A realistic approach to difficulty levels

After not being flamed for mentioning difficulty levels (probably because it being unnoticed as I expected) I thought I'd raise this issue again in a separate thread, being aware that there have been various discussions on the issue which saw the OPs be flamed and got responses from SI, saying this will never happen.

But please, before flaming me for still bringing it up again, please read carefully as I assume to make a valid point and maybe have a different and new idea as to what difficulty levels could be.

In general, I am a friend of allowing the users to tailor the game to their preferences by having a set of settings to do that. The customized maps in Civilization might be a good example of how this works. This is why I really like the option to have no transfers in the first transfer window because indeed they are unrealistic as the rl transfer budget can be assumed to be spent, yet it would take away some of the fun from the first ours of each savegame. This is why users can choose there whether they prefer to sacrifice fun or total realism there. For the same reason again I also support to have the 'never be fired' option. It would allow users who would like the option to use it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Btw I want to stress my I for myself do not use the existing no transfers option, nor would I use the no sackings or any difficulty level other than the default one, because in my opinion the game is fine just like it is!

However, allowing users to make use of a certain set of options does not harm the game to the slightest. While probably most users would (and could! that's important) ignore this kind of option, it would allow other users to make the game even more enjoyable to themselves. And that at no expense to all the rest.

Why should a user who wants a more of a challenge not be able to raise the difficulty for him? Now you can give yourself a challenge by self-imposing rules or by choosing a club with a bad squad/high expectations/low finances/point deductions. But why should we not be able to make managing our favourite club a bit harder? And the same applies vice versa. Why should it not be an option to have a slightly higher probability of success?

The reasons I saw against difficulty levels were partly crap, partly very good.

I consider it to be a crap reason that people might go bragging about their success which was 'unfairly' achieved by using a lower diffivulty level (I read that once as a con argument). In all fairness they should be honest when bragging and tell which level that was on and even if they didn't, the rest of us should be grown up enough to endure those immature show offs.

The good reason against difficulty levels is that the game should not cheat, in any way. It would be a bad thing if a shot which hits the post normally, went in because of difficulty settings. No training effect should be higher or lower because of a difficulty setting. That I would really oppose as the game would have to be coded to cheat in favour or against the human user, depending on the setting. The game wants to be a proper simulation of football management and any code which would go against what is perceived to be the currently best possible simulation of real life would violate the very ethics of playing a football management simulation and I could understand any gamer, coder or producer if they felt insulted about having to dumb down their own game.

What I advocate though, is that only a few alterations which would not at all touch the core of the football simulation could have the effect of difficulty levels (and accordingly be named as such). You can get this effect by touching only two areas: Finance and Reputation.

Let me explain. I'll use a higher difficulty level as an example and for a lower one obviously the opposite applies.

Change of Club and Manager Reputation: If difficulty =+1 then reputation=reputation - 10 percent (vaguely in coders language, remembering some Basic from the 80ies)

This would make it harder to sign players because fewer players are interested in joining your club. Consequently you can not just sign a superstar after winning promotion to EPL or sign many superstars after your first qualification to the Champions League. You will rely on the development of youngsters more and on your ability to find underrated gems or good occasions. Yet your progress is not overly hindered by unrealistic obstacles.

Finances: Same thing. Increase the demands of the AI in terms of transfer fees and wages by a certain percentage. Drop the match day income by reducing the researched average ticket price for the club by a certain percentage. With just slight alterations here you can make it more challenging to remain financially stable. The good and experienced users find it too easy to accumulate wealth. By applying this it would be a bit harder.

Maybe: Board ambition +1, patience -1.

I would not touch any further areas of the game, not player morale, not media reaction, just those few. But combining these you will find it a bigger financial challenge to develop and maintain a competitive squad. You will show that you are a better manager by other means than just pure money. Yet the game itself stays the same and remains untouched as it should be and gives you every opportunity to excel. Of course, the figures mentioned are just random examples.

And in terms of coding I hope to be right assuming it would be comparably easy to do. Actually, it could be done either in a certain amount of general difficulty settings or the Civilization way of allowing to make settings for these areas individually to suit the most users.

Considering how many users would probably be very glad about having an option like this, I feel there are more and better reasons to implement this kind of difficulty level than reasons against doing so. Honestly, I cannot come up with a single good reason against it spontaneously.

Already now you can make the game easier for yourself by editing the club of your choice. Give yourself a higher transfer budget, better training facilities, a patient chairman and on top make your squad a bit better than it is. So if that is already an option which is open to any user, what can be said against making options with lesser effect just more easily accessible?

