Simple Things; Things not in FM that would add to the experience

Overall, I think SI do a decent job with FM. I read on Amazon yesterday that there were over 800 new features in FM2012. Now I don't know the definitive list, but I reckon I have some ideas, and you guys probably do too.

Now I'd like these to be simple things. I'm no video game programmer and we are all told by SI and testers of the game that the game is so complex that any new feature is not 'easy' to implement, but I'd like to think that the following ideas that I list are pretty simple to put into the game and wouldnt require an overhaul of any existing features.

1. Retrospective action from the FA. - The possibility of a referee missing an incident during the match and then later having that incident referred to the FA (ie Song's stamp on Barton last weekend). Number of ways it could be bought into the game, from a simple news item saying certain media sources spotted an incident involving your players, to actually having it come up in the match highlights/commentary and say that the referee appears to have missed it. You could then be asked questions in the media about it etc. Further expansion of this idea could be to actually have a referees report for each game for major incidents (sometimes when there is a controversial decision its difficult to know whether you should complain about the match officials or not).

2. Players taking the ball around the keeper - I have NEVER seen this. So it may well be in the game, but I havent seen it.

3. Extra officials for relevant competitions - UEFA Europa League last season and I believe all UEFA Competitions this season have an additional 2 officials (one behind each goal line).

4. Players using social media/twitter. - ie 'Player X has outburst on Twitter and says he wants first team football' or even 'Player X to be charged by FA after criticising match officials on Facebook' etc etc.

5. The ability to send a player on loan to another club until a Work Permit is obtained (rather than having them sent back every year and then having to wait until the transfer window reopens before you can send them back).

Thats all I can think of for now. As I said, just suggest simple things, tweaks even, that could vastly improve the overall experience of the game without having a massive new feature. Just little things that occur in real life that would be interesting to see in FM.

1) id like to see this happen, it could bring about something different in the ME, but if it is anything like appealing against bans which is impossible from my experience, you could have players being banned left right and centre.

2) This happens, not all that often but it does happen.

3) That could be quite a cool feature, but wouldn't have much bearing on the actual game.

4) Good potential but could land SI in hot water with players potentially? it would be a good feature though.

5) I like this Idea it would just simplify things greatly, another small thing to do with this could be a message saying when the player will be able to acquire a work permit.

4. Players using social media/twitter. - ie 'Player X has outburst on Twitter and says he wants first team football' or even 'Player X to be charged by FA after criticising match officials on Facebook' etc etc.

Oh, my...This is not Sims 3 forums...

Other suggestions do make sense, though.

Oh, my...This is not Sims 3 forums...

Well it's become a prominent source of controversy in football now (Babel, Barton/Wilshere etc).

As for the first one, you'd have to have the incident come up in the match commentary, otherwise I can just imagine the reaction on here when a star player gets retrospectively rubbed out for an incident that hasn't come up on extended highlights.

Well it's become a prominent source of controversy in football now (Babel, Barton/Wilshere etc).

I think that is the very reason for it's non inclusion.

All i want is disciplinary action against the refs when they make wrong decisions. all we get now is F.A silent.

Oh, my...This is not Sims 3 forums...

Other suggestions do make sense, though.

Its no different to a player coming out and saying he is unhappy with the way you have dealt with a transfer or wants first team football (and makes it publicly known). Instead of having 'bbc.co.uk/sport' or 'skysports.com' it'd just have 'so and so comes out on twitter'...

4. Players using social media/twitter. - ie 'Player X has outburst on Twitter and says he wants first team football' or even 'Player X to be charged by FA after criticising match officials on Facebook' etc etc.

This isn't in partly because of the legal implications. It's the same reason you don't see players done for drink driving and so on in the game.

yeah there was a link to an interview with Miles on another thread, he was saying they will avoid things like that because of the possible legal issues that could crop up.

This isn't in partly because of the legal implications. It's the same reason you don't see players done for drink driving and so on in the game.

And streakers

We should occasionally have pitch invasions for the big wins.

Or the big losses, I remember the match in Argie-land where River fans invaded the pitch and started to hit their players.

+1 for streakers/invasions

+2 for streakers/invasions

This isn't in partly because of the legal implications. It's the same reason you don't see players done for drink driving and so on in the game.

Sorry but thats rubbish. How is it different to Balotelli/Barton etc all being infamous in game for being impossible to manage? Yes of course you don't see headlines saying theyve been seen paying for a prostitute or sniffing coke, but you still see news items saying that they are not happy if they arent getting first team football or they are unhappy following differences with a teammate. No legal issues there.

