Random Idea: Speech Bubbles for Players

[tedder_road]

I was posting in another thread and had an idea for the match engine. I honestly think half the problems people have with the match engine are down to lack of feedback. Is my defender doing that because the ME is cocking up, or because he has a brain made of poop? Did the striker mean to volley the ball backwards 30 yards instead of into the goal, or was that a mishit shot?

How about a tiny speechbubble full of random characters like "*&$@#!!" to indicate that he's buggered it up and is cursing to himself? It hovers around with the player for a couple of seconds and the commentary says "so-and-so makes a hash of it" or something like that. This way we get some idea of when it's them, and when it's the Match Engine.

I know it seems like a silly idea to some people so it could obviously be a feature that can be disabled, but it would help me a hell of a lot!

[NepentheZ]

I don't like it. And how long would it be, before people here say SI just put that there to hide that inadequecies of the ME?

Not the best idea, tbh. And seeing as this game is aimed at a younger generation, I don't think many parents would be happy about it either.

[tedder_road]

It couldn't hide the "inadequacies" because the game would have to recognise it as an error. If the game doesn't recognise it as an error, then you know it was the ME. In other words the game has to generate a player error for it to have the speech bubble. If the player and the ME think they are doing the right thing, then there would be no bubble, and it's a way to hone the ME further since we can more easily spot bugs as opposed to players cocking up from time to time, which is something that should happen.

Also, younger generation? I think this game is aimed at adults. It's not for kiddies in any way. How many 8 year olds do you know that want to spend all afternoon scouring a screen for bargain free transfers? Not many!

[jackripper]

i dont like this idea tbh with you

[Elrithral]

How would a match engine make an unintentional error, but recognise that it made an unintentional error and be able to tell you? How would the game realise it's made an error? If it realised that, the error wouldn't take palce

[tedder_road]

It doesn't have to be a speech bubble or whatever, it just needs to be some kind of visual feedback. How do you know when it's your tactics or your player as opposed to something silly that the game engine is doing? Same goes for testing the ME, surely.

[Elrithral]

I'm still confused as to how the game can realise that it's made a mistake and then prompt an "i'm sorry" feature

[Gandy]

Perhaps suggestions from players at half time, like a player saying tagging another player would considerably cut their chances of scoring. Player feedback would be excellent IMO.


100TH POST, WORTHY OF CAPS LOCK!

[tedder_road]

How would a match engine make an unintentional error, but recognise that it made an unintentional error and be able to tell you? How would the game realise it's made an error? If it realised that, the error wouldn't take palce

Uhh, it wouldn't?

A player error would be something like this:

Midfielder goes to pass ball back to defender, instead he chips it over him and the keeper has to dive on it.

or

Attacker shoots, but scuffs his shot badly wide.


These are player errors. The player has made a physical mistake. They are obvious enough to see, and we expect to see them in matches. The visual feedback is there - the ball didn't go where the player obviously intended it.

But there are also more complex errors that it's harder to see, and harder to know when it's the player, your tactics, or the match engine itself cocking up. For instance.

A defender clears the ball by heading it behind him. He then moves towards it extremely slowly while the attacking player closes him down. Is this the ME? Is the defender unsure of what to do? It this because he failed to use "decisions" or "anticipation" correctly? Should I have him set to "long passing" because it turns out he's cack at clearing the ball properly?

In this example, I would love to see some feedback letting me know "this player error was one generated by the match engine, he's messed up and you can shout at him about it later". Otherwise you get people wondering if it was the match engine, their tactics etc.etc.

[Elrithral]

Uhh, it wouldn't?

In this example, I would love to see some feedback letting me know "this player error was one generated by the match engine, he's messed up and you can shout at him about it later". Otherwise you get people wondering if it was the match engine, their tactics etc.etc.

So it would then?

How can the game recognise that an error was created by the match engine? If it could there would be no need for testing!

No offence, but I think you're confusing yourself, let alone everyone else. Is the prompt telling us about match engine errors or not? No, then your idea isn't the same as your original idea. Yes, please answer my question.

[tedder_road]

I think you've just completely misunderstood what I've said.

When I say error, I am talking about a mistake. Not an actual computer error. Maybe that's where you're getting confused?

The game can recognise it was an "error" because the game generates them all the time. It's why a player misses an open goal, or muffs a back pass or heads it into his own goal. He's made a mistake. The game engine deliberately generates these since it's perfectly reasonable that players will make mistakes.