I would be very happy if a constructive discussion developed about this now and if the discussion concentrated on the suggested limited approach to difficulty levels as others have indeed been discussed at length too many times before.

Thanks for reading

I'd have no objection to those additions if they took someone at SI 10 seconds to implement or after work not taking away development time from other aspects and so long as the defaults were proper levels. Income modifiers would make the game unrealistic, but then I guess that is what difficulty levels always do - I'd never use such things myself so as long as they don't affect me in any way I don't care, but they would take testing time to make sure the options all work without unforeseen consequences.

The option to not allow transfers in the first window doesn't increase realism currently - since we get a database thrust upon us that is correct for September even though we start the game in June when most of those transfers hadn't really taken place. The idea of not being able to make any transfers when you join a club in June is right up there with being able to spend all your wages by selflessly pumping them back into the club and living like a beggar on the streets for realism!

However, allowing users to make use of a certain set of options does not harm the game to the slightest. While probably most users would (and could! that's important) ignore this kind of option, it would allow other users to make the game even more enjoyable to themselves. And that at no expense to all the rest.

I'd have no objection to those additions if they took someone at SI 10 seconds to implement or after work not taking away development time from other aspects and so long as the defaults were proper levels.

Jayahr, I work in game devlopment for a living, and we have this debate all the time at our company, too.

The argument "does not harm the game in the slightest" and "takes 10 seconds to implement" are both highly fallacious. They ignore testing time.

If you set up a game without options, you basically test one "code path" through each feature.

If you set up a game with two binary (on/off) options, you now have to test four code paths through each feature.

As you add both options and features, you quickly reach a point where your demands on your testing team are unreasonable, or the size of your testing team are unreasonable.

Additionally, you're more likely to see developers make errors, e.g., putting their fix into three of the four code paths, but missing the fourth code path.

That's one heavy argument against options.

The other is user complexity.

Basically, look at the Tactics screen.

We have how many options there? Like 20-something inputs, half with 20 degrees of freedom, and half with three .. which we can apply to the team and to each of 11 players.

The "power user" - me, wwfan, and others - love having that much freedom with which to fine-tune our tactics.

The casual user, however, feels overwhelmed, and doesn't really understand what each of the inputs do, exactly. His problems compound when he gets something fixed in his head incorrectly, misunderstanding what his input is intended to do. He immediately feels like its a bug when it his players don't do what he thought he was telling them to do.

So, for all options, the designer has to balance complexity versus control.

Think of the comparison between the all-powerful UNIX command line and the ease-of-use of the Mac GUI. The true UNIX power user hates the limiting nature of the GUI .. but the vast majority of users don't miss the missing features.

. . .

Personally, I'm a power user, and I come down firmly on the side of "more options are a good thing!" ...

... but at my company, especially, I have to acknowledge that I am not my target audience.

OK, how would this work:

At the start of the game there are two additonal tick boxes - Reputation Boost and Financial Boost. Each enables a slider that changes the selected team's reputation, bank balance and transfer budget. All these are fields that could be edited in the database, therefore should not require no more testing (other than that they adjust the fields correctly). This simply shortcuts doing the same thing in the editor, but is easier to understand and can be done on a per game basis.

I actually think the OP has picked the right areas, and implementing it in this way would ensure that there is still only one path through the game.

You can use an .edt to boost finance and reputation... Or the editor...

Those "difficulty adjusters" are already present.

OK, how would this work:

At the start of the game there are two additonal tick boxes - Reputation Boost and Financial Boost. Each enables a slider that changes the selected team's reputation, bank balance and transfer budget. All these are fields that could be edited in the database, therefore should not require no more testing (other than that they adjust the fields correctly). This simply shortcuts doing the same thing in the editor, but is easier to understand and can be done on a per game basis.

I actually think the OP has picked the right areas, and implementing it in this way would ensure that there is still only one path through the game.

Thanks for your support

Amaroq, I'm not even arguing it would be a 10 minute thing to implement. However I agree with playmaker that I consider testing not to be a heavy task there. I'm working in the football industry, so might underestimate the work which is needed for certain things in the game industry, but I feel that if you pick those percentages sensibly, any real issue should become obvious in the big beta-testing done by the specially assigned beta testers and the researchers who get to beta test early versions. As my suggested alterations only apply to the finances available and to your clubs (and maybe your own) reputation, the effects of any change should be easily visible.

For instance, you manage Liverpool but in terms of players interested it's like you are Tottenham or Newcastle. That's about the difference I'm thinking about.

