but it was probably just paranoia.

[Svenc]

Yeah except those games can be highly mechanised to fit for paradox. Football cannot.

Sure can. http://store.steampowered.com/app/375530/?l=german

For example:

I select a Target Man. I don't recall the game telling me that this specific role will make everyone cross to that player or try to get the ball to him. Yes, the name itself says "target" but that unique characteristic isn't really explained. Now, this is just a simple example.

You select Fluid Shape - huh? Ok, Fluid. Not robots, I guess, the roles are implemented in a more grey zone area. Ok. More creative freedom? Ok. Then you read in the tactics forum - the players play more compact, closer to each other vertically. Nice to know. That does affect decision making.

The Target Man is something I've seen very oftenly: "I've told my side to hold possession and they just hoof it forward!". All that's needed is a visual cue on the tactics board if you field one. Speaking about, in old releases you could influence the bias as towards the supply: to head/to feet/run onto ball, which was kinda neat.

I've never been a hugely fan of shape, as it sort of tried to sledgehammer real-world football theory into game's mechanics that in my opinion didn't wholly allow it. Therefore it has now split off into something that influences "vertical compactness" to slightly bigger degrees (previously more of a flair/role-playing thing), but in doing so apparently also undermines what the "team mentality" was all about (tight bands of mentality so as to not disconnect players in their general riskiness/forward pushiness) whilst ignoring that this is a setting that also allows teams increasingly more creative freedom to express, which is a different thing all together. I had suspected wwfan, one of the original co-authors of all of the above, not being involved with this and he had confirmed he has yet to play FM 2016, which was no surprise to me. Getting technically now, but it's not been off to a particularly bright start when it came around in its various tags of fluidity and philosophy (probably a reason why it's been renamed all throughout). ;-) The backbone of the current tactical things came off community theorems, of which there were many, and this one was a more theoretical one, so that's a bit of a leftover/unresolved thing (imo). Maybe this can be resolved by asking the actually football contacts how practically it all is. But if things are constantly changing, that also makes it harder to document them and to keep up.

Personalities, training, tutoring - these all have impacts.

Some of these aren't even recognized to exist by any of the official documentation, same as hidden traits (the old print manual was no different in that parts). I don't think anybody would want or need some under the hood stuff or even flat-out guide, it's just off that it isn't even recognized somewhere, like: These are the possibly player personalities existing in the game and here is a roughly description and what personality is meant to interact with roughly. Neil is right in that the manuals that ship with your typical Paradox Interactive game, they aren't great for learning to play on the fly, no big manual will ever be, the big ones that shipped with Civ in the 90s didn't either (though Microprose shipped separate quickstart guides along those) -- but they fill you in on all the game's more basic concepts and don't sort of ignore them leaving you in the dark about their possibly existence and roughly purpose in the game's world. They're points of reference. What about PPMs, arguably one of the prime reasons why tactic downloads work for some and less so for the other, no wonder as many of those influence positioning and override tactics to an extent (one of the reasons why the research should be way more cautious with this, every single wide player of Arsenal at the start of the game looks to run forward by default, Wenger wouldn't be amused). It's the same for media handling styles and more. The old in-game help that existed in older iterations would help you got to by hitting F1 or similar. Perfect place for a glossary of kinds. Therefore the argument: Honestly, officially this has always been really on paper-thin grounds. And yeah, it's those guys doing the work for them. Speaking about, the fan guide tagged an affiliate looks slightly out of sync with the more recent overhauls as to fluidity, philophy, err shape, right there.

[Loversleaper]

Do we really need guides on tutoring and personalities from a developer's standpoint? I think "not really". Do we need guides on how tactics work? Again, I think "not really". I haven't played the game maybe as much as some of you, but I have noticed that there are plenty of hints and tips during the game. Also the strategies and tactical instructions have descriptions of when and under what circumstance you can use them - but flipping through the T&T (and the few other places I have glanced at), nothing indicates that anyone is using the descriptions to understand how the whole things works. Which is kind of surprising.

Maybe there was a time that you could disregard a lot of the intentions that the ME developers had in mind - but this time around it seems that they are getting more close to what it is they are trying to achieve. Now, I think that they need to program more sequences of play, pretty pronto too, if they want this game to be a success. Right now the whole aspect of being more afraid of a long throw-in or a free kick from out wide by the side-line from some player called Paul Mills than you would be afraid of a Messi direct free-kick on the edge of the penalty area is pretty bogus. I would also like to see that some of the instructions are actually visually seen above the "under the hood" mechanics of the game.