Its just another 'media source' IMO.

The difference is Barton is getting himself into big trouble because of twitter, as have several other players, its too risky to go down that route, anyway the game doesnt need it.

2. Happens - there's even a PPM you can train players in to make it happen much more often.

The difference is Barton is getting himself into big trouble because of twitter, as have several other players, its too risky to go down that route, anyway the game doesnt need it.

I think you are missing the point.

It's just another media source. 'Player X has made his feelings publicly known' already exists in the game for gods sake.

I'm not missing anything, im repeating what i read the top guy at SI say, it wont be in the game because of the legal implications, simple really.

Yes, yes you are.

If I wanted to listen to people quoting Miles, I'd read his interviews. The point is, there are NO legal implications. IT IS JUST ANOTHER MEDIA SOURCE! I am not suggesting changing what is said or how it is said by players. Players, whether they real or regen, will still be making the same statements that they already make in game. As these are ALREADY in the game, there must be no legal issue.

OK so you say there are no legal implications, the guy who runs SI and knows all about what could get them into trouble says there are, who knows better? Who's to say Twitter would even be happy having their company represented in the game?

Oh god. Whoooooooooosh. I'll try one more time.

I'm not saying there are or there arent any legal implications. I'm sure Miles has more of an idea than me about that. But what I am saying is that it is only logical to presume that if at present it is ok for SI to put in the game that certain real life players are 'volatile, confrontational' etc etc, and those players often complain in such ways that appear in the game as 'Player X is unhappy at not being in the first team and has made his feelings publicly known' then it would be ok to say exactly the same thing, except saying that 'Player X made his feelings unknown on his twitter feed/Facebook profile/Myspace/Whatever'. What exactly is the difference? There is none. So the legal issue argument doesnt wash, is illogical and doesnt make sense.

As for Twitter having their company in the game, you do realise you can actually update Twitter via FM? I doubt Twitter would shy away from the publicity either (or the links to their website). www.skysports.com, bbc.co.uk/football, www.football365.com etc etc the list goes on, all are already in the game.

I get the feeling you havent played the game for quite some time!

a press confrence about your previous employement.....why you left the club

what was the previous chairman like

how did you feel about the fans

Yeah, does anyone else actually have any other simplistic ideas?

More interaction with the board/chairman would be good, but probably not as simple to implement as the things I'm looking at!

Oh god. Whoooooooooosh. I'll try one more time.

I'm not saying there are or there arent any legal implications. I'm sure Miles has more of an idea than me about that. But what I am saying is that it is only logical to presume that if at present it is ok for SI to put in the game that certain real life players are 'volatile, confrontational' etc etc, and those players often complain in such ways that appear in the game as 'Player X is unhappy at not being in the first team and has made his feelings publicly known' then it would be ok to say exactly the same thing, except saying that 'Player X made his feelings unknown on his twitter feed/Facebook profile/Myspace/Whatever'. What exactly is the difference? There is none. So the legal issue argument doesnt wash, is illogical and doesnt make sense.

As for Twitter having their company in the game, you do realise you can actually update Twitter via FM? I doubt Twitter would shy away from the publicity either (or the links to their website). www.skysports.com, bbc.co.uk/football, www.football365.com etc etc the list goes on, all are already in the game.

I get the feeling you havent played the game for quite some time!

Twitter are more than happy to have human users use their software to tweet in game, would they be happy with their company name being used as a means of players publicly having a go at managers/refs whatever? It becomes a different ball game then. I'm sure no one at Twitter would be happy with their company only being seen as an outlet for frustrated players in the game, it follows the same ideas of SI avoiding any possible legal issues with what players get up too. Just because they are happy for a human user to use their software does not mean they would be happy being seen as an outlet of frustration and controversy, even if it happens in reality.

Again ill point to the fact that Miles himself says there are legal implications, despite you thinking it is logical to include Twitter in that sense, it clearly is not logical to put yourself in any position where you could come under legal scrutiny.

I'm not saying there are or there arent any legal implications.

This is exactly what you -are- saying. Whether or not it's what you're trying to say, it is what you're saying.

No legal issues there.

The point is, there are NO legal implications.

...there must be no legal issue.

Twitter are more than happy to have human users use their software to tweet in game, would they be happy with their company name being used as a means of players publicly having a go at managers/refs whatever? It becomes a different ball game then. I'm sure no one at Twitter would be happy with their company only being seen as an outlet for frustrated players in the game, it follows the same ideas of SI avoiding any possible legal issues with what players get up too. Just because they are happy for a human user to use their software does not mean they would be happy being seen as an outlet of frustration and controversy, even if it happens in reality.