I would even say that if you don't overdo it, any too big or too small effect can still be discussed after release when we would get the user feedback.

The argument that it is actually already possible to alter many of my suggested things is rather a pro argument than a con in my books because these option would in parts just be made accessible more easily. Also, it would have the advantage that the setting would apply if you change clubs as well.

(and I don't want to take it too far and maybe it would be a major coding problem, but depending on how this could/would be implemented, it could maybe even be changeable during a savegame and not be an option that has to be chosen before you create your save).

I love the feedback though, keep it coming

I'm against any kind of difficulty settings on principle. Why? Because of the realism. This game is all about realism (and I love it), having difficulty levels isn't realistic. Also here's an example. I start my game with Nottingham forest on hard. My reputation is lowered, budget too and all other things OP recommended. What if I find another job? Will reputation of that new club be immediately lowered when I sign for them!? If yes, it's highly unrealistic, if not it defeats the purpose of difficulty settings because at that point game becomes easier/harder.

I start my game with Nottingham forest on hard. My reputation is lowered, budget too and all other things OP recommended. What if I find another job? Will reputation of that new club be immediately lowered when I sign for them!? If yes, it's highly unrealistic, if not it defeats the purpose of difficulty settings because at that point game becomes easier/harder.

Exactly - the changes discussed currently can be accessed through the "Prior Experience" entry and the pre-game editor. If you're going to keep them as pre-game elements, only, then I don't see much of a strong argument for bringing them into the main game application.

As soon as you reach the point of having the difficulty settings come along to your new club with you, you have additional code paths in all of the elements impacted.

I think perhaps the point is that you can't make different difficulty levels (the implications on the match engine alone are huge), but for those people who feel like they struggle, a reputation and finance boost at the beginning of the game only would give them a much easier start. It would get rid of the arguments about difficulty level, because while it may provide the same functionality as the editor you don't need to understand how the game works to use it.

If that makes the game more accessible to other people without adding code paths and testing beyond the setup, then I don't really see a problem. If that is not achievable, then I would argue against it ever being implemented.

Moving to another club, in my solution, would be irrelevant. You are not setting up a continuous difficulty level, you are just giving yourself a leg up at the beginning of the game to give you time to get into it.

The Prior Experience drop down only changes your own reputation and loosens the purse strings a bit. It doesn't make the club more attractive and it doesn't change the clubs wealth.

You can use an .edt to boost finance and reputation... Or the editor...

Those "difficulty adjusters" are already present.

Lucky I read the whole thread, because this is exactly what I was going to say. The editor of FMM gives you the option to boost finances and/or reputation so there is no need to add these features.

Reputation is used for a huge number of things (far too many for a single number representation of a club in my opinion). Even if just knocking this down by 10% sounds nice and simple it could still have all manner of effects that aren't considered.

I don't program games, but I program other software and we are constantly getting situations where someone changes something in the code which appears to be nicely self-contained, then we suddenly realise it affects something that seemed totally unrelated. Obviously it is doable, but it would require so much testing - people playing the game would find it totally unacceptable if the difficulty option didn't give them the game they were expecting because of some unforeseen effect.

The kind of player that needs this kind of help to survive the game is unlikely to be au fait with the in-game or save game editors though, and probably not browse this forum, thus he/she would need something as simple as a tick-box option.

Lucky I read the whole thread, because this is exactly what I was going to say. The editor of FMM gives you the option to boost finances and/or reputation so there is no need to add these features.

To use an editor you need some understanding of how the game works, otherwise you have no idea what to change. That is exactly what people who ask about difficulty levels don't have.

I never thought I would be arguing this side of the argument though!

The kind of player that needs this kind of help to survive the game is unlikely to be au faix with the in-game or save game editors though, and probably not browse this forum, thus he/she would need something as simple as a tick-box option.

That opens up a whole can of worms though. There are people who wouldn't be au faix with the tactics system so they could argue that a tick box should be included as to whether they use basic tactics, similar to old CMs, or the full tactics that are currently in game. The list would be pages long if there were tick boxes to help out people who don't know the intricate ins and outs of FM.

To use an editor you need some understanding of how the game works, otherwise you have no idea what to change. That is exactly what people who ask about difficulty levels don't have.

I never thought I would be arguing this side of the argument though!

It's a matter of increasing the value in the reputation and finances section, I don't think you need any understanding of the game whatsoever, surely it's common sense.

