Thinking about dificulty levels & AI

Just a simple thread about my thoughts about the AI. This relates to the old debate of introducing difficulty option levels in FM, which in itself probably wouldn’t work. This is bourn entirely from my own situation of being tactically inconsistent despite hours and hours of tweaking tactically and reading up on every possible opinion and idea tactically – and extensive studying of Cleans tactical Bible! So much so that I feel I am not getting enough time to play the game as I spend too much time reading the theory about it!

Anyway, In terms of a difficulty options, I have always been of the opinion that the game already has them in the respect that if you want an “easy†game, you simply select Man united or Barcelona and enjoy your success with quality players, if you want more of a challenge you Select some obscure non-league team and take them to glory. Fine, that’s how it should be. There shouldn’t be an arcade style option of turning the difficulty of the game down, and I don’t even think this is feasible with FM’s current engine anyway as it would completely upset the balance of the game and send the game into crazy mode.

My frustration, as already stated, stems from my lack of technical football knowledge and the amount of time required to research tactics/techniques without ant in game support telling me where I am going wrong or why I have just conceded 6 goals at home to Arsenal playing a defensive 5-2-2-1, or why after I have dominated a game and lead 3-0 at half time I lose 3-4. Form the posts I’ve seen over the months on here it’s clear I’m not the only one that feels the game “cheats†them somehow. This may well be down to a more realistic match engine, which is great, but the fact remains, the vast amount of the customer base are not real life football a mangers – armchair managers don’t have the benefit of years of tactical coach training and being able to read a game - especially a match we watch predominantly in highlight mode.

I don’t think the problem is that the game cheats, or that the game engine is indeed too hard, I feel the difficulty problem lies with two key factors:-

1) There is no tactical and technical help available that gives useful and detailed explanations as to where you are making mistakes. The assistant manager should have this feature, having him suggest a formation and some key instructions pre-match would be nice and then a post match report on the game with the reasons why you won/lost highlighted in simple and definitive terms.

2) You are playing against AI that is consistently TOO GOOD at reading the game and knows exactly what to do to counter your tactics.

Its that simple I believe, so you are always fighting an uphill battle from day one as there are no ( to my knowledge) varying levels of AI management competencies. I should expect a tough, tactical game when going up against Alex Ferguson for example, therefore need to be on my top technical form and be aware that he will punish any technical weaknesses in my team. Whereas going up against the likes of Kevin Keegan or Steve McLaren the AI should be tweaked so that it doesn’t necessarily react or counter my tactics because technically these managers are less likely to exploit my tactics, or even counter them if changed mid-game. If anything the AI should be more prone for these managers to make tactical gaffs.

As is the situation now , there does appear to be any deviation in quality of mangers and you are just as likely to get hammered tactically by the manager of a lower league team as you are a Premiership team, simply because the AI manager ALWAYS knows the “correct†tactic to use, and It’s only the quality of their players that is the variable on how successful these tactics are – or so it seems to me.

Sorry to bring to a head an old debate, but I feel this SI something that has been problematic since FM05, and with new FM08 match engine being so good it’s highlighted these weaknesses.

Cheers for reading (if you still are!)

Best alternative answer to " difficulty levels " out there.

An Ass Man that gives you more info during and after the match e.g. "their pace is causing us problems, it might be a good idea to have the defence use a deeper line", "they can't handle our target man in the air, we should try more long balls". Is that the sort of thing you mean?

If it is, then it's a brilliant idea and we could have an option not to receive any info, in the same way we can have them take team talks or not.

Originally posted by Nomis07:

An Ass Man that gives you more info during and after the match e.g. "their pace is causing us problems, it might be a good idea to have the defence use a deeper line", "they can't handle our target man in the air, we should try more long balls". Is that the sort of thing you mean?

If it is, then it's a brilliant idea and we could have an option not to receive any info, in the same way we can have them take team talks or not.

Yea that's the idea for the assistant tactical input, it should be definitive and clear to understand.

It would of course need to be optional in the manager options whether to have it on or not so once you master the game more you can turn it off, if you just fancy a tougher game want to analyze the game yourself and see where you are going wrong (not everyone is as lazy as me!)

Yes, as far as i'm concerned this is *exactly* the game needs - optional tactical advice for people who want it.

SI seem pretty dead against it, though.

Its not just the tactical advise but also the varying levels of AI managers, this would reduce the importance of having the right tactics for each match. I believe this would balance the difficulty of the game much better.

Originally posted by Nomis07:

An Ass Man that gives you more info during and after the match e.g. "their pace is causing us problems, it might be a good idea to have the defence use a deeper line", "they can't handle our target man in the air, we should try more long balls". Is that the sort of thing you mean?

