Options - Making the game easier or harder.

[Da_Funk]

Wasn't there a management game/series a few years back where you could choose from four levels (coach, manager, director, chairman) of job at the start of a save?

The coach role meant players only dealt with tactics, training and matches; the director role meant players only dealt with transfers, staff contracts etc; and managers covered both sides while chairmen had some other duties and couldn't be sacked (can't remember how it was for sure since I never actually played it).

As Ackter said I remember it was a Fifa Manager and that's a PERFECT example to what NOT to do.
They advertise it as "different" but it's EXACTLY the same thing that FM ALREADY do. It gives you option to automatically let your staff doing something you don't want to do (press conferences, opponent instruction...).
So you choose coach you didn't have to sell advertising/merchandising (hot dogs...) for stadium. Simply stupid.

[EVH5150]

Isn't "easy" mode achieved when you start as Celtic?

[Spart]

As Ackter said I remember it was a Fifa Manager and that's a PERFECT example to what NOT to do.
They advertise it as "different" but it's EXACTLY the same thing that FM ALREADY do. It gives you option to automatically let your staff doing something you don't want to do (press conferences, opponent instruction...).
So you choose coach you didn't have to sell advertising/merchandising (hot dogs...) for stadium. Simply stupid.

I didn't say FM should be more like FIFA manager though at all. The concept of having two (or more) types of manager contract though might be a way of offering players different routes through the game without tampering with the mechanics or adding superfluous difficulty options.

As well as haggling for better wages and contract lengths, managers could demand more control (as a full-on manager rather than a coach) or vica versa.

I'm not saying it should be a part of the game, but its a compromise that could satisfy those who wish for a quicker, less immersive FM.

[HHUK]

It's hard to pick a difficulty modifier for FM. Other genres do it differently.

First Person Shooters:
+ More player health
+ More player damage
- Lower AI reaction time

Driving:
+ Automated advanced features or gears
- Easy AI

Strategy Games:
+ Boosted or faster resources
- Easy AI

When it comes to making games harder, the computer is given an unfair advantage, whether it be rubber banding, increased resources, seeing through walls or inhuman reaction times.

So in a nut shell.

Easier:
+ Give the player more stuff
+ Take control away from the player
- Easy AI

Harder:
+ Give the AI more stuff
+ Give the AI unfair controls
- Let the AI catch up

I'm pretty sure none of us would want any of these standard difficulty modifiers.

The only thing I think would work is if the assistant made real time tactical suggestions while you're watching a match.

"Hey boss, our left winger looks ineffective as he's being forced out on to his left foot and he's naturally right footed, shall I tell them to swap wings to give the guy some breathing space?"
- Yes
- No

"Our tall striker isn't getting the ball that often, we currently have no crossing preference, shall we try high crossing to bring him in to the game?"
- Yes
- No
- Decide he's useless despite spending £35 million on him

That way, the player gets a nice suggestion and has the choice of whether to follow it up or not. It's not an unfair advantage as the AI is probably considering multiple things like this constantly. It's just a friendly nudge to newer players to mix things up and study the match themselves.

[Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover]

Actually I quite like Ultimate Soccer Manager too!

[Kriss]

Actually I quite like Ultimate Soccer Manager too!

Just when I thought you were a credible witness

[Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover]

Just when I thought you were a credible witness

Oh the number of hot dog stands and burger bars I had.

[x42bn6]

It's hard to pick a difficulty modifier for FM. Other genres do it differently.

First Person Shooters:
+ More player health
+ More player damage
- Lower AI reaction time

Driving:
+ Automated advanced features or gears
- Easy AI

Strategy Games:
+ Boosted or faster resources
- Easy AI

When it comes to making games harder, the computer is given an unfair advantage, whether it be rubber banding, increased resources, seeing through walls or inhuman reaction times.

So in a nut shell.

Easier:
+ Give the player more stuff
+ Take control away from the player
- Easy AI

Harder:
+ Give the AI more stuff
+ Give the AI unfair controls
- Let the AI catch up

I'm pretty sure none of us would want any of these standard difficulty modifiers.

The only thing I think would work is if the assistant made real time tactical suggestions while you're watching a match.

"Hey boss, our left winger looks ineffective as he's being forced out on to his left foot and he's naturally right footed, shall I tell them to swap wings to give the guy some breathing space?"
- Yes
- No

"Our tall striker isn't getting the ball that often, we currently have no crossing preference, shall we try high crossing to bring him in to the game?"
- Yes
- No
- Decide he's useless despite spending £35 million on him

That way, the player gets a nice suggestion and has the choice of whether to follow it up or not. It's not an unfair advantage as the AI is probably considering multiple things like this constantly. It's just a friendly nudge to newer players to mix things up and study the match themselves.

There are ways of doing AI that don't affect the underlying gameplay model (i.e. attribute changes). Making the AI think longer is one example.

In Battlefield 1942, you could dictate how much CPU usage went to the AI, with the idea that the more you gave it, the better the AI became to some extent but at the expense of processing power. That's an example of not modifying the underlying game but making things different in terms of the AI.

[Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover]

How about a perfect assistant manager?

[Spart]

There are ways of doing AI that don't affect the underlying gameplay model (i.e. attribute changes). Making the AI think longer is one example.

In Battlefield 1942, you could dictate how much CPU usage went to the AI, with the idea that the more you gave it, the better the AI became to some extent but at the expense of processing power. That's an example of not modifying the underlying game but making things different in terms of the AI.

But making the AI more or less powerful, or making them think faster, slower or further ahead will be affecting the performance, personalities and traits of Arsene Wenger, Jose Mourinho, Alex Ferguson etc.

How would that not be detrimental to the simulation?

[x42bn6]

But making the AI more or less powerful, or making them think faster, slower or further ahead will be affecting the performance, personalities and traits of Arsene Wenger, Jose Mourinho, Alex Ferguson etc.

Nope. It only affects the performances. The personalities don't change. The attributes aren't inflated or deflated depending on the difficulty level.

It only affects the performances... Because that is the point of a difficulty level.

[A.Lallana]

I say harder, it's way to easy after a while to buy class players even when you are a rubbish team, i got watford up and many others by doing this.