I'm against any kind of difficulty settings on principle. Why? Because of the realism. This game is all about realism (and I love it), having difficulty levels isn't realistic. Also here's an example. I start my game with Nottingham forest on hard. My reputation is lowered, budget too and all other things OP recommended. What if I find another job? Will reputation of that new club be immediately lowered when I sign for them!? If yes, it's highly unrealistic, if not it defeats the purpose of difficulty settings because at that point game becomes easier/harder.

I agree with you as far as I would not use my suggested options because of exactly what you are saying (and because I find the default setting to be a good mix of challenge and chance).

What I don't understand is, why users who think differently should be deprived of this option just because we prefer not to use it. :confused:

What I don't understand is, why users who think differently should be deprived of this option just because we prefer not to use it. :confused:

It's just not a good enough reason to include it IMO. Plenty of people want to be able to spend their wages in game, why should they be deprived of that option just because we wouldn't use it/don't want it?

Reputation is used for a huge number of things (far too many for a single number representation of a club in my opinion). Even if just knocking this down by 10% sounds nice and simple it could still have all manner of effects that aren't considered.

I don't program games, but I program other software and we are constantly getting situations where someone changes something in the code which appears to be nicely self-contained, then we suddenly realise it affects something that seemed totally unrelated. Obviously it is doable, but it would require so much testing - people playing the game would find it totally unacceptable if the difficulty option didn't give them the game they were expecting because of some unforeseen effect.

If contained at the game start, I can't see how it would need any more testing than already happens every time a team is promoted, relegated, wins a trophy, someone uses the editor, or anything else that can affect reputation. The testing required is that you get realistic results at the level of reputation set and surely that already happens.

I think it would be a good addition for many people (in this form) and I am happy for SI to decide whether it is viable to code and test or even if it is something they want in the game.

The question should be "will this solve, or at least partly solve the problems that some people are having in getting to grips with the game?" I think the answer is that it will do enough to help people up the learning curve long enough to get a better grip on the game.

That opens up a whole can of worms though. There are people who wouldn't be au faix with the tactics system so they could argue that a tick box should be included as to whether they use basic tactics, similar to old CMs, or the full tactics that are currently in game. The list would be pages long if there were tick boxes to help out people who don't know the intricate ins and outs of FM.

But is the possibility that some people might demand more actually a valid reason against implementing this?

From what I've read in here so far the best argument against my suggestion is that it might require a lot of testing because a change might have too many unplanned effects.

Of course, those who code the game will know best where reputation is used and what could happen. As I said the figure of 10 percent was just an example and the sensible figure to be used might indeed have to be smaller.

As far as I'm aware it is used for who is interested in joining and who is interested in staying mainly. What else is it used for?

However, so far I have the impression that any knock-on effects should become apparent quickly in beta testing and honestly, I would not oppose seeing the last tweaks and balances made in a first patch after users have found the feature to be a bit flawed in the x.0.0 version.

Of course, in case I'm wrong and it would be too much testing or a too big danger to other parts of the game, that would be a decisive argument against the suggestion.

And if the manager reputation at the start is indeed already there, it should not be a part of the difficulty level. But club reputation can easily be and so can finances.

Maybe it would be difficult in terms of transfer fees as it would look strange if AI bids of the same amount get accepted and yours rejected because of the difficulty level but then who picks anything but the default should be aware that he plays by different rules and should not complain. As finances are not very transparent so far, one would probably not even notice the other areas where financial cuts or boosts might be implemented.

After knowing and reading again that just so much of what I'm suggesting is already possible by using pre- and in-game editors, the main change would seemingly just be to make it more user-friendly to apply any of these opportunities.

It's just not a good enough reason to include it IMO. Plenty of people want to be able to spend their wages in game, why should they be deprived of that option just because we wouldn't use it/don't want it?

Because it has nothing to do with football management.

Please, my suggestion is not comparable to that one.

Re: playmaker...

Well, I think if there is a difficulty level it has to be constant throughout the game so I don't like the option that as soon as you change clubs or get sacked (and people who want an easy game are probably those most likely to get sacked...always assuming of course we don't add an unsackable option which would provide yet another bunch of combinations of variables) the difficulty just reverts to standard. Sure that is easy to program and relatively quick to test, but I don't think it makes sense.

If contained at the game start, I can't see how it would need any more testing than already happens every time a team is promoted, relegated, wins a trophy, someone uses the editor, or anything else that can affect reputation. The testing required is that you get realistic results at the level of reputation set and surely that already happens.

I think it would be a good addition for many people (in this form) and I am happy for SI to decide whether it is viable to code and test or even if it is something they want in the game.