If it is, then it's a brilliant idea and we could have an option not to receive any info, in the same way we can have them take team talks or not.

this was my addition to the wishlist a few weeks ago, so an assistant actually assists rather than just being a coach.

Very good idea, indeed.

I'm a newbie and get into Fm08 now and already being addicted to it.

But it's tough for me, additionally due to the fact, that I'm not an expert in soccer tactics.

Sure, I'm willing to learn but an electronic advisor (optional of course) would help a lot.

Perhaps a first version could be implemented in FM09 ?

No reason why this shouldn't be implemented. I like it a lot. Perhaps the Assman should assist in the creation of tactics as well?

I agree that SI needs to vary the AI managers as well. Make them have realistic differences. So a random League 2 manager won't be able to counter a tactic as successfully as SAF would, for instance.

Originally posted by Scott1990:

I agree that SI needs to vary the AI managers as well. Make them have realistic differences. So a random League 2 manager won't be able to counter a tactic as successfully as SAF would, for instance.

Fully agree

And for Fm10 I'd like to have discussions with Assmann in natural language. @SI: Wouldn't that be a challenge for the developers?

I'm firmly in favour of this.

In previous threads (now lost in the data purge, sadly) we covered some of the biggest concerns, e.g., that it would make the game too easy, and I think we had valid counter-arguments to all of them.

For example, if the feedback covered multiple things and left you choices. For example:

"Thierry Henry's pace is causing our defense real problems. We might want to consider dropping to a deeper defensive line, bringing on a pacey defender to man-mark him, or utilizing the offsides trap."

Now its clear what your problem is, and you have some ideas how to get out of it .. but you don't have the "correct" solution "handed" to you.

Also, we could make the quality of the communication variable depending on your Assistant's Tactical expertise .. and maybe also on his skill in your native language.

In other words, an utterly crummy assistant might tell you "Thierry Henry's pace is causing us all sorts of problems," while a good one might tell you the possible solutions.

. . . .

The other thing I think we might need is instant feedback regarding our Team Talks.

I mean, as a manager, surely I should be able to see who looks fired up in the changing room?

It would help me make the connection between what I was thinking when I gave the team talk, to what the outcome was .. in other words, it would be a lot easier to learn from my mistakes.

That 3-0 halftime lead that turns to a 3-4 defeat - its almost invariably the result of a poor halftime team talk .. but I can't find out what was going on in my players' heads until after the match is over .. by which point I no longer keenly remember what I was thinking at halftime when I said whatever it was that I said.

Playing the other day I thought of this too, yea, the Assistant should give you some hints on what you should do.

In other words, an utterly crummy assistant might tell

Good idea but won't work. Far too difficult to implement so it'll either be implemented badly or not at all. There are simply too many variables for effective advice to be given. If it is implemented it'll be like everything else, repetitive, boring and unhelpful.

The scouting for next match feature is somewhat like this. The AM gives advice on how to play the next team. That's a bit like what you're suggesting but on a much simpler level.

Let's be honest, this scouting feature is useless. Who actually uses it? It's pretty much eye candy yet 1000 times simpler than what you are suggesting. If they can't get scouting to work right how can they get a sophisticated AM offering advice on thousands of different situations right?

As I say, great idea but don't hold your breath.

Originally posted by Amaroq:

I'm firmly in favour of this.

In previous threads (now lost in the data purge, sadly) we covered some of the biggest concerns, e.g., that it would make the game too easy, and I think we had valid counter-arguments to all of them.

For example, if the feedback covered multiple things and left you choices. For example:

"Thierry Henry's pace is causing our defense real problems. We might want to consider dropping to a deeper defensive line, bringing on a pacey defender to man-mark him, or utilizing the offsides trap."

Now its clear what your problem is, and you have some ideas how to get out of it .. but you don't have the "correct" solution "handed" to you.

Also, we could make the quality of the communication variable depending on your Assistant's Tactical expertise .. and maybe also on his skill in your native language.

In other words, an utterly crummy assistant might tell you "Thierry Henry's pace is causing us all sorts of problems," while a good one might tell you the possible solutions.

. . . .

The other thing I think we might need is instant feedback regarding our Team Talks.

I mean, as a manager, surely I should be able to see who looks fired up in the changing room?

It would help me make the connection between what I was thinking when I gave the team talk, to what the outcome was .. in other words, it would be a lot easier to learn from my mistakes.