[Spart]

Nope. It only affects the performances. The personalities don't change. The attributes aren't inflated or deflated depending on the difficulty level.

It only affects the performances... Because that is the point of a difficulty level.

No. By affecting the capabilities of certain manager you are changing their personalities, or at least how their personalities will affect the world around them - as we all know, making the wrong decisions at the wrong time can make the outcomes wildly different in terms of subs, tactics, team talks, press conferences etc.

I mean, surely with a lower difficulty you wouldn't just be hampering the AI in the transfer market?

[x42bn6]

No. By affecting the capabilities of certain manager you are changing their personalities, or at least how their personalities will affect the world around them

Nope. For example, SI can design a very poor AI such that the manager only thinks one day ahead. Mourinho is still going to be an arrogant bad loser - his personality won't change. Mourinho might play mind-games as a result, and the result of those mind-games won't change - their personalities and how they affect the world around them won't change.

Mourinho will be an arrogant bad loser no matter what the difficulty level is. On a more difficulty level, he might know, say, when to use mind-games better. Which is the point of a difficulty level.

The consequences change - but the underlying model doesn't.

I mean, surely with a lower difficulty you wouldn't just be hampering the AI in the transfer market?

Probably not and it depends on the scope of what the difficulty level feature will entail. It could modify lots of things, or a few. Tactics is one of the best ways SI could use a difficulty level. In a lot of ways, a football match is very much like a chess game and we know there are various chess AIs that are on different difficulty levels. And most of them don't involve changing the underlying chess game! The best chess AI in the world doesn't play with a handicap!

[Ackter]

That's still artificially changing the game world.

There's one AI that's modified by the manager attributes, it's the same AI for everyone, which is how it should be.

[x42bn6]

That's still artificially changing the game world.

So you think it's OK to have a difficulty level as long as it doesn't change anything? Then what would be the point? You are basically arguing that a difficulty level is bad because it changes things. That is the point of having a difficulty level!

There's one AI that's modified by the manager attributes, it's the same AI for everyone, which is how it should be.

The AI is not the manager attributes. The AI is the thought-process behind the attributes, that uses the attributes to make decisions.

The manager attributes are the underlying model that represents the manager in-game. The AI behind those attributes can be poor, average or good - all possible regardless of the manager attributes. An example of a poor AI would be an AI that splashes £100m on Andy Carroll, while a better AI would be one that doesn't put all his eggs into one basket. Both are possible with the manager attributes being poor, average or good.

If you like, the AI's decision-making is driven by the attributes assigned to that manager. However, how it drives decisions based on managerial attributes is the AI, and that can be changed.

For example, in chess AIs, a specific type of AI might have an "aggression" attribute which is similar to a football manager's attacking trend attribute - the higher the aggression, the more daring the chess AI becomes. How it uses this aggression attribute, however, is AI - not the "aggression" attribute. One (poor) chess AI could use high aggression as "suicide chess - if I can capture something, I will, regardless of whether it's a good move or not". Another (better) chess AI could use high aggression as "will aggressively seek to control squares and key parts of the board, and dominate space".

[Ackter]

I'm just amazed (actually, I'm not, but I'll play along) that your only ability to understand difficulty levels is with the forced alteration of game mechanics.

All of your points are completely pointless because you fail to grasp the simple idea that artificially changing the way something works is artificially changing it.

Come on, now. You pretend to be intelligent and knowledgeable, so couldn't you just pretend to be a little more so, for at least a short while?

There is only one way that "difficulty levels" can realistically be introduced into the Football Manager gameworld, and that is to allow the user to gain as much help as they need from the in-game staff. The AI should always, always, be an attempt at realism. Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not adjustable via a slider in any way (seriously, it's not a hard idea to grasp).

Stop comparing how FM works to games that have absolutely no relation or similarities whatsoever with it. The fact that you're comparing FM to chess is the perfect example of how lacking in understanding you are of the game's mechanics.

Considering you haven't owned a new FM for, what is it, 5 years now? It really is about time you either did a little more learning or just learned to shut up about things you clearly have no idea about.

[soccer.joel]

For a while now I have been suggesting that the game needs more options, especially for those of us who are having to work silly hours and have enjoyed the game for years.

Don't get me wrong. If I had the time then I would play the game as intended however, work must come first and I for one am finding it difficult to get into a game with reduced hours to play.

I thought this thread could not only include ideas for making FM Easier (or less tedious and less number crunching) for those of us with not much time, but also more difficult for those of us with plenty of time who then a couple of seasons down the line are finding the game much easier.

So I'll start the ball rolling with a simple "option".

A standard difficulty rating could quite easily be implemented with the following...


Very Easy (all players in your squad have +3 added to all visible attributes)
Easy (all players in your squad have +2 added to all visible attributes)
Helpful (all players in your squad have +1 added to all visible attributes)
Standard (all players in your squad have no change to all visible attributes)
Difficult (all players in your squad have -1 removed from all visible attributes)
Very Difficult (all players in your squad have -2 removed from all visible attributes)
Impossible (all players in your squad have -3 removed from all visible attributes)

Obviously attributes that reach 20 or 1 will stay at that level.

Also I would like to see in the top right hand corner of every screen the difficulty level i.e just a +3 or -1 etc to let everyone know what level you are playing at when you upload screenies.

This option should also have the ability to be enabled or disabled for online play. So that someone who is excellent at the game and someone who is poor at the game can enjoy FM at their respective levels.

I make this recommendation not only for those of us who have no time and sometimes just want to stroll through the game winning everything but also for those who need more of a challenge.

Now for the fun bit - the screenies.

So how does this work? Well let's look at Cleon's fave club Sheffield United and a player by the name of Ryan Flynn. Here he is at the start of a game.



Now on the very easy level he is automatically given a +3 boost to his attributes like so...



A very good player for League One indeed. Remember that this would be the player playing at YOUR CLUB on "very easy" level. Let's say Arsenal came in for him at some point. Well in that case once he transfered to Arsenal he would have the regular attributes as seen in screen one.

Now if on the otherhand you where managing say Brighton on "very easy" level and bought Flynn from Sheff Utd as he appears in screen one then when he arrived at your club he would look like he does in screen two. So anyone who joins your club on "easy level" gets a boost of +3 on attributes but loses the +3 when they leave.