The question should be "will this solve, or at least partly solve the problems that some people are having in getting to grips with the game?" I think the answer is that it will do enough to help people up the learning curve long enough to get a better grip on the game.

Apart from that I would expect the feature to be better if it applied to every club you move to in your entire carreer, I couldn't agree more with everything you are saying

After knowing and reading again that just so much of what I'm suggesting is already possible by using pre- and in-game editors, the main change would seemingly just be to make it more user-friendly to apply any of these opportunities.

That's true, but if we're looking at it from a new gamer perspective, should time be spent on adding a glossy finish to current features in order to make it user-friendly, when there are other aspects of the game that can't be edited, but add to the difficulty?

Because it has nothing to do with football management.

Please, my suggestion is not comparable to that one.

Setting a difficulty level has nothing to do with football management either though. If anything spending your wages is more realistic because it can happen, IRL a manager can't add an extra zero to the budget when signing his contract, in order to make it that little bit more comfortable.

Setting a difficulty level has nothing to do with football management either though. If anything spending your wages is more realistic because it can happen, IRL a manager can't add an extra zero to the budget when signing his contract, in order to make it that little bit more comfortable.

Of course you are right that the feature would sacrifice realism for fun.

But the difficulty level in fact has a close connection to playing the game in many ways, so I feel it much closer to the core and purpose of the game than the spending wages one which is purely cosmetic and has no effect on anything else (unless the choice of your car has an impact on your reputation )

I don't believe to just be talking about the icing on the cake. In terms of user friendliness this would be a bigger step forward than the now advertised feature to reject all loan offers for a player for instance. And it would add something in terms of reputation and finances which you actually cannot do now.

And I'm not even going on about just how many features of the last instalments of the game have been nothing but a bit of icing...

You can edit both club and manager reputation using the in game editor and FMM, also finances.

I'm not wholly against difficulty levels, although I am one of the people who claim they are already in the game dependant on which club you take control of. The problem I see with the additions you suggest is that you can already do this, it might not be user friendly, but you can do it. My tongue in cheek suggestion of basic tactics instead of FM tactics, IMO, is a more worthy addition as we have no choice in what style we get atm and tactics are one of the hardest things to grasp, for long term users let alone new users. Having a choice in rep and finances is cosmetic in it's own way, as all it really does is improve your chances of buying players, which does help, but doesn't address the more intricate details of FM that people find harder than buying players.

I can't see a way for this to work. Not at all. If you have different difficulty levels you have several different games. And that's before you consider the programming issues.

If the game is not satisfying in its current format due to its perceived difficulty, and it's finance and reputation etc that cause you this difficulty, then just download one of the many 3rd party tools out there to help - FMM for example.

If the football matches are the problem then it's a problem for SI to resolve. I've never had a problem with them, and I'm no guru here, so if I can have the patience to work it out, anyone can.

Re: playmaker...

Well, I think if there is a difficulty level it has to be constant throughout the game so I don't like the option that as soon as you change clubs or get sacked (and people who want an easy game are probably those most likely to get sacked...always assuming of course we don't add an unsackable option which would provide yet another bunch of combinations of variables) the difficulty just reverts to standard. Sure that is easy to program and relatively quick to test, but I don't think it makes sense.

But what I am suggesting (based on the original post) is not difficulty levels. It doesn't change when you move to a new club. You simply start at your first club with more money and a higher club reputation - making it easier to get better players, which in turn makes the game easier, without resorting to playing as a top four club. It only affects transfers in the first transfer window.

The one complication I can see to that is the reputation and extra money would affect the board expectations and in that respect artificially maintaining the original expectation (which you would need to) would open up a new code path and probably make the idea non-viable. I would imagine the expectations are set AFTER the game setup and while it would only need to be forced at the very beginning of the game, sooner or later the reputation and expectation have to match up. If that causes unexpected consequences then it does makes the idea a non-starter.

making it easier to get better players, which in turn makes the game easier,

That's the flaw with this suggestion, that's not necessarily true. How many threads have we read with people complaining that they lose too often despite having a team of allstars? If you were going to introduce difficulty levels, being able to edit rep and finances doesn't go far enough, and you would have to include tactical solutions etc. The ability to edit rep and finances might make it more fun in terms of buying players, but it won't make the game any easier.

That's the flaw with this suggestion, that's not necessarily true. How many threads have we read with people complaining that they lose too often despite having a team of allstars? If you were going to introduce difficulty levels, being able to edit rep and finances doesn't go far enough, and you would have to include tactical solutions etc. The ability to edit rep and finances might make it more fun in terms of buying players, but it won't make the game any easier.

