One thing I'd like to see in the next version...

Since CM 96, when I was a grad student from the US new to the UK and just learning about the series, I've been addicted to the game. However, the past version, according to the statistics, I've played about 6 hours. Partly, work responsibilities have intruded, but a bigger factor is the incredible investment of time required to get a serious game up and running. While I applaud the growing sophistication of the game (except for the motivation module which seems arbitrary and broken), I just can't bring myself to invest the time required to maximize the potential of my team.

I'm sure others feel this way as well. Playing as Juventus, typically, it takes so long to sort out the coaching, the scouting, the training and, to a lesser extent, the tactics. In fact, I enjoy the tactical module and have read extensively from the FM Tactics bible and forum (although, again, I think there are certain assumptions that underpin the engine that are flawed). However, I can't understand why a team of the stature of Juve (even given current struggles) has such poor coaching and scouting assets at the beginning of the game. I don't expect to leave it as is, but, frankly, the coaching and scouting personnel as generated (given that the DB doesn't have a lot of attributes set for these) mean that all needs to be addressed before moving on. I would expect that the staff at major clubs should require a minor tweak to get, say, above average coaching and good scouting. A quick look at the Juve staff page shows the incredible size of the scouting and coaching team (which will be no different for any team that operates typically in Europe). This is not represented in the game and it takes an incredible amount of time. As well, it means that the 'no transfer funds in the first transfer window' option can't be used.

To me, it seems that the granular nuances of coaches and scouts is providing the appearance of detail rather than the effect. By this, if the data is generated for the most part, it may seem like a manager is doing a lot in hiring coaches/scouts with their attributes and areas of expertise, but, in fact, is just work for the sake of work. There is some benefit for a LOT of work. What I'd like to see is something like my brief experience of FM Live (early on). Why not have either an option to select scouting/coaching resources by overall effect rather than by individual component?

For this, a team chooses a level of scouting/coaching based on the financial resources available. It could maintain the 7 star system currently. If a team wants 7 star coaching/scouting across the board, it needs to pay a certain, very high, salary level. For a Liga Pro team, maybe it can afford a 2 star coaching level and a 1 star scouting level. The general effect of the the coaching/scouting module wouldn't change, but the time to work on it would greatly decrease. I know a lot of people must love the intricacies of this, but IMHO it would greatly improve the starting time investment without losing the details in the critical inputs for a manager, tactics and transfers.

Part of this is the really arbitrary nature of training as well. I don't dispute the importance of training, but I question the relevance of a lot of the choices to most managers. At the top level, my understanding is that managers handle training for effect rather than for the details. The assman and the physical prep coaches design the core training based on the goals set by the manager. I would expect that at lower levels, the manager would be more involved in the details, but would be limited by all of the other responsibilities of his job. That's the theory, IMHO.

As a player, there are three roads that can be chosen. One, for simplicity's sake, general, off the shelf training is probably used by a majority of players. Two, for those inclined, custom schedules can be created which involves A LOT of time and experimentation. In essence, they are trying to replicate what is learned in a sports science degree through trial and error. Three, download a proven schedule from TT&M. Even this is annoying as the system involves painful importing, etc. What exactly is gained by this? The second choice reminds me of annoying platform jumping games on the PS...jump, die, reload, repeat until successful. From my understanding, the schedules have a narrow successful set of parameters to ensure maximum development. Now this assumes that whoever designed the module has set this 'answer' correctly based on the accepted research on physical preparation. If this is true, and most people working in this area know what the answers are, why bother with this variable at all?!? Why not assume, given the different levels of investment, that the people you hire would know this and implement it? For the micromanagers, leave in the development of schedules, but get rid of coaches as independent entities and model the actual effect. This would save SI resource that could be invested in more fruitful areas.

The same would go for scouting, but instead of sending individual scouts to look at leagues, set the leagues/countries/competitions that you want to monitor (perhaps given a limit based on the level of scouting you can afford) and then select the players you want to look at further by your scouting team as a whole, rather than by sending individuals. I find it hard to believe that this level of detail happens IRL, except at the final stages of making a transfer bid.