With me so far?

Well now for those of us who love a REAL challenge. With your level set at "impossible" you know the sack is just moments away. Here is that quality player again...



Now don't forget at your club on "impossible" level all players get an attribute reduction of -3, which the regain when they join another club.

Obviously few of us would play at these extreme levels with one being a virtually guaranteed success whilst the other appears to be a guaranteed failure but there are other levels in between. It's all about finding the right level for you to make the game more enjoyable.

PS - Please don't fill the thread with remarks like "The game is perfect as it is I don't think people should have options". They are
"options". Just setting your game difficulty level to "standard" would give you the same game that you've always played would it not?

I don't agree with implementing difficulty if it is it should make morale higher, give u more chance of signing players for lower prices. Also u could get the assistant to organise team meetings etc

[soccer.joel]

Besides if it's too hard play with an easy team or read a guide and if it's too easy attempt a challenge, play with a lower team, a team with debt or try to play as realistically as possible

[Ackter]

if it's too easy attempt a challenge, play with a lower team, a team with debt or try to play as realistically as possible

Unfortunately the current AI is nowhere near good enough to compete with a human manager, especially long term. There's now way to make the game much harder at the moment simply because the AI isn't strong enough yet. It's getting better with each iteration of the game, but it needs to keep improving before it can properly challenge us.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Unfortunately the current AI is nowhere near good enough to compete with a human manager, especially long term. There's now way to make the game much harder at the moment simply because the AI isn't strong enough yet. It's getting better with each iteration of the game, but it needs to keep improving before it can properly challenge us.

There you go, when SI improve the AI, keep this level of AI as a starting point and use the improved AI as a harder level.

[Ackter]

There you go, when SI improve the AI, keep this level of AI as a starting point and use the improved AI as a harder level.

No, that's a horrible way of doing it. I don't want any artificial limits or boosts anywhere near the game. It always needs to be as realistic as it can be.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

No, that's a horrible way of doing it. I don't want any artificial limits or boosts anywhere near the game. It always needs to be as realistic as it can be.

I completely understand what you are saying, but this AI might turn out to be more realistic than the next incarnation, which could provide a better gaming experience than the present one. Which would you choose? How would you know which was more realistic? Without a godlike view of the real world how can you judge?

Improved AI automatically equals more realism!?

[Ackter]

I completely understand what you are saying, but this AI might turn out to be more realistic than the next incarnation, which could provide a better gaming experience than the present one. Which would you choose? How would you know which was more realistic? Without a godlike view of the real world how can you judge?

Improved AI automatically equals more realism!?

Yes, because with this game improved AI will always be an attempt to make the managers behave more realistically.

[x42bn6]

I'm just amazed (actually, I'm not, but I'll play along) that your only ability to understand difficulty levels is with the forced alteration of game mechanics.

All of your points are completely pointless because you fail to grasp the simple idea that artificially changing the way something works is artificially changing it.

Come on, now. You pretend to be intelligent and knowledgeable, so couldn't you just pretend to be a little more so, for at least a short while?

I don't get why artificially changing something is a bad thing. We don't know how managers think in reality so anything we do is artificial and arbitrary in the world of AI. You don't know how deep Pardew thought when he signed Demba Ba.

A difficulty level is nothing more than being able to choose from a number of different AIs with different characteristics. We don't actually know which one is more realistic - indeed, all three AIs could have the same probability distributions for a particular scenario, but just different marginal distributions under the hood in specific areas.

If your issue is around being able to choose a difficulty level to suit the user, I don't think that's an issue. We don't pick which nations to load in real-life - they all exist. Picking nations is a meta-action that influences how the game develops at the cost of accuracy (but with the advantage that with fewer leagues, the game runs faster). AI is similar - it's on top of the underlying game model and the harder the AI, the slower the game moves.

I agree that it's altering the game mechanics in a particular way. I don't see what the problem is with it. If done properly, It doesn't affect the underlying player/staff-attribute model, which, to me, obeys Model-View-Controller in spirit.

There is only one way that "difficulty levels" can realistically be introduced into the Football Manager gameworld, and that is to allow the user to gain as much help as they need from the in-game staff. The AI should always, always, be an attempt at realism. Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not adjustable via a slider in any way (seriously, it's not a hard idea to grasp).

I don't see why it should always be just about realism. Even games like Sim City 4, attempting to accurately simulate a city, introduce the concept of a difficulty level.

Binding the game's mechanics to add a difficulty factor would interest some users, such as new users to the series, or users who want the kitchen sink to be thrown at them. These can only be good things.

Stop comparing how FM works to games that have absolutely no relation or similarities whatsoever with it. The fact that you're comparing FM to chess is the perfect example of how lacking in understanding you are of the game's mechanics.

The point of an analogy is that it talks about common concepts in other comparable areas, essentially taking a step back and exploring the real, core logic in an argument that matters without getting distracted about all the details.

Analogies have been used for centuries or millennia, and have formed many arguments in the past. Analogies are a good thing, not a bad thing.

After all, much of what we learn and adapt to is based on analogies, synonyms, isomoprhisms, and so on.

[Ackter]

Considering you haven't owned a new FM for, what is it, 5 years now? It really is about time you either did a little more learning or just learned to shut up about things you clearly have no idea about.

[x42bn6]

Considering you haven't owned a new FM for, what is it, 5 years now? It really is about time you either did a little more learning or just learned to shut up about things you clearly have no idea about.

I have no plans to treat childish outbursts seriously.

Feel free to reply to the other stuff.

[Ackter]

It's a genuine comment and criticism, and your determination to avoid the subject every time it's brought up speaks volumes.

I've already replied to all of your other stuff because, as usual, you're repeating the same old crap in slightly different words.

[x42bn6]

It's a genuine comment and criticism, and your determination to avoid the subject every time it's brought up speaks volumes.

Because I don't think it's relevant.

Like all games, there are users who are new to the series and struggle, and veterans that dominate. How many times have we seen users on this forum post pictures of their insane scoring records, scoring nearly (or over!) 100 goals per season in a top league? How many times have we seen new users complain that the game is "too hard"?

Like all games, a difficulty level can be considered to add a new edge to users who want a more difficult challenge, or ease new users into the game more gently.