Why would it have to be used as only an outlet for players to vent their frustrations? 'Player X said on Twitter today he was delighted with the signing of Player Z'. The scope is endless. Its basically another way for a player to speak out in public in the game. Whether it is a positive or a negative effect. You cannot deny positive/negative statements are made by players in the game. I fail to see how using a particular newspaper or website changes any legal issues. It happens in game already.

Again ill point to the fact that Miles himself says there are legal implications, despite you thinking it is logical to include Twitter in that sense, it clearly is not logical to put yourself in any position where you could come under legal scrutiny.

Look, you can point to Miles all you like. All you have to do is look in the latest issue of FM. There are possible legal issues all over the place. From agents with certain attributes (although not real, they represent real players) to media correspondents working for real newspapers with certain characteristics (from Bob Brown from The Daily Telegraph - Personaility - friendly, relationship with you - feels the two of you could be friends OR Personality - untrustworthy, relationship with you - no opinion). Are SI suggesting that employees of that particular newspaper/media outlet are all untrustworthy?

Placing social media (you dont even have to mention 'Twitter' or 'Facebook' - just 'social network') into the game as a way of players interacting with you, each other and the fans via a third party website is no different to the interaction that takes place in the game at the moment.

This is exactly what you -are- saying. Whether or not it's what you're trying to say, it is what you're saying.

Point taken!

Why would it have to be used as only an outlet for players to vent their frustrations? 'Player X said on Twitter today he was delighted with the signing of Player Z'. The scope is endless. Its basically another way for a player to speak out in public in the game. Whether it is a positive or a negative effect. You cannot deny positive/negative statements are made by players in the game. I fail to see how using a particular newspaper or website changes any legal issues. It happens in game already.

Look, you can point to Miles all you like. All you have to do is look in the latest issue of FM. There are possible legal issues all over the place. From agents with certain attributes (although not real, they represent real players) to media correspondents working for real newspapers with certain characteristics (from Bob Brown from The Daily Telegraph - Personaility - friendly, relationship with you - feels the two of you could be friends OR Personality - untrustworthy, relationship with you - no opinion). Are SI suggesting that employees of that particular newspaper/media outlet are all untrustworthy?

Placing social media (you dont even have to mention 'Twitter' or 'Facebook' - just 'social network') into the game as a way of players interacting with you, each other and the fans via a third party website is no different to the interaction that takes place in the game at the moment.

If it was as simple as your making out they why does the CEO of the company say its not? Like you have pointed out Twitter is already part of the game for the human user, if it was as simple as adding them do you not think SI would have already done it? Ignore what Miles says if you want, but unfortunately the case is, it wont be included because of legal problems, even if you dont agree with them at all.

I like the way you are just ignoring every valid point I'm making and saying 'refer back to CEO'. Quite frankly you have no idea what Miles is referring to when he states certain aspects or suggestions cannot be put in the game due to legal issues unless he has specifically stated what that suggestion is or replied direct to a thread on the forums. I havent seen this suggestion made before, and I havent seen any SI employee state that social networking being a platform used by players will not be put in the game due to legal reasons (whether brand names such as Twitter/Facebook are used is another matter). So to constantly reply 'it wont be in the game for legal reasons' seems to suggest you have seen a direct quote from Miles saying it wont, or you are presuming that it wont. If it is the former, give me a link to where it is clearly stated it wont be in due to legal issues and if it is the latter stop quoting 'Miles' and 'legal issues' when it hasnt actually been said.

Adding what I am suggesting does not change the fact that players in game will make positive/negative comments in game about a whole range of things. If there are legal issues around it, then fair enough, but I suggest that SI look at other areas that are already in the game as well if they are that concerned.

What is the difference between receiving a news item saying 'Player X wants to leave the club and has made his feelings publicly known' - 'Player X wants to leave the club and has done an interview with a local newspaper' - 'Player X wants to leave the club and has made his feelings known on a social networking site'

I'll tell you. None.

Then why being so fussy about basically changing a line of text?

Also, why wanting MORE media stuff while the basics of that area are still in need of a good fix/tweak?

But speaking of "little things" we need... BOOKINGS FOR KEEPERS... yellow and red cards following one-on-one situations are a key factor in football (ask Lehmann and Arsenal fans), yet in FM it's easier scoring a 40m screamer with a CB than getting a keeper sent off for taking a striker down in the box.