When these happen, a player error that the ME has generated ON PURPOSE - we should get some feedback.

But when the player does something loopy and we DON'T get feedback, we would then know "ok, this was the ME messing up when it wasn't meant to".

I really can't make it any clearer than that, mate!

[Gandy]

I think you've just completely misunderstood what I've said.

When I say error, I am talking about a mistake. Not an actual computer error. Maybe that's where you're getting confused?

The game can recognise it was an "error" because the game generates them all the time. It's why a player misses an open goal, or muffs a back pass or heads it into his own goal. He's made a mistake. The game engine deliberately generates these since it's perfectly reasonable that players will make mistakes.

When these happen, a player error that the ME has generated ON PURPOSE - we should get some feedback.

But when the player does something loopy and we DON'T get feedback, we would then know "ok, this was the ME messing up when it wasn't meant to".

I really can't make it any clearer than that, mate!

This actually makes somewhat sense. Although I like to think that the ME is perfect and would never make such a mistake, I always see more interaction from the players as a good thing, rather than a bad.

[tonif]

So it would then?

How can the game recognise that an error was created by the match engine? If it could there would be no need for testing!

No offence, but I think you're confusing yourself, let alone everyone else. Is the prompt telling us about match engine errors or not? No, then your idea isn't the same as your original idea. Yes, please answer my question.

You don't get it, do you, Elrithral? The player's bugger up is generated randomly and on purpose by the ME! So, obviously it does recognise it was an error and then presents the user with some kind of visual effect (bubbles or whatever). I like the idea!

*edit* oops, posted this before reading your last post tedder_road. Repetition of basically what you said was unintentional.

[Elrithral]

"This way we get some idea of when it's them, and when it's the Match Engine."

Isn't it always the ME's, it generates the players game. What's the difference between an ME generated error and an error by a player, which is also generated by the ME.

Sorry, but this idea doesn't make any sense at all.

tonif, either way, the player's error is generated by the ME.

[aston_martin]

I can clearly see what he's saying, I like the idea of feedback, maybe not through a speech bubble, maybe through assistant manager feedback saying something like "Michael Essien made a poor clearance, which lead to Wayne Rooney's goal"

[Elrithral]

I can clearly see what he's saying, I like the idea of feedback, maybe not through a speech bubble, maybe through assistant manager feedback saying something like "Michael Essien made a poor clearance, which lead to Wayne Rooney's goal"

What does the ME have to do with this? Aren't all similar player errors generated by the ME?

[aston_martin]

His point is, I think, is that he wants to be able to differentiate between when a player commits an error due to intentional coding within the ME, or when it "seems" a player has comitted an error, but really, it was down to a bug in the ME/graphical representation.

In order to be able to differentiate these he wants a way to be able to recognise intentionally ME calculated mistakes, through feedback.

[tonif]

"This way we get some idea of when it's them, and when it's the Match Engine."

Isn't it always the ME's, it generates the players game. What's the difference between an ME generated error and an error by a player, which is also generated by the ME.

Sorry, but this idea doesn't make any sense at all.

tonif, either way, the player's error is generated by the ME.

Presently the ME contains a few flaws (mistakes in coding), most notorious being the back passes to goalkeepers which very often end up as corners. This an error generated by the ME which shouldn't be there and will be rectified in the next patch (hopefully); errors by players like shooting ball into orbit, poor clearances, and so on, are errors generated by the game/ME on purpose. There's the difference.

[Elrithral]

or when it "seems" a player has comitted an error, but really, it was down to a bug in the ME/graphical representation.

Again, if the game could make the difference there would be no need for testers.

[lutontown1991]

No mate not a good idea at all.

[aston_martin]

Again, if the game could make the difference there would be no need for testers.

Actually, it's just clicked, apologies .

[Insert_Goal_Here]

That's possibly one of the worst ideas I've ever had the displeasure of reading. Reminds me of 'The Sims' which as we all know is a game for lonely teenagers. Why don't we have inner most fears and desire on their personal information. an example: Wayne Rooney secretly fancies manager Sir Alex, and fear's Octupus attack.

[tonif]

Then again, if you had an absolutely perfect 3D/2D match engine, all errors by players would be seen as intentionally generated by the ME, and there would be no need for that type of thing.

[tedder_road]

That's possibly one of the worst ideas I've ever had the displeasure of reading. Reminds me of 'The Sims' which as we all know is a game for lonely teenagers. Why don't we have inner most fears and desire on their personal information. an example: Wayne Rooney secretly fancies manager Sir Alex, and fear's Octupus attack.