That 3-0 halftime lead that turns to a 3-4 defeat - its almost invariably the result of a poor halftime team talk .. but I can't find out what was going on in my players' heads until after the match is over .. by which point I no longer keenly remember what I was thinking at halftime when I said whatever it was that I said.

Extremely good post there Amaroq. If implemented properply that would certainly improve the game. However, I can see it become the new board/fan confidence feature (i.e. buggy)

Let's be honest, this scouting feature is useless. Who actually uses it? It's pretty much eye candy yet 1000 times simpler than what you are suggesting. If they can't get scouting to work right how can they get a sophisticated AM offering advice on thousands of different situations right?

I disagree. If you read around in the Tactics forum, you'll find a lot of users who pay great attention to the scouting report and base their tactical tweaking around it. If you're playing as a European Cup team, Man Utd, Everton, etc. you have more liberty to ignore these scouting reports: because your players are better and tactical/mental ability can make up for flaws in tactics. However, if you want to get results against Man Utd, Chelsea...you'd be much better off by reading the scouting report.

Cleon lost 1 game in the season as Sheff Utd newly-promoted, and that was because he had to go out and had no time to tweak. This was because he's studied the game and what the sliders, etc. do to affect the match. But few of us have done that, and instead we get the scouting reports to tell us how the AI will play so we can base our tactics around that.

Saying that, though, it isn't easy to get tactics right.

To be honest, one of the biggest reasons I have been put off 08 is because the whole tactical side of the game seems so random. Every save I have follows the same pattern: find a tactic that works, but come a new season it's 'cracked' and is ineffective. So I start the whole trial and error process again, usually getting frustrated to the point of quitting.

The other thing is the match engine seems so random. I concede just about every goal from a poor defensive clearance, a dodgy backpass, a misplaced ball in midfield or something to that extent. Very rarely am I taken apart by good football, and then down the other end I'll miss a tap in. So I think "well, I'm creating good chances and the opposition is just getting lucky", but the reality is there is a problem with my tactic because it is happening consistently. But from what I'm seeing on the screen it doesn't seem that way.

Ths assman situation is something I believe HAS to be looked at for FM09.

see my thread for reasons for this:

http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/521102691/m/8912005804

I agree that the ass man has a far more important role to play, especially with regards to tactical advice.

I also agree that AI managers are too similar. The best example is the way they all use 4-2-4 as an all-out attack tactic. They all make formation changes too frequently as well, and they all seem to decide how to set up by using the match odds, which makes the AI quite easy to read imo.

Very good suggestion I feel this will actually give our ass man the responsibility of actually doing what he is employed to do which is assist.

Schuey100 I actually read and take into consideration my scout reports on all teams, especially when I am manageing lower leagues, i find it extreamley usefull especially when i am up against a very good team. i always play with my tactics and base it around my scout reports.

sorry for the double post..

forgot to mention that this will be an option players will be able to turn on or off in the manager settings section, so if people are finding it useless they can turn it off.

Shouldn't the AI properly reflect the level at which you're playing? That would be the easiest way to implement variable difficulties into FM.

I agree not every manager should be employing the same tactical adjustments, but wouldn't it reason that a manager at a higher level would be more adept to making the correct changes? In real life, somebody like Mourinho or Ferguson wouldn't make the same in-game adjustments as a manager toiling in the Blue Square. This should be properly reflected in the match engine.

Originally posted by canvey!!:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let's be honest, this scouting feature is useless. Who actually uses it? It's pretty much eye candy yet 1000 times simpler than what you are suggesting. If they can't get scouting to work right how can they get a sophisticated AM offering advice on thousands of different situations right?

I disagree. If you read around in the Tactics forum, you'll find a lot of users who pay great attention to the scouting report and base their tactical tweaking around it. If you're playing as a European Cup team, Man Utd, Everton, etc. you have more liberty to ignore these scouting reports: because your players are better and tactical/mental ability can make up for flaws in tactics. However, if you want to get results against Man Utd, Chelsea...you'd be much better off by reading the scouting report.

Cleon lost 1 game in the season as Sheff Utd newly-promoted, and that was because he had to go out and had no time to tweak. This was because he's studied the game and what the sliders, etc. do to affect the match. But few of us have done that, and instead we get the scouting reports to tell us how the AI will play so we can base our tactics around that.

Saying that, though, it isn't easy to get tactics right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the threads you mention. That has nothing to do with the fact that the scouting reports are useless. The only way they would be useful is if each report was specific to a team. They are not, how many variations are there in the reports? 3 or 4?

Midfield might get crowded, wingers are fast bla bla bla. The information isn't useful and when you get the same one week in week out what does it matter anyway?

Two very good suggestions!