Finally, and it isn't directly related to training and scouting, is the motivation/morale module. Again, this seems to make some pretty big assumptions and probably adds a lot of annoyance compared to the gain. It appears to me from reading the stuff from FM Britain that there is a basic 'right answer' or at least 'better answer' to the motivation question. Now, I appreciate the time and effort that has gone into modeling this softer, but very important, factor in the game. However, like training, you have the same three options. Either set the ass man to do things, do the trial and error method or follow the accepted guide. Given that there is a 'better answer' hard coded into the system, what is the point of trial and error? It's not like those who purchase FM have 15+ years of experience of receiving and giving team talks and motivating professional players...typically! A FM player won't have the background, just like in training.

Firstly, this assumes that there is a 'better answer'. Given the difficulty of actually doing experimentation on something like motivation in sports, I find it hard to believe that there is any consensus in the academic studies of this topic. As well, given the success of personalities that vary so much (look at Mourinho vs Guardiola, Jacquet vs Del Bosque/Aragones) I find it hard to believe that there is 'one answer' or even 'several answers'. My suspicion is that the module needed a 'correct answer' for motivation and imposed one for the sake of some sort of input. My point is who's to say what will work or not work? Obviously there will be things that definitely don't work, but everything else will be judged against an arbitrary standard.

OK, let's assume that SI has found the correct way to motivate players and are leading the way in sports science. What portion of a team's success is based on motivation? Can this be quantified? Because it is being quantified in the game as the game engine needs this input. Currently, it feels WAY too overpowered given the really soft nature of the inputs. I appreciate that this is something that should be modeled, but I just don't think it's balanced right now. It reminds me of meteorology. It's complex with tons of variables. Even given centuries of data, the current models are pretty **** poor. So you have a major input to the match engine which is so mushy it defies explanation. As with FM Live, having players dealing with things that are arbitrary and hidden is not a way to engender good feelings.

Even assuming there can ever be a right answer for motivation's contribution to performance, there are several divergent schools of thought on this. Some managers seem almost like cyborgs and think that players' abilities and tactical setup provides 95% of the contribution. There is the older 'English' view that motivation is paramount and any group of players can succeed regardless of tactics. A good bollocking at halftime and chucking a few teacups can compensate for any lack of talent and tactical shortcomings. The funny thing is that either view can point to thousands of examples proving their point.

I'm not suggesting that motivation be 'turned off'. But I would suggest that the effects of poorly understood and unquantifiable inputs like motivation be limited to avoid a certain arbitrariness in the results. Any FM manager can point to a match where he seemed destined to win or lose based on the underlying motivational issues. I'm just not sure that this should be the case.

Sorry for the length of this, but I truly feel that FM is at a tipping point and would benefit from a bit of a rethink of the course it is following. It's a successful game franchise and I can't see anyone taking its crown away, but I think the community can help to drive it bigger and better versions.

Thatsa some big meatball you posted there, my friend. Rather a thoughtful piece.

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about your ideas. Correct me as I go off the flight path here because I'm going to oversimplify a bit. It appears you're suggesting that, because FM is highly-detailed and time-consuming (as well as imperfect), you'd like to see some combination of an abbreviated/automated management scheme for three of the major features of the game: coaching, scouting and training. Assuming that's more or less correct, let's start by stipulating the obvious. I think almost everyone agrees that, without regard to your suggestions, there are significant improvements that can and, indeed, need to be made in each of these areas. Now, on with the show.

On behalf of the casual user – and I'm not one of them -- I think you have a good idea. Such a user-aid would save them many trips to the Tylenol stash and perhaps delay the onset of that thousand-yard stare that some of them get after about an hour. This would be a good thing. And if SI can attract a substantial number of additional fans to the community (not to mention paying customers), that's another good thing. However, on your other hand, I don't think FM's future lies in that direction. FM will never be, even in a simplified version with additional user aids, anything approaching a beer-and-pretzels game. It's as sure as death and Texas that FM will always require a massive commitment of time. Indeed, I've often said that one cannot simultaneously play FM and hold a full-time job. So, as I say, mixed feelings.

Now, on behalf of us strategically-retentive types, I'd have to vote against. As I have plenty of time to invest in the game, I wouldn't use the feature. I'd much rather see SI put their limited resources into refining, even redesigning the existing modules. Furthermore, if SI went ahead with such a feature, I'd hope that the automated aid would be specifically crippled (somewhat) so as to underperform the average humanoid willing to invest the extra time. Otherwise, what's the point of having the detail in the first place?