I don't disagree with that at all. You cannot have an all encompassing difficulty level - even one additional difficulty level would require doubling the code and that is six or seven years worth of match engine development for a start. People wanting something like that will forever be disappointed.

For the people that struggle you can only offer small steps. Assistant manager notes, arrowless tactics with clearer consequences, even your own starting rep are all small steps. I don't think you can rule out a solution based on it not being enough.

No idea why I am so argumentative today!

No idea why I am so argumentative today!

It's nice to have a decent debate now and then and ignore the "whens's the demo out" threads.

You're right, it shouldn't be ruled out because it's not enough, but you went some way towards a more realistic solution when you mentioned assistant manager notes etc. A more in depth tutorial and guide is a must IMO, whereas difficulty levels should be a last resort.

But what I am suggesting (based on the original post) is not difficulty levels. It doesn't change when you move to a new club. You simply start at your first club with more money and a higher club reputation - making it easier to get better players, which in turn makes the game easier, without resorting to playing as a top four club. It only affects transfers in the first transfer window.

The one complication I can see to that is the reputation and extra money would affect the board expectations and in that respect artificially maintaining the original expectation (which you would need to) would open up a new code path and probably make the idea non-viable. I would imagine the expectations are set AFTER the game setup and while it would only need to be forced at the very beginning of the game, sooner or later the reputation and expectation have to match up. If that causes unexpected consequences then it does makes the idea a non-starter.

I'm not really drawn either way on the difficulty level but I suppose that's because I think the game is pretty much spot on with regards to realism and that is what I love about it.However I do find this discussion interesting and so will add my thoughts......

So how would the game handle it when you left the first club that you took charge of? regardless of which team it was they would then get an AI manager, would the club reputation and finances then revert back to the pre-set levels or stay at the inflated or deflated level that you chose at the start? Either way that would be unrealistic as the club concerned would either rise or fall over night just because you had left! Imagine that you had started with Nottingham Forest (just chose them as they were mentioned earlier on ion the thread) and set the difficulty to hard (so less money and reputation) then as you played you managed to get them up to the premiership and established as a top 5 team for say three years, then Man Utd or Chelsea come knocking on your door and you leave. If the Reputation and Finance levels reverted back to the standard levels then overnight Forest would potentially become one of the best clubs in Europe! I think this is the real issue with difficulty levels.

That's the flaw with this suggestion, that's not necessarily true. How many threads have we read with people complaining that they lose too often despite having a team of allstars? If you were going to introduce difficulty levels, being able to edit rep and finances doesn't go far enough, and you would have to include tactical solutions etc. The ability to edit rep and finances might make it more fun in terms of buying players, but it won't make the game any easier.

Mostly agreed

The change I'm suggesting is just another small, yet valuable step. (funnily enough I always use the harder setting as an example while you talk about the opposite one).

The main effect would be that it would be a bit more difficult or easier to have a squad of good players. Those who play crap tactics would still not become champions and those who exploit the ME will still have lots of success, but overall it will just be a bit harder/easier which is enough for me to think it's a good idea.

As I said, I oppose difficulty levels with effects throughout the game as well.

In terms of expectations I assume them to be affected as well. The higher the reputation the higher the expectations and the pressure and vice versa. Adds nicely to what I hope to be achieved. Mind, within the set expectations you can still choose a more funds, more pressure option each year

I'm not really drawn either way on the difficulty level but I suppose that's because I think the game is pretty much spot on with regards to realism and that is what I love about it.However I do find this discussion interesting and so will add my thoughts......

So how would the game handle it when you left the first club that you took charge of? regardless of which team it was they would then get an AI manager, would the club reputation and finances then revert back to the pre-set levels or stay at the inflated or deflated level that you chose at the start? Either way that would be unrealistic as the club concerned would either rise or fall over night just because you had left! Imagine that you had started with Nottingham Forest (just chose them as they were mentioned earlier on ion the thread) and set the difficulty to hard (so less money and reputation) then as you played you managed to get them up to the premiership and established as a top 5 team for say three years, then Man Utd or Chelsea come knocking on your door and you leave. If the Reputation and Finance levels reverted back to the standard levels then overnight Forest would potentially become one of the best clubs in Europe! I think this is the real issue with difficulty levels.