It doesn't have to be a speech bubble. It's the first thing I could think of as a way of highlighting a player who has made and error that the game INTENDED him to make.

When I talk about ME errors, I mean errors actually in the code of the ME, as some people have pointed out. An UNINTENTIONAL error that is down purely to a bug in the ME.

This is nothing like the Sims. I just want to know when a player made a mistake, and as someone pointed out, to be able to berate him for that mistake later on.

[GazTheDoood]

Does it not mention player errors on commentary?
Like "thats gone horribly wide", or something along those lines, or, it was "Player A's error that lead to the goal".

I don't think I get the point of them?
Just to show a mistake, that we've already seen?

[Elrithral]

When I talk about ME errors, I mean errors actually in the code of the ME, as some people have pointed out. An UNINTENTIONAL error that is down purely to a bug in the ME.

Still to be convinced that it is possible for the game to realise that it has committed a bug error. If it could, it would already be implemented and SI would be able to fix all the bugs

Seriously lads, come on, this is nonsense.

[Insert_Goal_Here]

Still to be convinced that it is possible for the game to realise that it has committed a bug error. If it could, it would already be implemented and SI would be able to fix all the bugs

Seriously lads, come on, this is nonsense.

It's Nonce sense

[tonif]

It doesn't have to be a speech bubble. It's the first thing I could think of as a way of highlighting a player who has made and error that the game INTENDED him to make.

How about making the player put his both hands over his head or kick the air, when they screw up?

[Elrithral]

It's Nonce sense

I thought as much as soon as I smelt the hammers wafting through my keyboard.

[tedder_road]

Still to be convinced that it is possible for the game to realise that it has committed a bug error. If it could, it would already be implemented and SI would be able to fix all the bugs

Seriously lads, come on, this is nonsense.

I'm still to be convinced that you actually understand my point, but there you go. As I've said - the whole point is that if it's a bug, we don't get any feedback. Therefore, we know for sure it's a bug in the game, and not the player messing up because the match engine decided he made an error.

If you don't get it after the ten different ways it's been explained by me and other people, then I don't know what more to tell you.

[Elrithral]

The game doesn't know that it's a bug for Christ sake!!!



Please can a mod or SI explain this!

Sorry, i'm not being rude, but this conversation is just so bizarre.

[tonif]

The game doesn't know that it's a bug for Christ sake!

Of course it doesn't! Therefore we won't see feedback when there's a bug, for Christ sake!

[Elrithral]

No, you will see feedback because the game won't realise that it's done something wrong and will tell you that it was a player error. The ME isn't capable of telling the difference, that's why it's a bug

[tonif]

No, you will see feedback because the game won't realise that it's done something wrong and will tell you that it was a player error. The ME isn't capable of telling the difference, that's why it's a bug

*knocking head against wall* No, you will NOT see feedback because the the error/bug was NOT programmed to happen!

[Elrithral]

It wasn't programmed to happen, but it does happen because of programming so the game will consider it normal.

If it was simple as you guys are making out, SI would just add this and then get indicators for every single bug, which begs the question; why haven't they done this yet? The answer - because it's rubbish and impossible.

Sorry, but i'm off, this is too mad for me.

[FM_Since_Its_Birth]

The game doesn't know that it's a bug for Christ sake!!!



Please can a mod or SI explain this!

Sorry, i'm not being rude, but this conversation is just so bizarre.

The game doesn't know its a bug, but YOU (or a tester) would know because no speech bubble (or whatever) had been coded. So if there is a mistake made by a player and no animation has been included - then it can be detected as being a bug. the game works it out for you - but it doesn't know that.

I see the point he is making - but i dont necessarily see it as a working idea simply because i dont think everything could be covered with animation - therefore leaving us wondering if the coding was missed - or if it is a bug. We would kinda be back to square one again. Which is i think where Elrithral is coming from.

Hope that makes sense.

[Gandy]

The game doesn't know its a bug, but YOU (or a tester) would know because no speech bubble (or whatever) had been coded. So if there is a mistake made by a player and no animation has been included - then it can be detected as being a bug. the game works it out for you - but it doesn't know that.

I see the point he is making - but i dont necessarily see it as a working idea simply because i dont think everything could be covered with animation - therefore leaving us wondering if the coding was missed - or if it is a bug. We would kinda be back to square one again. Which is i think where Elrithral is coming from.

Hope that makes sense.