But that aside, I think people generally should start taking the descriptions in the game (in a general sense) a little more seriously than they did before. The reason that, I think, SI have made multiple strategies and the theory behind them was to get rid of certain settings being over powerful for all situations - hence the super-tactic - which didn't go down well at all with some of the gaming community. But to suggest that some people should be endorsed more than others is a little hard to come by when talking about who would have the authority to speak on behalf of others. If you do well, then fine, you want to share that with the community, then fine - do it in the spirit of helping others. I wouldn't dream of getting any endorsement from the game makers, personally, because it wouldn't make a difference in my everyday life, to be totally honest. I still got to get up for work tomorrow...

[qwerty22]

I'd like to clarify that the majority of Cleons article here: http://sisportscentre.com/taking-the-community-back/ is actually my views I aired in an email to him when I read his "Goodbye" article, which he then posted with permission (although I don't doubt his views are probably very similar to my own).

To me, it's felt over the years that SI Games are either removing the need for certain sites (challenges are now in the game, the Steam store almost negates the need for download sites) or ignoring them entirely (Cleon's articles) in favour of brand exposure from popular Youtubers or by doing silly "let's see who wins the World Cup" simulations for various papers and websites. They're more interested in increasing sales than advertising what amazing things the community does.

Without the community you'd be left with what comes with the Steam download, or on the disc you buy from Game. You'd pretty much have to guess at what you're doing with tactics, you'd be left wondering why German player names are "broken", why player faces and logos are missing from some teams. WHAT THE HELL IS A TREQUARISTA?!

Essentially, Football Manager is an incomplete game. The community fills in the rest. Perhaps SI have forgotten that?

Pro Evolution Soccer is a great example of this, Konami just ignored the community and ended up with a total failure of a product. The game ended up with no fouls, only one type of goal by the AI and squads that are 6 months old!!

I have no problem with SI doing whatever they want as long as the fundamentals are not touched, Alarm bells have been ringing in the last 2 or 3 years with the concentration on fluff features like manager portraits without any real progress in the development of the match engine and the graphical side of the game.

Now we're beginning to lose the community, Who are basically the link between the game and the users. These users are the vindication and the assurance that I'm playing my game the right way and they help keep me playing it for years.

Dumbing down things can be very profitable but it'll hurt the legacy on the long run,When a youtuber showcases his career where games end 7-4 and 6-3 then intelligent people will question the game for sure .

[MBarbaric]

this game is so much dependant on community. hell community even provides fundamentals of the game as researchers do their part for free and giving it to si to make a great game. then some other people do other free things to make it better. once you lose that passion and spirit you have lost FM. not immediately, maybe not in a few years but still. it is vital link for this game.

[gunnerfan]

I started playing FM in 1998 (when it was still CM) when I was heavily involved in coaching youth soccer. I quit coaching in 2004, but kept playing FM through FM12. Then, for a variety of reasons, I went until FM16 without giving it a thought. When I started playing FM16, I was blown away by the evolution of the ME. It seemed like what had once been a pipe dream - replicating the tactical management of a real life side in FM - was, if not fully realized, certainly very closely approximated in FM16. For the first time, playing FM forced me to think back to reading and reacting to the game on the touchline. Articles by contributors like Cleon and rashidi were extremely helpful in relating those reactions to what was happening on my computer screen.

But there is always a downside, and in this case the downside is that success in FM is predicated on a rather high level of understanding of how the game is played - a level of understanding beyond that of the casual fan. Looking through the posts in the Tactics and Training, it strikes me that while many struggle in connecting game play in real life to what is being done within FM, there are also many who struggle with an incomplete knowledge of the game in real life. One post I read recently urged that an FM player needs to go beyond what they hear on Match of the Week (paraphrasing here). And so in FM, as Mark Twain once wrote, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so".

If what Cleon charges - that SI is no longer interested in supporting the traditional FM community - is true, then I see a bleak future for FM. If gameplay continues to evolve into an increasingly faithful replication of the game as played IRL, and there is no mechanism to provide in depth theoretical and practical advice - an FMish coaching clinic - then I don't see a way for the game to survive long term, let alone thrive. A challenge to apply knowledge of the sport IRL to a model that accurately replicates the sport and succeed is a challenge worth taking. A challenge to figure out what the hell the game actually does in the first place? No, thanks.