My suggestion is not a plain raise of funds as you could do it via the editor. It is tweaks to the income and to the wage and transfer fee demands by the AI. Of course, being unaware of the appropriate coding details of the financial models, some of that might be rubbish or impossible to do properly but that's the kind of way I'm going with my argument.

Also the reputation change should never be the difference between a mediocre and a world beater team. It's about nuances which still can make a difference.

Accordingly, your Nottingham example pretty such is spot on to what I suggest though the effect is a bit overstated. I'm aware that this might be a reason for others to not share my opinion

My suggestion is not a plain raise of funds as you could do it via the editor. It is tweaks to the income and to the wage and transfer fee demands by the AI. Of course, being unaware of the appropriate coding details of the financial models, some of that might be rubbish or impossible to do properly but that's the kind of way I'm going with my argument.

Also the reputation change should never be the difference between a mediocre and a world beater team. It's about nuances which still can make a difference.

Accordingly, your Nottingham example pretty such is spot on to what I suggest though the effect is a bit overstated. I'm aware that this might be a reason for others to not share my opinion

I realise that your not saying turn 'team x' into a european force but as per my example the reputation and finances of Forset would have been improved by moving up the leagues and top 5 premiership finishes anyway so when you left if they returned the 'say 10%' you downgraded them initially then their reputation and finances would go through the roof.

I think the part of the game that most people struggle with is the tactical side.

I suggested a while ago that there should be a choice of two ways to set up tactics. Simple and advanced.

To summarise the idea:

Within the Preferences (or possibly as a dropdown choice) their would be the option for simple tactics or advanced.

Advanced tactics would be the current way of doing things ith lots of sliders and plenty of choice.

For those less inclined or knowledgeable about such things, the simple option would give them some basic setups, such as:

Defensive, long ball.

Defensive, quick counter attack.

Cautious

Attacking from wide

Attacking - Narrow

All-out war

This basic choice would set the sliders to a sensible setup for that particular choice.

These settings could then be viewed by the player when they switch to advanced mode to get a good idea of how the advanced tactics need to be set up for a particular style of play and give them a better understanding in order for them to start tinkering themselves.

I think that this would lead to a lot less frustration for the casual user and those who don't really understand the tactics.

I haven't really gone into the depth of the idea but hope you understand what I mean.

Don't we already have subtle difficulty levels in the game? I always treat my starting experience and the club I chose to manage as the difficulty level of a new game I'm starting, albeit with several other considerations making things not so blunt as "Man Utd = easy".

Daley's example is why any potential change can only be at game start, simply as a way of presenting what can already be edited outside the game in a more accessible and understandable format. The next manager would simply inherit the reputation and money you have left him with. Let's face it, you will have spent all the money and the reputation at that point should be appropriate to your league position.

Changes to transfer behaviour, or taking the boost to your next club is not something I can see happening or would want to see.

Just to go a different way from Jayahr, I think any financial boost should be completely unsubtle otherwise I can't see much point. 10% of a modest (for the Premiership) budget of £5m is not enough to make a difference to the difficulty. You would be looking at something more like a threefold increase before you can begin to afford players that could make any real difference.

I have a game managing Scunthorpe at the moment - we are one of the few clubs in the Championship with a Regional reputation. I don't know how far we are off National, but they are only labels anyway so the underlying number is what matters. Nonetheless, let us assume that we are close enough that the reputation bump of having an easier level takes us up to National reputation. (I know you are keep using the example of making the game harder, but I'm not interested in that direction - there are a plethora of ways for an individual to do that themselves, the same is not true for making the game easier without editors so that's the example I choose)

Now with that increased reputation I can compete with other Championship clubs for players who just weren't interested in us previously. Say I sign a bunch of these and then a year later I leave and move to another club. It's the same problems as have already been mentioned with regards to what happens now to Scunthorpe. Them keeping the reputation bump forever totally unbalances the game, but them instantly dropping 10% (or whatever) back off their reputation would suddenly cause all those players I signed to want to move to a bigger club overnight. You could have some way of reputation gradually levelling out to it's base value, but then that is a lot more complicated and liable to have more far-reaching effects.

The idea of having Assistant Managers giving better advice is the best "difficulty level" option I have seen and is apparently going to be in FM09 anyway. This really is something that can simply be turned on and off because it doesn't alter anything fundamental in the game, it just gives the manager more advice on what is wrong if he wants it (if he doesn't he can work it out for himself).

Daley's example is why any potential change can only be at game start, simply as a way of presenting what can already be edited outside the game in a more accessible and understandable format. The next manager would simply inherit the reputation and money you have left him with. Let's face it, you will have spent all the money and the reputation at that point should be appropriate to your league position.