To be honest, they are both viable ideas. As I have no idea about game coding or such, I think it's best to leave this to SI or someone with technical knowledge of how this works.

[erik86]

Not a great idea imo.

[stevedaytona]

Surely all player errors are deliberately generated by the ME. The real question which would be useful is whether it's because I have crap players or I have crap tactics.

What type of error can the ME make that is not represented by a player error? A bug in the ME is still going to be represented on the screen as a player error.

The problem with the ME is it's interpretation of the effect of tactics and the representation of player errors on the screen - back passes from the half way line that go out for a corner, players not running to pick up a loose ball etc etc.

[tedder_road]

Give me strength Lord. I knew some of you lot were a few bricks short of a wall but come on, this is really, really easy to understand. Pay attention Elrithral in particular.

A player error : when a player does something in a match that causes a serious negative outcome for his team, or could have led to a serious negative outcome for his team.

Examples of player errors: A badly misplaced pass that instead finds an opponent in a critical part of the pitch, a mistimed header that lets the ball through for an attacker, a mistimed challenge causing the defender to stumble that leaves the attacker unmarked and in on goal, a terrible clearance, a goalie throwing the ball into his own net.

These are all things that players do because the match engine has deliberately decided that a player has made a mistake. The Match Engine is coded to simulate players making horrible mistakes.


Things that are not player errors: Missed shots, routinely missed passes, clearances that go out for a throw-in, giving away possession through dwelling on the ball, being weak and losing out in a tackle or a challenged header.

There is a THIRD kind of error. The error that occurs because the match engine has a bug in the code. Prior to patch 10.1.1, an example would be this bug that was fixed :

"Made keeper hoof bobbly ball clear when dangerous to try to control it"

This was something the keeper was doing because the Match Engine had a bug in the code. The coders of the Match Engine do not want the keeper to attempt to control the ball when it's bouncing around all over the place, but he was doing it anyway. A player error has been generated, but it's one that occured because the match engine had a fault in it.

So you've got players making two kinds of mistake.

What I am asking for is the match engine to reveal to us when it has made a mistake ON PURPOSE. And therefore, when a terrible mistake happens and the match engine says NOTHING, what can we infer? That the match engine has generated that mistake, BY MISTAKE! This helps us to understand when the players are doing something wrong because they are humans (or simulated humans) who make mistakes from time to time, or if it's our tactics or in fact a bug in the game. I think this would help us to understand a bit more about the match engine, about our players and would also help a lot with testing, surely?

If you don't get it now, I am done trying to help you!

[dannysheard]

I was posting in another thread and had an idea for the match engine. I honestly think half the problems people have with the match engine are down to lack of feedback. Is my defender doing that because the ME is cocking up, or because he has a brain made of poop? Did the striker mean to volley the ball backwards 30 yards instead of into the goal, or was that a mishit shot?

How about a tiny speechbubble full of random characters like "*&$@#!!" to indicate that he's buggered it up and is cursing to himself? It hovers around with the player for a couple of seconds and the commentary says "so-and-so makes a hash of it" or something like that. This way we get some idea of when it's them, and when it's the Match Engine.

I know it seems like a silly idea to some people so it could obviously be a feature that can be disabled, but it would help me a hell of a lot!

You sir, are a "*&$@#!!"

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

I think thats what the motivation tabs are for.

[FM_Since_Its_Birth]

What I am asking for is the match engine to reveal to us when it has made a mistake ON PURPOSE. And therefore, when a terrible mistake happens and the match engine says NOTHING, what can we infer? That the match engine has generated that mistake, BY MISTAKE! This helps us to understand when the players are doing something wrong because they are humans (or simulated humans) who make mistakes from time to time, or if it's our tactics or in fact a bug in the game. I think this would help us to understand a bit more about the match engine, about our players and would also help a lot with testing, surely?

If you don't get it now, I am done trying to help you!

But what if your tactics led to the player making a mistake??? - Would that mean a bubble is needed or not?? What if the coding missed a few animations?? - you would think its a bug when its not. I think there are too many variables that would ultimately make the ME digress rather than progress.

I think enough info is in the commentary if it is read properly.

[deniro80]

That is the worst idea I have ever heard in my whole life !

[gunner86]

I understand the point and actually I think it's a good idea in principal. Not entirely sure if the swear bubble is the best way to go.

I think that the saved matches could then be uploaded for someone to look over and hopefully eradicate the bugs in future releases and patches. Not sure on what SI's view on this would be.