I like the way you are just ignoring every valid point I'm making and saying 'refer back to CEO'. Quite frankly you have no idea what Miles is referring to when he states certain aspects or suggestions cannot be put in the game due to legal issues unless he has specifically stated what that suggestion is or replied direct to a thread on the forums. I havent seen this suggestion made before, and I havent seen any SI employee state that social networking being a platform used by players will not be put in the game due to legal reasons (whether brand names such as Twitter/Facebook are used is another matter). So to constantly reply 'it wont be in the game for legal reasons' seems to suggest you have seen a direct quote from Miles saying it wont, or you are presuming that it wont. If it is the former, give me a link to where it is clearly stated it wont be in due to legal issues and if it is the latter stop quoting 'Miles' and 'legal issues' when it hasnt actually been said.

Adding what I am suggesting does not change the fact that players in game will make positive/negative comments in game about a whole range of things. If there are legal issues around it, then fair enough, but I suggest that SI look at other areas that are already in the game as well if they are that concerned.

What is the difference between receiving a news item saying 'Player X wants to leave the club and has made his feelings publicly known' - 'Player X wants to leave the club and has done an interview with a local newspaper' - 'Player X wants to leave the club and has made his feelings known on a social networking site'

I'll tell you. None.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8703014/Football-Manager-2012-Miles-Jacobson-interview.html

Now can we move on please, Twitter will not be part of the game.

Then why being so fussy about basically changing a line of text?

Also, why wanting MORE media stuff while the basics of that area are still in need of a good fix/tweak?

You make an excellent second point, but with reference to your first point, I'm not being fussy as such, it was just an idea that I had. I've ran with it somewhat because people have criticised it for being either something that shouldnt be in the game or couldnt be in the game. I'm fed up of people on these forums who act like little SI minions and refuse to get into a constructive debate about ideas/suggestions just because SI employees/CEO have said the idea wouldnt be implemented previously (whether its due to legal reasons or not). The whole idea of the forum is to have such debates.

all i really want is a better transfer system. I want sagas like Fabregas where a team keeps bidding for and him keeps talking about him until they catch him instead of making one really lame offer for your star player and you doubling what they offered and then the transfer being over because they dont agree with you. Its really lame and its about time they done something about it.

Yeah id like to see other things like the F.A getting involved but they need to sort out the main things first then add these little things.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8703014/Football-Manager-2012-Miles-Jacobson-interview.html

Now can we move on please, Twitter will not be part of the game.

So will this year’s game feature philosophical tweets from Joey Barton?

There’s no philiosophical tweets from Joey Barton. You can tweet from inside the game, rather than Twitter being part of the game. But there’s no tweets from Joey Barton saying what he did was right and then going on the radio a few hours later and saying what he did was wrong. So no, all players inside Football Manager have been banned by their clubs from using Twitter.

In seriousness though, with that kind of fluff that surrounds the modern game, are you keen to keep that well away from something from Football Manager?

It depends what you mean really. We keep away from the WAG side of things, we keep away from players getting done for speeding, but that’s as much for legal reasons as much as anything else. We all know what sells papers and what makes people go and read things. People have to sell their media any way they can do, but we’re making a football game that hopefully deals with the positive side of the sport.

So when you've said Twitter wont be used in game because of legal reasons, thats not strictly true is it. Miles is talking about something entirely different when he says legal reasons (ie speeding fines and WAGS - for obvious reasons).

its all tied into the same thing, they will avoid controversial situations for legal reasons, Twitter comes under this.

its all tied into the same thing, they will avoid controversial situations for legal reasons, Twitter comes under this.

I disagree. Stop being a robot, use your own judgement and opinion and I'll ask you again;

What is the difference between receiving a news item saying 'Player X wants to leave the club and has made his feelings publicly known' - 'Player X wants to leave the club and has done an interview with a local newspaper' - 'Player X wants to leave the club and has made his feelings known on a social networking site'?

OK fair enough 'Twitter' isnt going to be in the game, as such, but SI in my opinion are missing a pretty big thing in football and how the media report on the game at the moment. My main point all along is there are positive/negative things said/done by players in the game for years and there have never been any legal issues around that as far as SI have been concerned. Introducing new ways for players to convey their opinions (whether positive or negative) does not change anything either.

all i really want is a better transfer system. I want sagas like Fabregas where a team keeps bidding for and him keeps talking about him until they catch him instead of making one really lame offer for your star player and you doubling what they offered and then the transfer being over because they dont agree with you. Its really lame and its about time they done something about it.