As for your comments on motivation, I have plenty to add on that subject also (as does everyone else) but I'd suggest splitting that off into a new thread. It's really a separate area. Again, good post.

Thanks for the reply AytchMan!

I think you understand the gist of what I'm saying. It is a lot to digest, but your points are good ones.

I suppose the question I have for you is what exactly do you get out of interacting with training, coaching and scouting? I certainly do not want to diminish the value of these modules and am not looking for a purely simplistic system to replace them. I would suggest that the two key pieces (for me) in the game are the match tactics and the transfer system. I think that tactical engine is by far the most important role and like the way it has become ever more sophisticated (although I think the match engine hasn't kept up with it, but that's another post).

First point I want to make clear: I think the game should be set up so that there is competent scouting and coaching/training at all clubs, based upon their resources. Right now, this isn't true and it take a HUGE investment in time to get it going properly due to poor staff at the clubs and the pointlessness of any basic training. The research is poor, which is unsurprising as it is like another order of magnitude of detail. IIRC Juve has IRL something like 30 scouts and 50-60 coaches when counting all the youth levels. I find it hard to believe that they couldn't get a quick scouting report on any player in the world in a matter of days. Accuracy is a different thing, however.

I guess my point is that training and scouting aren't really offering additional depth as they are set up now, just adding additional micromanagement. Does it matter that you hire George Miller as coach who is a pretty good coach versus hiring Giorgio Mulino who is also a good coach? Basically, everyone wants to get 7 star coaching or as close to it as possible as financing and club rep allows, right? Maybe I'm missing something, but there doesn't seem to be a huge interesting benefit once the requirements for getting better coaching is broken down. It's not like you as a player know that George Miller has been a part of developing great players at club x. You just maximize the stats that are important.

Scouting is similar. Right now, you try to maximize your scouting staff for JCurrent and JPotential plus a few other attributes. You micromanage where they are sent and have them look at certain interesting players. I guess this gives you the illusion of depth and control, but there is one basic strategy that works.

What I would like is to get rid of named scouts and coaches and replace them with 'assets' or 'levels', whatever you want to call it. This would then impact the type of training or scouting that could be done. So, I am not suggesting that training as a whole be abstracted, as there would be room for training preferences and work levels, particular focused training for each player. I just think right now there is detail for the sake of detail that doesn't really add anything but work load for the player.

For scouting, you could still specify competitions, countries, regions and players to scout, you just wouldn't send individuals, you would allocate scouting assets. For example, if you had a scouting level of 5 out of 7, you could scout 7 leagues and 10 countries and it would take x number of days to get a scouting report. The only thing abstracted in this case would be the scouts themselves.

I don't know, maybe having all of this arcane detail is interesting to the majority of players and heaven knows I've spent tons of time tweaking training schedules and scheduling scouts in the past. I guess I'd like an option similar to tactics where the wizard can develop a workable tactic, but there is room to tweak (and I think this is really important!). Right now, players have no real option but to micromanage scouting and training as this is crippled in the DB and takes quite a while to address. I suppose I could look to save games online where someone has done this work already, but that seems a bit too lame IMHO.

As for the point of crippling the more automated system, I understand your point, but I guess I don't see the point of working trial and error-wise through all the different training options. There is a solution and it's posted online. LLMs may want to do this work themselves and that actually makes sense as the coaching at lower levels is centralized around the manager. It's just that if I'm managing a larger team, I'd have a staff that would do the bulk of the work or at least the option to do so. Right now it seems like FM is turning into Football Trainer and Football Scout. I like to think I understand quite a bit about tactics, but obviously not at the level of a real top level one as I am pretending to be one, I haven't lived their life experiences. Now it seems I supposed to be a coach and a scout as well with a pretty useless AssMan as my help?

I guess I've moved away from the target audience in that case.

good post, most of which have already been addressed over the years. The 'difficulty' option is usually where a post like this ends up where you can choose your difficulty and that will decide how much of the game is automated and how much is not.