[tonif]

I think enough info is in the commentary if it is read properly.

The commentary is fine. No misinterpretations in the commentary. It's the graphical misrepresentation of the ME, which could lead to misinterpretation of the action by the user, on some occasions, that tedder_road is referring to.

[gunner86]

The commentary is fine. No misinterpretations in the commentary. It's the graphical misrepresentation of the ME, which could lead to misinterpretation of the action by the user, on some occasions, that tedder_road is referring to.

I second this. Like I say the principal is very good, but it needs fleshing out before it can be implemented. Even if it's only for testers, this could be a useful tool.

[RT--]

I can see the logic and I don't think it's a silly idea at all, in principle. You want to be able to differentiate, for example, between 1) a player deliberately hammering the ball in to touch because he doesn't think he's got any viable passing options or 2) a player trying to play a long ball forward but slicing it out of touch because his technique is useless.

Or you want to know if a goalkeeper's ignoring your instruction to throw the ball to a defender because he's 1) just naturally inclined to doing what he wants or 2) because he doesn't think that the defenders are in enough space.

I'm sure the way that the ME is programmed means the game can differentiate between these kind of things.

I think an improvement in the text commentary would probably do the trick, though.

[tonif]

Not entirely sure if the swear bubble is the best way to go.

No, not necessarily a swear bubble. He just gave that as an example.I suggested earlier that making the player show his frustration by, for instance, clutching the top of his head with both heads (as they do it IRL), would be a good idea.

[bigdunk]

The idea's decent, although finding a way to represent it in the match engine is problematic (like everyone else seemingly, I'm against the speech bubble popping up). The other major issue, is that there's not always a clear dividing line between what's a mistake and what isn't. Is a massively overhit cross that drops to the winger on the other side of the pitch a mistake? Is a ball put out of play when there was only a slightly risky pass on a mistake? Is a player having a shot when clean through on goal a mistake when there's a better option available if he squares it?

[RT--]

Actually, re-reading tedder_road's posts, I'm not sure that I understood the distinction he's making.

I don't think the ME works in a way that it 'deliberately' makes players make mistakes such as playing passes which get intercepted or shooting off target - that's all done dynamically. A player tries to make a pass and depending on a lot of variables, it will either get to his intended target or not - there's no pre-determined outcome.

[SCIAG]

I understand what you're saying. When a player makes a mistake that would be counted as one in the stats, it comes up with some sort of indication (I think commentary would be the best bet). If, however, a player is running with the ball and it is left behind due to a flaw in the code rather than a conscious decision to code an error, no message comes up.

[outtasync]

I think the only form of feedback we can get is through assistant's advice and the motivation panel.

Normally you see things in the motivation panel like "playing with confidence", "deserves his goal" etc, so maybe we can see "frustrated at his latest mistake" or "vows to work harder after mistake". That way I'd know my player is trying to make amends instead of deliberately being an arse when he screws up, so I wouldn't have to throw my keyboard at the screen.

[Insert_Goal_Here]

Give me strength Lord. I knew some of you lot were a few bricks short of a wall but come on, this is really, really easy to understand. Pay attention Elrithral in particular.

A player error : when a player does something in a match that causes a serious negative outcome for his team, or could have led to a serious negative outcome for his team.

Examples of player errors: A badly misplaced pass that instead finds an opponent in a critical part of the pitch, a mistimed header that lets the ball through for an attacker, a mistimed challenge causing the defender to stumble that leaves the attacker unmarked and in on goal, a terrible clearance, a goalie throwing the ball into his own net.

These are all things that players do because the match engine has deliberately decided that a player has made a mistake. The Match Engine is coded to simulate players making horrible mistakes.


Things that are not player errors: Missed shots, routinely missed passes, clearances that go out for a throw-in, giving away possession through dwelling on the ball, being weak and losing out in a tackle or a challenged header.

There is a THIRD kind of error. The error that occurs because the match engine has a bug in the code. Prior to patch 10.1.1, an example would be this bug that was fixed :

"Made keeper hoof bobbly ball clear when dangerous to try to control it"

This was something the keeper was doing because the Match Engine had a bug in the code. The coders of the Match Engine do not want the keeper to attempt to control the ball when it's bouncing around all over the place, but he was doing it anyway. A player error has been generated, but it's one that occured because the match engine had a fault in it.

So you've got players making two kinds of mistake.