Certainly, more feedback and action from the assistant and staff is possible but it can of course be incorporated in tandem with additional difficulty levels.

Personal experience is often meaningless, like a lot of anecdotal evidence.

In addition, if you have a rubbish assistant, he might even make your job harder! It's a band-aid and not perfect. A new user might not even know what a good assistant manager is, after all.

I've already replied to all of your other stuff because, as usual, you're repeating the same old crap in slightly different words.

Cutting down my post into small chunks, you haven't replied to these:

- "I don't get why artificially changing something is a bad thing."
- "I agree that it's altering the game mechanics in a particular way. I don't see what the problem is with it."
- "I don't see why it should always be just about realism."

If you don't want to answer those, then answer these:

- Would you be opposed to SI introducing a new AI that is slightly different in terms of difficulty level?
- Is your main issue around being able to choose an AI, or the AI modifying *something*, or both?

[Ackter]

I actually have answered all of those points on a number of different occasions in this thread already.

[alanbiley]

Given that FM is only an attempt to simulate the real football world (and is inevitably an approximation at best) I can't see why the idea of difficulty levels is quite such an emotional topic. We're not talking about making the Mona Lisa brighter coloured to appeal to a wider audience here, or something.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

My suggestion for varying difficulty levels is for SI to provide a comprehensive manual for the game, then leave it to the individual to choose how much of that manual they can be bothered to read.

[Barside]

A well written & detailed manual with hints & tips is something that is sorely missed from the gaming sector, I miss the 1990's Microprose manuals & even some of the CM & early FM manuals offered a far amount of help & guidance on how to get the most out of the game.

[Kenco]

They don't need to produce a manual since the forum covers everything in so much detail, if you can filter through all the rubbish.

[Ackter]

Given that FM is only an attempt to simulate the real football world (and is inevitably an approximation at best) I can't see why the idea of difficulty levels is quite such an emotional topic. We're not talking about making the Mona Lisa brighter coloured to appeal to a wider audience here, or something.

Because as soon as this sort of thing is introduced, Football Manager loses its integrity.

[stevvy]

As far as I'm concerned it's as simple as this. You choose the difficulty level yourself by deciding whether to start as Man Utd, Crewe, a Polish team, a French team, a South African team or whatever. If I want an easy game, I'll start as Man Utd, Bayern Munich, Barcelona, etc. If I want a harder game, I'll start as either the team I support (Huddersfield, so not that easy) or a lower league team, or a team I don't know a great deal about in a country whose league I don't know a great deal about, etc.

[abyss616]

@ Stephanie - I saw a debate devolve similarly a few years ago when it was proposed that there be a "no sack" option available to the player. People were flying in left and right complaining, "It's not realistic!", "Why would anyone play that way?" and "It's cheating - how will we know if someone comes on here bragging about winning the EPL with Slough Town?", coming up with a million reasons why it would damage the game, all the while ignoring the fact that no one would be forcing them to use the option. I've noticed far too many people dismiss options such as this when they have no interest in using it. They think it's stupid, therefore, everyone else should think it's stupid and no one should EVER be able to play the game this way. If this were the case, why have any options at all? If we're making it as realistic as possible, every single league in the world should be active, there shouldn't be a way to edit attributes for players or league structure, you shouldn't be able to play without attribute masking or have additional transfer money available at the start of the game.

Virtually every game on the market (including FM *shock!*) have options to make the game easier or harder, or fit a certain playing style the user wants to go with. The people complaining the loudest about this, or any other optional feature the game would offer, are the ones that wouldn't use it. It's mind-boggling to me why you would be so vehemently against something that you wouldn't use and wouldn't affect your game in any way.

[Ackter]

And it's mind-bloggling for me that people can't see how by simply including the option, SI would be ruining the integrity of the game world they've created.

All of the options in FM that affect the difficulty of the game are done so in a realistic and non-obtrusive manner that reinforces the integrity of the gameworld.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

They don't need to produce a manual since the forum covers everything in so much detail, if you can filter through all the rubbish.

And of course everyone who buys the game comes to these forums!

People shouldn't have to spend valuable time searching for information that may or may not be correct just to play a game. But for those that do, it's hardly a quick way to find how things work in the game, plus, the forums are littered with references to hidden stats/atts many of which are revealed and/or used in tests to provide some of the information people are looking for.

[Ackter]

Producing a hard-copy manual required for this game would simply not be cost effective.

[Kenco]

It also boggles my mind that people think it won't affect everyone. This is not something SI can tack-on overnight (like tone), this would require a massive amount of work which will take away time spent on more important issues which will have a knock-on effect on the overall quality of the next release, hence it affects everyone.

[Kenco]

And of course everyone who buys the game comes to these forums!

People shouldn't have to spend valuable time searching for information that may or may not be correct just to play a game. But for those that do, it's hardly a quick way to find how things work in the game, plus, the forums are littered with references to hidden stats/atts many of which are revealed and/or used in tests to provide some of the information people are looking for.

The manual they do release points them in the direction of the forums for further info. It's not rocket surgery or brain science.

[alanbiley]

Because as soon as this sort of thing is introduced, Football Manager loses its integrity.

You keep saying this, but I don't think it means very much. FM is a GAME, not the transformation of actual reality into digital form, perfect in every way. What's the "integrity" of a club like Vauxhall Motors winning the Champions League in 2020 in FM?

Since it's just a game, which can already be modified in various ways ('fog of war' options and such), the addition of some trivial difficulty modifiers is surely no big deal.

[Kenco]

FM is much more than a game, it's a way of life (for some people)!

[alanbiley]

It also boggles my mind that people think it won't affect everyone. This is not something SI can tack-on overnight (like tone), this would require a massive amount of work which will take away time spent on more important issues which will have a knock-on effect on the overall quality of the next release, hence it affects everyone.

If this is true then it's the one argument against difficulty levels that I could personally countenance. But could difficulty levels not be as simple as altering the range of any/all randomisation factors in the game in the user's favour - in effect, making the player various degrees of "luckier"?

[Ackter]

You keep saying this, but I don't think it means very much. FM is a GAME, not the transformation of actual reality into digital form, perfect in every way. What's the "integrity" of a club like Vauxhall Motors winning the Champions League in 2020 in FM?