Yeah id like to see other things like the F.A getting involved but they need to sort out the main things first then add these little things.

Yeah good point. However the whole point of this thread is the simple things. It means adding a number of quick, interesting yet impressive things that would improve the game. Yes overhauling the transfer system as well as scouting system and even regeneration of players are often things that people call for, but they take a lot of time and work.

Its not about me being a robot, neither of us have privy legal knowledge of what COULD happen, we go by what SI say, there is no other choice, even if you dont agree with what they say. Unless your actually involved in the legalities of it or have a good knowledge of the legal side of things how can you argue?

I really dont see what SI are missing out on, all your suggesting now is to change a part of one line in the game, its not going to add or take anything away from the game as Twitter would never be used in game the same way as it would in reality. Anyway its only the last 6 months or so that the whole footballers and Twitter thing has really come to the attention of the clubs and media, its hardly a massive part of football and will most likely be banned by a lot of clubs before long.

I really think you've missed the points I've been trying to make as well as the point of the whole thread.

Why did SI ever think that adding real websites or real newspapers into the game would add anything into the game? Why did they introduce specific journalists with names and profiles/personalities? None of these aspects really added or took anything away from the game (not in their current form anyway) but they were still added. The whole point of this thread is to identify little details that could be added to make the game slightly more enjoyable and potentially even more realistic. I'm not talking about giving every player his own in game twitter feed. Of course it wouldnt work in the game as it does in reality, but then a lot of other features in the game dont anyway. I'm talking about adding little querks that just add that little something to the game, not overhauling the game or changing massive parts of it.

1, 3 and 5 would be very good additions. 4 is not possible due to legal reasons IIRC. 2 doesn't happens even when player has PPM 'Like To Round The Goalkeeper', so they could work on it.

I just notice when they round the keeper they take a touch to the side and finish it past the keeper into the middle of the net, not really going round the keeper as you see in real life, I think it could be improved

Also pitch invasions would be good and OP's improvements, although 4 has already been thoroughly discussed already. One more thing - the manager dot! Would love that.

Calm down everyone, please.

The use of Twitter in game as a media source wouldn't be a legal issue in the same sense as one of the named players jumping up and down on several women and punching the bouncer would be.

Twitter could easily be used in the way Ray suggests, providing that Twitter are ok with their inclusion. milnerpoint, you're completely misreading what Miles has said.

Calm down everyone, please.

The use of Twitter in game as a media source wouldn't be a legal issue in the same sense as one of the named players jumping up and down on several women and punching the bouncer would be.

Twitter could easily be used in the way Ray suggests, providing that Twitter are ok with their inclusion. milnerpoint, you're completely misreading what Miles has said.

That a sly reference to steven gerrard

Actually it wasn't, I just thought of random things they could do. Did he actually do that?

I didnt think anyone was getting heated for once!

If i have mis-interperated what he has said then fair enough ill hold my hands up!

Manager trophy room / list. I've wanted that for effing eons. When will we have it?

The ability to develop relationships with other managers. Right now it's completely random, one day they'll think you can become friends, you say nice things about them, they respond happily and then the next day... they don't think much of you. What!?

To be able to add the current ability and potential ability when looking at the B team in Spain. It is rather stupid that you got the reports on all the players but can't easilly access an overview.

To be able to get the national team ass manager to give you an opinion on national players best position.

@Ackter @Raybouldinho

The key reason Twitter won't be included as a "media source" is because the authors of a footballer's Twitter account are usually the footballers themselves (i.e. their personal opinion/views) whereas most other media sources are authored by third-parties (reporters mainly) whose reasons for doing so are purely financial, whether there is any truth in "player goes public" or not is irrelevant (and therefore less of a legal minefield than simulating a player's own opinions and views would be).

Basically, Twitter can be directly attributed to the player, the current in-game sources can't.

More in depth and correct match previews.

As it stands all we get is "Team A has been playing very well of late so i can't see team B getting anything from this fixture". Would be nice to have more detailed previews than that. It would also be nice if the match favourite was logical, after winning the prem 3 times in a row my Leeds team are still regarded as likely to be beaten at home by Birmingham, who have finished 11th, 15th and 13th in the last 3 seasons.

How about building up rivalries. For example on my current save me (tottenham) and Man City have dominated the league for more than a decade and are always challenging each other for the title. Have met in champions cup final twice as well. Mancini (still city manager) always takes shots at me before matches and i usually return the favour. This should make tottenham and man city rivals shouldn't it. This is probably how Man Utd and Arsenal became rivals.