My opinions on your points are:

Interacting with training is crucial. You will always have players who are weaker in some areas than others, who need more stamina training, more strenght training, more shooting training etc etc.

I dont really get your point on scouting, i find scouting take the least amount of time to set up. You set scouts to look for whatever you want, wherever you want with the click of a button, i have obviously missed your point on that one. To me the 'wizard' is more or less just the filter? What would you add to it that isnt in the filter already?

Trial and error of tactics is the only way to do it. If there was a tactic that worked for every team, every player would use it no one would ever lose. I believe you can set most of the options you have mentioned in the team settings section as it is, and if you dont set any training schedules your coaches just run the pre set ones for you.

I think if you took scouting and training etc out of the game it would get pretty boring pretty quickly

my apologies if i sound quite negative on the post, it is basically because all the features listed are ones that i love and wouldnt play the game without them. Tried to be as honest as possible, please dont feel like im having a go at you.

deardo--

To answer your question, I should start by pointing out that I play in LLM mode exclusively and, therefore, manage relatively small staffs. If I ever get up into the exosphere in some game and come face to face with a staff of thirty-five, my thinking may well move in your direction. That said, I get quite a bit of enjoyment out of wrestling with the coaching, training and scouting areas, all the while grumbling at the imperfections. I guess that I don't feel that I'm spending all that much time on setting up and maintaining any of these areas. I do spend a lot of time poring over scouting reports but that's really another matter.

You mention that your preferred areas are tactics and transfers and this points out a difference in our interests. I enjoy playing the transfer market but, as an ignorant Yank, my knowledge of tactics is minimal bordering on laughable. I am continually amazed by the effects of seemingly minor tweaks. I will make a change (without really knowing its purpose or expected result) and am then astounded when the performance of my team skyrockets (or plummets). But I digress. The point here is that I derive most of my satisfaction from the other four areas. Nevertheless, even here I can appreciate and enjoy the tactical complexities, all the while attacking them with the skill of a lobotomized zucchini.

In sum, I think we agree that coaching, scouting, and training need work and I take your point that they can seem like micromanagement if one's focus is elsewhere in the game. I just think we envision different solutions for improving the game in these areas. For the casual players, though, something akin to the tactical wizard might well serve their interests.

good post, most of which have already been addressed over the years. The 'difficulty' option is usually where a post like this ends up where you can choose your difficulty and that will decide how much of the game is automated and how much is not.

My opinions on your points are:

Interacting with training is crucial. You will always have players who are weaker in some areas than others, who need more stamina training, more strenght training, more shooting training etc etc.

I dont really get your point on scouting, i find scouting take the least amount of time to set up. You set scouts to look for whatever you want, wherever you want with the click of a button, i have obviously missed your point on that one. To me the 'wizard' is more or less just the filter? What would you add to it that isnt in the filter already?

Trial and error of tactics is the only way to do it. If there was a tactic that worked for every team, every player would use it no one would ever lose. I believe you can set most of the options you have mentioned in the team settings section as it is, and if you dont set any training schedules your coaches just run the pre set ones for you.

I think if you took scouting and training etc out of the game it would get pretty boring pretty quickly

my apologies if i sound quite negative on the post, it is basically because all the features listed are ones that i love and wouldnt play the game without them. Tried to be as honest as possible, please dont feel like im having a go at you.

Aussieant,

Thanks for the note and I appreciate your comments. I think we may have our wires crossed a bit.

WRT training, I'm not saying that the training module needs to be taken away, although it seems to be something solveable (i.e. there is a 'correct answer' for getting the best results). What I'm saying is that I think the contributions of coaches should be abstracted instead of worrying about signing individual ones. So instead of signing 15 coaches that give you 6 star training, you'd select 6 star training and have to pay the requisite fee. It's designing for effect rather than for the process.

I don't think anything should be taken away from the tactical module and, if anything, I'd like to see more depth in it. This is one of the key areas of management and I feel that the game requires too much focus on the lesser aspects of management IMHO. There should not be a 'correct' tactic, although I wonder from some results I've seen that the ME is maybe a little to susceptible to certain ones.