What I am asking for is the match engine to reveal to us when it has made a mistake ON PURPOSE. And therefore, when a terrible mistake happens and the match engine says NOTHING, what can we infer? That the match engine has generated that mistake, BY MISTAKE! This helps us to understand when the players are doing something wrong because they are humans (or simulated humans) who make mistakes from time to time, or if it's our tactics or in fact a bug in the game. I think this would help us to understand a bit more about the match engine, about our players and would also help a lot with testing, surely?

If you don't get it now, I am done trying to help you!

Nobody's going to help you. Let alone Him (whether he exists or not is another question entirely).

You know nothing about the other posters, bar what they have posted. A user's posts are no indication of their intelligence.

Perhaps some user's didn't immediately understand what you were trying to say because you didn't explain it properly the first time around, therefore making it not really really easy to understand.

You mentioned speech bubbles which immediately rendered the rest of the thread and your posts throughout the duration of your time on these forums pointless IMO (but i don't expect you to care).

As for my opinion on whether it should be implemented into the game: No.

[tonif]

Normally you see things in the motivation panel like "playing with confidence", "deserves his goal" etc, so maybe we can see "frustrated at his latest mistake" or "vows to work harder after mistake". That way I'd know my player is trying to make amends instead of deliberately being an arse when he screws up, so I wouldn't have to throw my keyboard at the screen.

You're missing the point entirely, with due respect.

[_Asprilla_]

I dont think this would ever happen - why would SI want to flag all of the bugs to users of the game - imagine these forums then?! lol

[SCIAG]

I dont think this would ever happen - why would SI want to flag all of the bugs to users of the game - imagine these forums then?! lol

They're not doing that though, they're flagging things which aren't bugs

[tonif]

They're not doing that though, they're flagging things which aren't bugs

Yeah...but...by flagging things that aren't bugs, testers can easily spot the things that are bugs.

[FM_Since_Its_Birth]

*head explodes*

The phrase going around in circles springs to mind!!

[stevedaytona]

Yeah...but...by flagging things that aren't bugs, testers can easily spot the things that are bugs.

I'm sure SI would never think of doing that in the testing phase

How can the ME possibly differentiate between player mistakes that are errors in code and player mistakes that are not errors in code?

If only it were that easy.

[SCIAG]

How can the ME possibly differentiate between player mistakes that are errors in code and player mistakes that are not errors in code?

It already does so. How else is it supposed to record the "mistakes/leading to goals" statistic?

[tonif]

How can the ME possibly differentiate between player mistakes that are errors in code and player mistakes that are not errors in code?

Believe you me, the ME 'knows' exactly which are player's mistakes, simply because the ME chooses to, deliberately, put them there, mostly at random.

[mdbussen]

rather more helpful would be a much more comprehensive and detailed match report. If the match report said that a player had a poor touch or shanked the shot with his weaker foot we would have a much better idea of what is worth complaining about

[tonif]

rather more helpful would be a much more comprehensive and detailed match report. If the match report said that a player had a poor touch or shanked the shot with his weaker foot we would have a much better idea of what is worth complaining about

It already does that. If you read the match report carefully, you will notice that, every pass, every interception, every shot, every tackle, every save, etc., has been documented, including player's mistakes.

[v InterfectoR v]

I like this idea

[mdbussen]

It already does that. If you read the match report carefully, you will notice that, every pass, every interception, every shot, every tackle, every save, etc., has been documented, including player's mistakes.

really? i will have to look back at this when I get a chance but I don't remember there being a very impressive level of detail in the match reports...

[gunner86]

It already does so. How else is it supposed to record the "mistakes/leading to goals" statistic?

Well said.

I think this is exactly the point of the OP. Mistakes, to the most part are intentionally added to the ME. However, there are mistakes made by players that are not intentional of the ME (player running the wrong way, shooting backwards etc) these are because of bugs etc. The ME does not realise these are bugs because it is missing code, programming error etc.

That said, the ME knows when it has intentionally added a player mistake. What the OP is asking for is a visual reresentation of which mistakes are added intentionally, that way all other mistakes are unintentional and thus caused by bugs.

[Scott1990]

Good idea! Maybe have personalized speech bubbles too:

Wayne Rooney can have one where he solicits prostitution while on the pitch.
Jermaine Pennant's speech bubbles should be misspelled because he's illiterate
Ashley Cole should only have one possible speech bubble where he says "$$$$$$$$$$$$"
Joey Barton can laugh maliciously whenever he makes a sliding tackle
Alan Smith has to talk in the third person and say "Alan Smith... he can pop up anywhere" whenever he touches the ball

[tonif]

Well said.