Changes to transfer behaviour, or taking the boost to your next club is not something I can see happening or would want to see.

Just to go a different way from Jayahr, I think any financial boost should be completely unsubtle otherwise I can't see much point. 10% of a modest (for the Premiership) budget of £5m is not enough to make a difference to the difficulty. You would be looking at something more like a threefold increase before you can begin to afford players that could make any real difference.

I'm not so sure there.

Staying within the Nottingham example:

Without any difficulty level Nottingham would after 3 consecutive CL quailifications probably be No. 5 in the EPL in terms of reputation. With a higher setting they might just be No. 7 to 9. Accordingly, players from clubs like Valencia, Roma, Bremen would be less likely to join. Once you leave Forest, they would be interested again.

Turnaround: Let's say while you are there they have a turnaround of x million. After you leave it will be higher by an appropriate percentage because the income per season ticket or per merchandising item increases. At the same time wage demands go down, thus being an effective change of, just for instance, a high one-figure million amount.

So no sudden cash injections or deductions, just slight alterations to the running algorythms.

Same after moving to Chelsea.

reputation down from top 10 in the world to top 20 or 25. Turnaround reduced a bit, demands highered a bit.

I'm not talking about a win everything option at all! (if you look at the making it easier side) 10 million a year can be a good transfer or a better one compared to what you would have otherwise plus the reputation makes it more likely you can sign better players for free)

Surely difficulty is dictated by choice of team? For example, I'm sure success is far easier to come by at say Man Utd or Chelsea than it is at Morecambe.

Very few clubs keep managers for any great length of time. They have a shelf-life, and IMO that's anything between 1 and 4 years. Beyond that you're talking serious long-term planning i.e. Clough at Forest, Gradi at Crewe and the current two long-timers Ferguson and Wenger at Man U and Arsenal respectively.

Jayahr, I know nothing about games, but that sounds like it would be extremely difficult to implement.

The idea of having Assistant Managers giving better advice is the best "difficulty level" option I have seen and is apparently going to be in FM09 anyway. This really is something that can simply be turned on and off because it doesn't alter anything fundamental in the game, it just gives the manager more advice on what is wrong if he wants it (if he doesn't he can work it out for himself).

I agree glamdring, maybe they could implement a level system of assistant manager feedback (which is going to be more comprehensive in '09 anyway) where he could give better advice throughout the game such as tactics and players to sign etc. This could be set up as part of your manager preferences so that you can dictate what level you require. Maybe something along the lines of:

None - No feedback from the assistant at all

Little - A little feedback concerning pre-game tactics an usual coaching reports

Standard (or default) - As it will be for '09

Above average - More in depth feedback for your tactics both pre and in-game as well as suggestions on perhaps formation, team talks etc.

High - Where the assistant could almost be like an in-game guide/tutor.

Apologies for the names but couldn't think of a better way, hopefully you get the gist.

the way i see it, if you want to be at a club with a lower rep then you would join one instead of making manutd or whoevers rep less .

same for lowering ticket prices etc.

the reason why they are in the editor is because people may dispute the stats and want to change them themselves i would think

I can see the argument that people shouldn't have to manage a club they detest (e.g. Manure) just to have a fun game, but that is what the editor is for - if you want to manage a lesser club, but don't want to put the effort in to turn them into a big club yourself you can just edit them into being a big club if that is the style of play you like.

I can see the argument that people shouldn't have to manage a club they detest (e.g. Manure) just to have a fun game, but that is what the editor is for - if you want to manage a lesser club, but don't want to put the effort in to turn them into a big club yourself you can just edit them into being a big club if that is the style of play you like.

But what if you don't have the technical understanding or the confidence to go around changing things using the editor?

Then you learn it or ask it.

But what if you don't have the technical understanding or the confidence to go around changing things using the editor?

Trial and error, when I started playing the game in 97 I didn't have the internet and I was able to just muck about with the editor, and I was only 15. There's nothing technical about it, and the hardest thing to work out is if 20 for injury proneness is good or bad

But what if you don't have the technical understanding or the confidence to go around changing things using the editor?

i agree but you cant just add functionality to change loads of stuff in the database to the GUI just because people may not know about the editor. it would be very time consuming.

in my opinion the people who are going to want to change teams reputation and bank balance etc are the sort of people who would go through the 'options' and tinker about with the database editors.

thats not to say they shouldn't add slide bars or whatever to have more control over these things. but i do think that the majority of FMers know what their doing with the editors.