Since it's just a game, which can already be modified in various ways ('fog of war' options and such), the addition of some trivial difficulty modifiers is surely no big deal.

FM is a game that has always stuck to its way of doing things. SI do not approach the making of FM like other games companies approach their own game.

As soon as SI change their approach to FM, the game will start a downward spiral that it will never recover from. The first thing it will lose is its integrity.

The addition of a difficulty slider is not trivial, and is a rather large deal. It would be the first determined step in the wrong direction.

The game will always need improving, but the integrity of the game world is paramount to achieving that. As soon as it changes, it may as well be FIFA or Championship manager.

[Ackter]

If this is true then it's the one argument against difficulty levels that I could personally countenance. But could difficulty levels not be as simple as altering the range of any/all randomisation factors in the game in the user's favour - in effect, making the player various degrees of "luckier"?

That's not even possible to do in the game without literally rewriting all of it. The gameworld does not recognise you as being a human manager. It recognises you as simply another manager. What you seem to think of as the game is actually just a way for a human to interface with this gameworld.

[alanbiley]

That's not even possible to do in the game without literally rewriting all of it. The gameworld does not recognise you as being a human manager. It recognises you as simply another manager. What you seem to think of as the game is actually just a way for a human to interface with this gameworld.

Hmmm, interesting. But the game knows which team I am managing when I'm in a job, obviously enough, so could it simply apply my proposed skewed luck factors to that team?

[Ackter]

Hmmm, interesting. But the game knows which team I am managing when I'm in a job, obviously enough, so could it simply apply my proposed skewed luck factors to that team?

Nope, that would require completely rewriting the match engine. It's not been set (and to be frank it never will be set up) to differentiate between human and ai managers.

[Kriss]

Hmmm, interesting. But the game knows which team I am managing when I'm in a job, obviously enough, so could it simply apply my proposed skewed luck factors to that team?

No, the game doesn't, to it you're just "manager x, y or z.

[RBKalle]

What's the "integrity" of a club like Vauxhall Motors winning the Champions League in 2020 in FM?

Fair point, but on the other hand which lunatic would enjoy playing 20 seasons at an amateur side with ZERO chances of ever achieving the tiniest bit of success, be it a meager promotion from Tier 5 to Tier 4 (likely just to get relegated dead last the following season)?

FM is a GAME, so a certain degree of "unrealism" has to be expected and welcomed.

A better AI squad building and a smarter transfer policy would help making the game more challenging, thus requiring a lot more effort to lead Vauxhall Motors to European glory...
But an unforgivingly realistic game would make almost pointless playing with anything outside the Top Ten clubs in Europe, as even as Spurs or Valencia you'd be lucky AND good to reach an Europa League final or to consistently qualify for the CL..

Why bothering with BSN or with Finnish football then?

[scott MUFC]

you could always turn real players off. made a few of these games now and seen fluctuations in talent, it does give renamed players of the same stats as real ones, but some seem to just appear with insane stats, and decent players are harder to sign at lower levels.

[x42bn6]

And it's mind-bloggling for me that people can't see how by simply including the option, SI would be ruining the integrity of the game world they've created.

All of the options in FM that affect the difficulty of the game are done so in a realistic and non-obtrusive manner that reinforces the integrity of the gameworld.

Like not moving matches for television, making it easier for teams in Europe; or modifying the detail level, so that some players develop less realistically; or allowing transfer budgets in the first season, which gives the teams a second chance at the first transfer window?

All of these options ruin the integrity of the gameworld in some way by changing the realism and difficulty. Are they bad options to have? Certainly not.

[scott MUFC]

youth players don't develop enough imo, even though they will be first team players and good ones at that IRL

[Ackter]

Like not moving matches for television, making it easier for teams in Europe; or modifying the detail level, so that some players develop less realistically; or allowing transfer budgets in the first season, which gives the teams a second chance at the first transfer window?

All of these options ruin the integrity of the gameworld in some way by changing the realism and difficulty. Are they bad options to have? Certainly not.

All that proves is how long it's been since you've bought an FM. Maybe if you'd base your arguments on personal experience, rather than what you've read posted by people you want to believe, you'd be in a better position to make your point.

[Dave C]

Can I just point out that it's irrelevant whether or not a feature like this would ruin the integrity of the game. Far from being a "simple" difficulty level, given the hugely complicated model that underpins the attributes/ability and development, this would be an immensely difficult feature to implement. So when it adds little to the actual gameplay, it's just not justified on a practical level. And that's really the bottom line.

[Ackter]

We've covered that point already Dave

[x42bn6]

All that proves is how long it's been since you've bought an FM. Maybe if you'd base your arguments on personal experience, rather than what you've read posted by people you want to believe, you'd be in a better position to make your point.

Why use my own anecdotal evidence?

Take even the addition of new leagues. This affects the accuracy of the leagues you add, compromising the integrity of the game. Why is this acceptable?

[Ackter]

Again, how would you know? You've never even seen it in action.

[x42bn6]

Again, how would you know? You've never even seen it in action.

"One does not need cancer to analyse its symptoms."

Adding/removing leagues was described as being able to pick your leagues during a save like at the start of a new save. It's not rocket science. People who have discussed the issue around adding/removing leagues and what it does to the database size state that it creates players in those leagues, which makes sense as this is precisely what adding leagues at the start of a save does - don't load a league and a limited number of players are loaded from that league, with more grey players.

I know this is what it does because nobody has ever slammed SI on this forum for misleading advertising. It does what it says on the tin.

It's silly to state that someone needs to have first-hand experience of something in order to comment on it. In every single game, in every single series (not just Football Manager), there are users who struggle to play the game and there are veterans who know the game inside-out. Ever hear of learning curves? They're related. You don't need personal experiences to suggest that difficulty levels can mitigate new users and engage veterans who find the game easy. It's a potential solution that works in just about any game.

[Ackter]

Oh good God. Please just stop with your rubbish.

[x42bn6]

Oh good God. Please just stop with your rubbish.

Then stop with the rubbish statements along the lines of "you should use personal anecdotal evidence".