I think this is exactly the point of the OP. Mistakes, to the most part are intentionally added to the ME. However, there are mistakes made by players that are not intentional of the ME (player running the wrong way, shooting backwards etc) these are because of bugs etc. The ME does not realise these are bugs because it is missing code, programming error etc.

That said, the ME knows when it has intentionally added a player mistake. What the OP is asking for is a visual reresentation of which mistakes are added intentionally, that way all other mistakes are unintentional and thus caused by bugs.

Finally, someone else managed to 'decode' the OP's idea

[FM1000]

Finally, someone else managed to 'decode' the OP's idea

It only took 70 posts

[tonif]

Good idea! Maybe have personalized speech bubbles too:

Wayne Rooney can have one where he solicits prostitution while on the pitch.
Jermaine Pennant's speech bubbles should be misspelled because he's illiterate
Ashley Cole should only have one possible speech bubble where he says "$$$$$$$$$$$$"
Joey Barton can laugh maliciously whenever he makes a sliding tackle
Alan Smith has to talk in the third person and say "Alan Smith... he can pop up anywhere" whenever he touches the ball

How about a speech bubble for Scott1990 saying (in the third person) "Scott1990...he can go off-topic whenever he feels like..."

[gunner86]

It only took 70 posts

Actually it only took me 45...

Just took me a further 25 to illustrate this.

[wwfan]

I'm not going to go too much into ME mechanics, but it works like this:

Players can make mistakes, such as overhit easy passes or scuff shots, because they have failed a decision or composure check, for example. What the OP would like is to know whether the action on the pitch is the result of such a 'failed check' (i.e. player x missed the target because he lost his composure at a vital moment (part of the ME mechanics)) or an actual bug (player failed to close down his man because there was an error in the code that prevented it).

Whereas the former, which is what the OP is asking for, is perfectly feasible, the latter, which he isn't talking about, quite patently isn't. For what it is worth, I think some kind of feedback about the former would be very beneficial.

[gunner86]

I'm not going to go too much into ME mechanics, but it works like this:

Players can make mistakes, such as overhit easy passes or scuff shots, because they have failed a decision or composure check, for example. What the OP would like is to know whether the action on the pitch is the result of such a 'failed check' (i.e. player x missed the target because he lost his composure at a vital moment (part of the ME mechanics)) or an actual bug (player failed to close down his man because there was an error in the code that prevented it).

Whereas the former, which is what the OP is asking for, is perfectly feasible, the latter, which he isn't talking about, quite patently isn't. For what it is worth, I think some kind of feedback about the former would be very beneficial.

I'm glad to see someone else on board. You say you don't want to go into the ME mechanics, but do you think there is a simple way for this to be implemented? and do you think it is something SI may consider?

[wwfan]

I think better feedback is something that is needed and this is one way of doing it. I'm sure it has already been noted.

[RT--]

Would an extra line of text commentary not do the trick, though?

"Player x takes a first time shot/
But it goes well wide/
He showed a lack of composure in front on goal, there"

[RT--]

Incidentally, why would a poor decision maker scuff a shot or overhit a short pass?

[Salvector]

Ah, have to admit, I'm not a fan of this idea.

[Insert_Goal_Here]

Good idea! Maybe have personalized speech bubbles too:

Wayne Rooney can have one where he solicits prostitution while on the pitch.
Jermaine Pennant's speech bubbles should be misspelled because he's illiterate
Ashley Cole should only have one possible speech bubble where he says "$$$$$$$$$$$$"
Joey Barton can laugh maliciously whenever he makes a sliding tackle
Alan Smith has to talk in the third person and say "Alan Smith... he can pop up anywhere" whenever he touches the ball

Good idea, similar to mine that i posted near the beginning, however you need to be aware that Cashley's speech bubble would be "££££££££££" unless he collects his wage packet in cash in USD and then goes to an exchange...

[Insert_Goal_Here]

I like this idea

I think the OP has created another account.

[wwfan]

Incidentally, why would a poor decision maker scuff a shot or overhit a short pass?

Chose to try and power it rather than place it. Chose to try and take it on his weaker foot instead of waiting half a second longer and hit it with his stronger. Chose to make a first time pass rather than control it first. Many possible reasons. It was only an illustration, not an absolute example.

Aye, extra commentary would be fine. Likewise, an Ass Man's report highlighting it.