For scouting, my point is the same as training. Nothing would change except the removal of individual scouts. I know the Juve data is laughable and assume it's pretty much the same for other teams. Why bother with this? Just decide the level of scouting you can afford and abstract the individual scouts. If this worked really well as it is, I could see keeping it. But it seems like SI is looking to give players a lot of, to me, pointless micromanagement for the appearance of depth, complexity and immersion.

Regardless, to each, their own...

deardo--

I guess that I don't feel that I'm spending all that much time on setting up and maintaining any of these areas. I do spend a lot of time poring over scouting reports but that's really another matter.

You mention that your preferred areas are tactics and transfers and this points out a difference in our interests. I enjoy playing the transfer market but, as an ignorant Yank, my knowledge of tactics is minimal bordering on laughable. I am continually amazed by the effects of seemingly minor tweaks. I will make a change (without really knowing its purpose or expected result) and am then astounded when the performance of my team skyrockets (or plummets). But I digress. The point here is that I derive most of my satisfaction from the other four areas. Nevertheless, even here I can appreciate and enjoy the tactical complexities, all the while attacking them with the skill of a lobotomized zucchini.

In sum, I think we agree that coaching, scouting, and training need work and I take your point that they can seem like micromanagement if one's focus is elsewhere in the game. I just think we envision different solutions for improving the game in these areas. For the casual players, though, something akin to the tactical wizard might well serve their interests.

Interesting points!

Well, certainly we come at the game from different directions. Managing a big club (although I do usually start a new game later on with a Lega Pro side in Italy so I do understand your point) means that the first 10 days of game time can take 30 hours or more as the DB does not adequately represent the assets of these clubs. There are too few coaches and scouts and the ones that are there typically have poor stats considering their roles (most IIRC do not have attributes set in the DB, so you end up with randomized abilities).

So, as the manager, you have to search for individual coaches that will enable you to get more than three star training at the senior and youth levels. To me, that's just ridiculous and a waste of time. You have to then try to sign the coaches, meaning that you can't start with the 'no funds in first transfer window option' and that means that already wealthy teams are strengthening themselves even more. If you don't do this, your players will suffer from deterioration of their abilities and the younger players won't develop.

Scouting is similar. You struggle to get scouting reports on players before they are signed by other teams as you start from ground zero. Most existing scouts are terrible, so their reports need to be taken with a grain of salt.

None of these things by themselves are bad, it's just such a barrier to start a new game. Considering you start a new game when you buy it and then most likely restart again when the patches arrive, most of the actual playing time is spent on these pointless exercises that do little to add to the enjoyment IMHO.

But, again, I'm guessing I'm no longer in the target audience... I just hope FM isn't heading into a dead end street by making the startup of a new game such a chore.

deardo--

You mention that your preferred areas are tactics and transfers and this points out a difference in our interests. I enjoy playing the transfer market but, as an ignorant Yank, my knowledge of tactics is minimal bordering on laughable. I am continually amazed by the effects of seemingly minor tweaks. I will make a change (without really knowing its purpose or expected result) and am then astounded when the performance of my team skyrockets (or plummets). But I digress. The point here is that I derive most of my satisfaction from the other four areas. Nevertheless, even here I can appreciate and enjoy the tactical complexities, all the while attacking them with the skill of a lobotomized zucchini.

BTW, I meant to offer a suggestion to you (or others) who feel they are less well informed on the tactical side.

Obviously, a good place to start is Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson. It's a macro look at the evolution of tactics from the early days of the game. It provides a lot of detail on the history as well as a good overview of the different roles each position can have. Another good resource is the TTM forum here. A LOT of good tactical discussion is available here (Millie, WWFan, etc. have done a good job breaking down the ME and the impact of various inputs).

As well, for a more academic view, I'd suggest looking at some of the Reedswain books. They've translated and published a lot of the work done by the various FAs. For example, to get the top coaching license in Italy, the FA requires the submission of a thesis on a tactical topic. Some of these are REALLY helpful and interesting...plus they are written by some pretty famous managers. There are books from the Brazilian school, the Dutch school, etc.

Here are some examples, but not a definitive list:

Soccer: Modern Tactics by Zauli

Attacking Soccer: A tactical analysis by Lucchesi

Zone Play by Pereni and Di Cesare

Defensive Soccer Tactics by Bangsbo (ex-Juve AssMan)

Go to their website as they have tons more.

Hope this helps!