[ilCuoreDiRoma]

no, individual attributes shouldn't be boosted

there are ways to make the game harder. give your entire squad low bonus payouts for league/cup/continental. and play with "sunday league" reputation

[Ackter]

You should. You are completely and utterly uninformed about the subject matter, and that you're perfectly capable of starting with that one quote there alone is baffling enough, but to not actually understand its context is something on a whole other level. Do you know what your argumental style is reminiscent of? Fundamentalist creationism.

Now seriously, that's enough. It's alright sharing your opinion about something, but to continually degrade threads into semantic and pointless arguments in the way you continue to do is not on. It's trolling.

[Kenco]

You should. You are completely and utterly uninformed about the subject matter, and that you're perfectly capable of starting with that one quote there alone is baffling enough, but to not actually understand its context is something on a whole other level. Do you know what your argumental style is reminiscent of? Fundamentalist creationism.

Now seriously, that's enough. It's alright sharing your opinion about something, but to continually degrade threads into semantic and pointless arguments in the way you continue to do is not on. It's trolling.

[x42bn6]

You should. You are completely and utterly uninformed about the subject matter, and that you're perfectly capable of starting with that one quote there alone is baffling enough, but to not actually understand its context is something on a whole other level. Do you know what your argumental style is reminiscent of? Fundamentalist creationism.

Now seriously, that's enough. It's alright sharing your opinion about something, but to continually degrade threads into semantic and pointless arguments in the way you continue to do is not on. It's trolling.

You don't need to personally experience the game in order to realise that a difficulty level is a potential solution to a game that is hard for some people and easy for some people.

There is a reason why the tactics forum is so popular - because a lot of people are seeking help!

The idea that I have to somehow apply my own anecdotal evidence (riddled with confirmation bias) is another reason why I don't think it's necessary.

It's not trolling. It's called disagreeing and debating.

Not informed? The only common theme throughout the FM series since I've played is that the game has been gradually tailored towards making it easier to newcomers. Look at the assistant advice, backroom staff talks and tactics creator. This happens for a reason - the game can get complex, too complex for some. Is it not outlandish that the series could continue in that vein?

What about users who purchase every 2 years, and got FM11 but not FM12? Can they not comment on whether a difficulty level could be applicable? What if it was one of the features that upset them most about FM11, being too easy/hard?

Fundamentalist creationism? At least I've not descended into petulant usage of "crap" and "rubbish" when confronted with a wall of text.

Put it this way. This thread is two pages and I've not posted too much in here. It's clear there is a debate going on outside what I post in here. Try realising for once that people hold other opinions than your own, and use the ignore function rather than name-calling.

[themadsheep2001]

You don't need to personally experience the game in order to realise that a difficulty level is a potential solution to a game that is hard for some people and easy for some people.

There is a reason why the tactics forum is so popular - because a lot of people are seeking help!

The idea that I have to somehow apply my own anecdotal evidence (riddled with confirmation bias) is another reason why I don't think it's necessary.

It's not trolling. It's called disagreeing and debating.

Not informed? The only common theme throughout the FM series since I've played is that the game has been gradually tailored towards making it easier to newcomers. Look at the assistant advice, backroom staff talks and tactics creator. This happens for a reason - the game can get complex, too complex for some. Is it not outlandish that the series could continue in that vein?

What about users who purchase every 2 years, and got FM11 but not FM12? Can they not comment on whether a difficulty level could be applicable? What if it was one of the features that upset them most about FM11, being too easy/hard?

Fundamentalist creationism? At least I've not descended into petulant usage of "crap" and "rubbish" when confronted with a wall of text.

Put it this way. This thread is two pages and I've not posted too much in here. It's clear there is a debate going on outside what I post in here. Try realising for once that people hold other opinions than your own, and use the ignore function rather than name-calling.

Every thread you do the same thing, arguing with semantics and shifting the topic off to something you want to talk about rather than the topic itself, its really quite tiresome.

[Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover]

Some people just don't seem to understand that when some play FM they only want to be the team they support.

Saying if you want an easy game then be Celtic is a very unhelpful statemement especially if you are (for arguement's sake) an ardent Raith Rovers fan who only ever wants to be Raith Rovers.

By the same token why shouldn't people be able to have a more difficult game if they are ardent Manchester City fans?

When I play any version of FM the 1st thing I do is lead my club that I support to glory. Then I take a small non-league side to glory then I'll take a small club from a small nation to glory. I have never managed a big club per se.

[themadsheep2001]

Anyway OP, I understand the need to speed the game up for people who don't have time, but i'd argue its much more easily dealt with through better AI, and therefore better delegation (and more options for delegation) to the staff, something that works towards the spirit of the game, and actually benefits the game in terms of design anyway.

[x42bn6]

Every thread you do the same thing, arguing with semantics and shifting the topic off to something you want to talk about rather than the topic itself, its really quite tiresome.

Do you really think I want to talk about why personal anecdotal evidence is often one of the worst form of evidence? It would be like not being able to have an opinion on a food you haven't tried before, or a particularly dangerous sport before taking part in it.

Ackter has tried to make me use personal anecdotal evidence twice, and I've said twice why it's a bad idea, yet he goes on and compares me to a fundamental creationist. If he's not interested in debating, there's the ignore button.

What is the point of a debate if you cannot dig deep into the arguments?

[Cougar2010]

Do you really think I want to talk about why personal anecdotal evidence is often one of the worst form of evidence? It would be like not being able to have an opinion on a food you haven't tried before, or a particularly dangerous sport before taking part in it.

Ackter has tried to make me use personal anecdotal evidence twice, and I've said twice why it's a bad idea, yet he goes on and compares me to a fundamental creationist. If he's not interested in debating, there's the ignore button.

What is the point of a debate if you cannot dig deep into the arguments?

The problem is you don't want a debate.

You simply want a soapbox to voice your own opinions whilst dismissing anyone who dares to disagree with you.

[Cougar2010]

Some people just don't seem to understand that when some play FM they only want to be the team they support.

Saying if you want an easy game then be Celtic is a very unhelpful statemement especially if you are (for arguement's sake) an ardent Raith Rovers fan who only ever wants to be Raith Rovers.

By the same token why shouldn't people be able to have a more difficult game if they are ardent Manchester City fans?