[Insert_Goal_Here]

Chose to try and power it rather than place it. Chose to try and take it on his weaker foot instead of waiting half a second longer and hit it with his stronger. Chose to make a first time pass rather than control it first. Many possible reasons. It was only an illustration, not an absolute example.

Aye, extra commentary would be fine. Likewise, an Ass Man's report highlighting it.

Commentary maybe and although an Ass Man's report would work, wouldn't we be cluttered with far too much information if it was, say, a particulary error strewn match?

[RT--]

wwfan: Ah, fair enough - that makes sense. (I've always been curious how the decision making stat actually works, because it seems to necessitate some concept of what the 'right' decision is in a given situation - either that, I suppose, or it would have to influence the likelihood of an obviously bad decision being made)

Anyway, on the basis of what you've said, it doesn't seem like a huge stretch for the guys to communicate a few of the ME calculations in football speak, through commentary, feedback or any other mechanism.

[mdbussen]

wwfan: Ah, fair enough - that makes sense. (I've always been curious how the decision making stat actually works, because it seems to necessitate some concept of what the 'right' decision is in a given situation - either that, I suppose, or it would have to influence the likelihood of an obviously bad decision being made)

Anyway, on the basis of what you've said, it doesn't seem like a huge stretch for the guys to communicate a few of the ME calculations in football speak, through commentary, feedback or any other mechanism.

I don't want to open up a can of worms here but doesn't this imply that a player with poorer decision making may actually get a better result in a certain subset of cases?

for instance, although it may not be the "right" decision for a right-footed player to take the shot on with his left foot, a player with poorer decision making may try this and score whereas a player with better decision making may choose not to shoot and become dispossessed? Or does the "right" decision have knowledge of the better outcome?

my head hurts!

[wwfan]

Of course, but only if his technical ability compensates for his mental. Although it might be the wrong decision for a player (in terms of difficulty versus time available) to shoot powerfully with his wrong foot, his technical ability might still mean this results in a goal or a good save.

[tonif]

my head hurts!

Mine too! It's 1am here, time for dreamland...zzzzzz

P.S. I keep seeing speech bubbles all over the place, as soon as I close my eyes...

[Piethief100]

I understand the original idea - and I'm going to assume that the aim of the OP was to minimise the amount of non-intentional ME mistakes (by bug reports etc) and also to allow him to patch up his tactics if needed.

BUT would this actually make a difference? From what I've read on the countless threads discussing whether the result is pre-determined before a game (it isn't), the animations are just graphical representations of the calculation that the ME has already made. Every time a change is made to tactics the ME recalculates the score.

In respect to this situation, I think that this means that it doesn't matter if the ME makes an unintentional mistake that leads to a goal because the ME had already calculated (from your latest tactical tweaks) that you deserved to concede. So whether from an unintentional mistake, or a genuine opposition attacking move, you're going to concede speech bubbles or not.

Almost as hard to explain as the OP - hope I haven't confused people too much!

[Almondo]

I don't like it. And how long would it be, before people here say SI just put that there to hide that inadequecies of the ME?

Not the best idea, tbh. And seeing as this game is aimed at a younger generation, I don't think many parents would be happy about it either.

I'd give that about two minutes after the demo had been released

[Menion]

Tbh I like it Would make me feel better when im giving the player a lot of abuse for messing up. Could even have the manager ranting and storming along the side line when the player messes up.

[FM_Since_Its_Birth]

Its gonna turn into sensible soccer or something at this rate!!

[Menion]

Its gonna turn into sensible soccer or something at this rate!!

Haha would that be so bad? I think this game sometimes tries to be too serious. A little bit of needless fun (like the scout/coach reports on SI staff) make the game all that more enjoyable

[betterspud]

FWIW I understood the point straight from post 1! (Do I get some kind of prize? )

First, like many others, I don't think that a speech bubble is the right idea.

However, I do agree that some kind of feedback to highlight when the player has made a hash of it is necessary. I'm not entirely sure that extra lines of commentary would be the right way to go either. As it is, there are times when we get several lines of commentary in succession and it's difficult to both read and watch the pitch at the same time. Visual cues, on pitch would be better in some way.

Don't know the solution, but there's plenty of room for improvement in feedback.

[outtasync]

You're missing the point entirely, with due respect.

I'm not sure why expanding the motivation panel would be missing the point entirely. The OP is suggesting some form of feedback (speech bubbles) to let players acknowledge that they made a mistake, and this feedback could be shown through the motivation panel. Someone else mentioned the motivation panel as well so I don't know what you think the point is exactly