When I play any version of FM the 1st thing I do is lead my club that I support to glory. Then I take a small non-league side to glory then I'll take a small club from a small nation to glory. I have never managed a big club per se.

Personally I've never bought into the concept that the team you choose sets your difficulty.

Certainly some are more difficult than others due to various factors (Boardroom expectations, quality of squad, money/debt issues) but ultimately the game stays the same.

SI have enough problems building one ME so building others for different difficulty levels is a none starter whilst adding points to attributes will not do what you want as you haven't addressed all the other inputs that go into the ME calculations. There is also the addition problem that it could easily unbalance an already less than perfect ME.

The more organic way to introduce some sort of difficulty is by far the use of staff (More/less advice) which has already been mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Sir_Liam]

It also boggles my mind that people think it won't affect everyone. This is not something SI can tack-on overnight (like tone), this would require a massive amount of work which will take away time spent on more important issues which will have a knock-on effect on the overall quality of the next release, hence it affects everyone.

This and my dislike of difficulty settings in games are why I'm against this.

If there's 5 difficulty settings, then SI would need to have 5 levels of AI. The current one still needs a lot of attention, so it's not realistic to be working on creating any more.

And personally I don't like messing around with difficulty settings in games. I end up struggling to decide which one to use which takes away the enjoyment. That's admittedly more a personal reason, but I can't be the only one.

[Ackter]

I knock difficulty levels up to hardest for games that allow realism, so one shot death in FPSs, Resident Evil etc.

But when it comes to something like Dragon Age or Skyrim, I'm there for the story so knock it down to novice.

[x42bn6]

The problem is you don't want a debate.

You simply want a soapbox to voice your own opinions whilst dismissing anyone who dares to disagree with you.

If I didn't want a debate, why am I posting?

I'm more than happy to concede points if people actually give good arguments.

I've argued my points across and Ackter has told me that it's invalid because forget all those arguments, the most important factor is that you have to have played the game in its latest iteration. Which is, quite frankly, very silly because I know that my own experiences with a game cannot be generalised across the entire Football Manager fanbase (and quite frankly you should know that by now given the posts I make). I would likely not make great use of the difficulty level feature if it were implemented since I play casually, but why should my personal experiences affect what I think will be a good feature to the game?

All I am guilty of is putting across these points not in a manner typical of other posters here:

- That FM already has existing functionality that implicitly changes difficulty - i.e. rescheduling matches for television (affects top sides and teams playing top sides as fixtures are shuffled around), adding/removing new leagues (increases the number of "non-grey" players, making transfers slightly easier for teams "not-quite" at the top), backroom advice (can be ignored, but users can take advantage of it, potentially gaining an advantage, or disadvantage if the staff are rubbish), enabling transfers in the first season (makes the game easier for clubs with money, and harder for clubs without money), and so on
- That many games have difficulty levels, even simulation games such as Sim City 4
- That FM, like any other series, has users who struggle to understand the game, and veterans who find the game easy and might want a bigger challenge, as demonstrated by the odd "help me!" thread on GD, or posters showing off their wonderkid regen striker scoring 100+ goals per season
- That FM has in the past introduced features that have implicitly allowed the difficulty level to drop for some users (i.e. tactics creator and backroom staff meetings)

In conclusion, it is not the worst idea in the world to introduce a difficulty level because quite frankly there are already ways to adjust the difficulty level (without being explicitly called a "difficulty level"). The often-mentioned "pick a bigger club" idea is also plausible although I'd argue it should be harder to play a big side as only the top managers go to big sides. Many of these features compromise the realism and integrity of the game at the expense of fun or game speed. A difficulty level, in reality, is absolutely no different.

Of course, I might actually change my opinion if I play FM12. Yup. I might think that FM hasn't introduced features that have made the game easier in the past, such as the tactics creator and backroom staff meetings if I play FM12. FM12 is so good, it can even change the past. Whether or not I play FM12 is entirely independent on my views on difficulty levels, and in my opinion, using the fact I haven't played FM12 is commenting on the contributor, not the content.

[TacticalGenius]

This is a MANAGER SIMULATION game. If you want it easier, play FMH. It really is as simple as that.

[Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover]

This is a MANAGER SIMULATION game. If you want it easier, play FMH. It really is as simple as that.

Spoken like someone who has lost the ability to discuss and now has to be very immature.

[Ackter]

The addition of a realistic way of simplifying the game and providing help to struggling users is an essential development for FM.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

The addition of a realistic way of simplifying the game and providing help to struggling users is an essential development for FM.

This is where I came in: It doesn't need to be simplified, just provide a comprehensive manual. They can provide help to struggling users by providing a comprehensive manual.

What I think I'm saying is that a comprehensive manual would be nice.

[Ackter]

This is where I came in: It doesn't need to be simplified, just provide a comprehensive manual. They can provide help to struggling users by providing a comprehensive manual.

What I think I'm saying is that a comprehensive manual would be nice.

Unfortunately that won't be any help to most struggling users. People don't have the patience to read entire posts these days, let alone a Civilzation-sized manual. All the help needs to be internalised and offered to the player in easy to understand and quick references (there's a quite substantial manual built into the game already, but it's not comprehensive and doesn't talk anywhere near enough about how to achieve things in matches).

[Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover]

Unfortunately that won't be any help to most struggling users. People don't have the patience to read entire posts these days, let alone a Civilzation-sized manual. All the help needs to be internalised and offered to the player in easy to understand and quick references (there's a quite substantial manual built into the game already, but it's not comprehensive and doesn't talk anywhere near enough about how to achieve things in matches).

Hey! I was with you all the way up to "unfortunately"!

[TacticalGenius]

This is where I came in: It doesn't need to be simplified, just provide a comprehensive manual. They can provide help to struggling users by providing a comprehensive manual.

What I think I'm saying is that a comprehensive manual would be nice.

These people want a win button, effectively. They want instant gratification with little to no effort, just like most kids these days. The same type of people who use exploit tactics, in game editors and other aids to cheating and only enjoy the game if they win each match 5-0.

If they 'haven't got time' to play the game properly, they certainly 'haven't got time' to read a FM encyclopedia. What SI need to do is upscale FMH for the PC and Call it 'FM Lite' or something.

[QWERTYOP]

Awful idea. You make the game easy by being Manchester City. You make the game difficult by being Havant & Waterlooville.

[Ackter]

Awful idea. You make the game easy by being Manchester City. You make the game difficult by being Havant & Waterlooville.

This kind of reply always annoys me, for a few reasons.

Being H&W isn't harder, it just takes longer
Who wants to be H&W when their favourite team is Crystal Palace, for example
If the Man City job was easy, would they be paying their manager millions a year or would they just hire some idiot fan off the street?

[TacticalGenius]

This kind of reply always annoys me, for a few reasons.

Being H&W isn't harder, it just takes longer
Who wants to be H&W when their favourite team is Crystal Palace, for example
If the Man City job was easy, would they be paying their manager millions a year or would they just hire some idiot fan off the street?

While I agree with points 1 and 2, with point 3, you can't compare real life management to a game.

I prefer managing clubs with enforced restrictions (Athletic Club especially) because they are more of a challenge with such a limited pool of talent, or managing teams from the unplayable leagues (holiday method) because starting at the top, with a team that has history and only the same trophies to win each season, is boring.

[themadsheep2001]

While I agree with points 1 and 2, with point 3, you can't compare real life management to a game.

I prefer managing clubs with enforced restrictions (Athletic Club especially) because they are more of a challenge with such a limited pool of talent, or managing teams from the unplayable leagues (holiday method) because starting at the top, with a team that has history and only the same trophies to win each season, is boring.

But not everyone plays that way, or indeed should have to play that way to get a "better" challenge. If the AI was better then playing in any team would be a challenge.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Unfortunately that won't be any help to most struggling users. People don't have the patience to read entire posts these days, let alone a Civilzation-sized manual. All the help needs to be internalised and offered to the player in easy to understand and quick references (there's a quite substantial manual built into the game already, but it's not comprehensive and doesn't talk anywhere near enough about how to achieve things in matches).

As one of the guilty (still playing FM10 ) I don't know much about this, I would be most interested to know if there is an explanation of how tutoring works?

[Ackter]

Don't think so. It's more of a How To than a How Does.

[QWERTYOP]

Of course it's harder! I could find you a 14 year old boy off the street that had never played or seen FM in his life, and he would stand a good chance of winning the title with Manchester City. Life at City is a breeze compared to some debt-ridden lower league club. I know - i've tried both many times.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Don't think so. It's more of a How To than a How Does.

Erm that's what I meant.

So it does tell you ages for tutors and tutees, the squad status requirements, relevant reputations, etc?

[Ackter]

Of course it's harder! I could find you a 14 year old boy off the street that had never played or seen FM in his life, and he would stand a good chance of winning the title with Manchester City. Life at City is a breeze compared to some debt-ridden lower league club. I know - i've tried both many times.

So have I, they're both easy.

[Ackter]

Erm that's what I meant.

So it does tell you ages for tutors and tutees, the squad status requirements, relevant reputations, etc?

No idea, if I try and launch it my PC will finally die and my new one hasn't arrived yet.

[Äktsjon Männ]

So have I, they're both easy.

I'd say it's even easier in the lower leagues because it's not difficult at all to assemble a team of players that could be playing on a much higher level. The amount of quality players hanging around unemployed and willing to sign for your lower league club is insane and the AI does nothing to compete for them.

[Ackter]

I'd say it's even easier in the lower leagues because it's not difficult at all to assemble a team of players that could be playing on a much higher level. The amount of quality players hanging around unemployed and willing to sign for your lower league club is insane and the AI does nothing to compete for them.

If it wasn't Man C we were talking about I'd agree with you. With the £80m ish they give you, added to the team you already have, it's just as easy as picking Maidenhead and just signing an entirely new team from the hundreds of free transfers that are far too good for the league you're in.

And once you hit the Conference (or whatever it's called now), you can pick up all the released Premiership youngsters who will see you through until the Championship.

[Bobble2002]

This post has lost me

The Op stated he wants it quicker to play through as he does not have as much time, but then he says he wants the stats adjustable which does nothing whatsoever for making quicker to play . He will still have to do all the setting up of the team and training etc which means nothing has changed it just becomes a lot lot easier to win , which is not that hard anyway so the game still takes just as long to play . surely if he wanted a quicker game the easier solution would be options to turn on/off things like the press conferences or the chairman and board do all the player wages negociations once you tell them what player you want to buy so that it moves along faster

[Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover]

This post has lost me

The Op stated he wants it quicker to play through as he does not have as much time, but then he says he wants the stats adjustable which does nothing whatsoever for making quicker to play . He will still have to do all the setting up of the team and training etc which means nothing has changed it just becomes a lot lot easier to win , which is not that hard anyway so the game still takes just as long to play . surely if he wanted a quicker game the easier solution would be options to turn on/off things like the press conferences or the chairman and board do all the player wages negociations once you tell them what player you want to buy so that it moves along faster

Hmm. Clearly never played FM12.

With attributes increased on an easy level you can happily leave everything else in the game on automatic and be succesfull. No messing around with training, team talks or anything else.

Right now I wouldn't trust trust my staff with making an omlete even if the were ranked with 20 in every attribute. Leaving so much to the staff is often disasterous and leads to the sack.

Hence a much quicker game.

[Ackter]

That suggests you pick entirely the wrong staff. My assistant manager has more winners medals than Alex Ferguson.

[Stephanie McMahon\'s Secret Lover]

That suggests you pick entirely the wrong staff. My assistant manager has more winners medals than Alex Ferguson.

Really? That suggests your knowledge of staff isn't that good either.

Leave you assistant to organise pre-season freindlies and leave him to play the games. Then come back and let me know just how many players lack match fitness.

Now try it with an AssMan with 20s in all areas. Result - exactly the same!!!

[themadsheep2001]

Really? That suggests your knowledge of staff isn't that good either.

Leave you assistant to organise pre-season freindlies and leave him to play the games. Then come back and let me know just how many players lack match fitness.

Now try it with an AssMan with 20s in all areas. Result - exactly the same!!!

Ackter plays as a "DoF" of sorts. He leaves his staff almost entirely in charge IIRC.

It's certainly not the same result. Good staff most definitely make a big difference.

[Ackter]

Yup. I haven't played a match in something like 60 seasons.