Some thoughts regarding consumer issues

I've just come to a slight conclusion as to why so I think so many people are struggling with the game. There are some obvious facts below, so please don't feel like this is condescending.

Computer games in general are an exact science, there is logic, usually offset by player skill (reaction speeds, coping with multiple things at the same time, learning curve).

As we all know, real life football is not an exact science. As such there is a big gap between a logical computer game, and a game that accurately reflects the randomness of the real world. Some people want ultimate realism, with all the real world challenges a football manager faces and the "random" factor included (and I don't just mean the odd 1 or 2 results), whereas others want a logical computer game that they can "beat" with a figured out exact science.

SI in the past have tried to cater more towards a logical approach, whether by choice or by limited implemented options brought on by technology and development time. Early incarnations of the game were easier because they were able to be logically figured out with fewer random aspects.

As the game has grown more complex over time, more features have been added that contribute to the randomness factor, thus making the game more difficult to logically "beat".

The majority of non technical issues that people are having, is that the current game doesn't sit where they want it to on the Logical->Random scale. Some people want more realism, which will result in more features that contain a random element, others want more logic and less randomness. As the saying goes, "you can't please all of the people all of the time".

My feeling is there needs to be a set of tickboxes for features that you want included, untick them all for a more simple logical game, tick them all for a fully immersive realistic challenge. "Leave to assistant manager" is not a valid way around this, they need to be able to be turned off. Providing this is theoretically possible to build into the game, I think this will appeal to a wider user base, allowing customisation of the game to fit with each persons play style.

Disclaimer: The above consistute the views of the poster only, based on 15 years of playing football manager games intensively and conversations with other users across a variety of medium. Terms and Conditions may apply. Please return within 16 days for a full money back guarantee.

I personally feel that haveing an options menu would cater to a wider range of game players. From what I have seen alot of new people to FM are really put off by the wide range of time and detail they have to go into to succeed with the game. Personally I like the detail to a certain extent but can understand why others would like a bit more flexibility built into the game. I guess it all depends on the programming issues this could cause SI.

I agreed with you up until your final suggestion. Good post though

I'm coming round to the idea of tick boxes, although i'm always concerned at how many would be needed/necessary and how much they could affect a game. We already know that team talks can have a major effect on the outcome of a match, and most of us think that shouldn't be the case, so i'd be concerned at how much influence a tick box would have on the game itself.

As for the realism debate, tbh i'm kinda fed up hearing people bleat on about realism and how it's a simulation. It's a game in which a chubby 25 year old from Northern ireland is currently managing Bayern Munich, so I don't think the realism argument holds the weight a lot of people think it does. I think perhaps fun is the wrong word and playability is actually what we crave, yes realism is nice and the game is far more realistic than Fifa etc, but I still want to win consecutive CL's with FC Bayern and if the game was totally realistic that just wouldn't be possible.

As for the realism debate, tbh i'm kinda fed up hearing people bleat on about realism and how it's a simulation. It's a game in which a chubby 25 year old from Northern ireland is currently managing Bayern Munich, so I don't think the realism argument holds the weight a lot of people think it does. I think perhaps fun is the wrong word and playability is actually what we crave, yes realism is nice and the game is far more realistic than Fifa etc, but I still want to win consecutive CL's with FC Bayern and if the game was totally realistic that just wouldn't be possible.

I agree. Part of the fun of the game is that you can do "unrealistic" things such as taking Blue Square teams into the Champions League in under 10 seasons etc. If you move into total simulation then the scope for enjoyable career games goes out the window. You'd then have to settle for a career of lower league or upper league management, as in real life how many managers from conference level make it to the top?

I would tend to agree maybe it could be focused along the lines of Tactics (Basic/Detailed) Team Talks (On/Off) Press Conferences (On/Off) Assistant manager feedback (On/Off) etc.

There is definitely a drifting of the FM fanbase and quite a lot of people would seem to have been completely alienated by the new games level of depth. As a company I'm sure SI don't want to lose these customers. Also that can only be bad for the rest of us since less sales = less income = less time/effort put into further games!!!

There is definitely a drifting of the FM fanbase and quite a lot of people would seem to have been completely alienated by the new games level of depth. As a company I'm sure SI don't want to lose these customers. Also that can only be bad for the rest of us since less sales = less income = less time/effort put into further games!!!

I don't think it's necessarily alienating people, because there are always ways round things like this, but that doesn't mean it's not disappointing. I can't be bummed to devise a tactic this time round and intend on downloading a good tactic whenever someone creates one. I'm not particularly bothered by that and it won't affect my enjoyment of the game, but it is disappointing that I feel the need to do this in order to enjoy the game.

Tickboxes were just an idea, but the theory behind it is that something needs to be done to appeal to a wider audience. Despite sales figures most likely still being high, it's clear that the depth of the fanbase is changing. Other than implementation issues, I can't see a good reason why diversity in playability shouldn't be included in future releases.

No doubt about it CaptainPlanet, I think you'll meet with some people who despise the thought of tick boxes because they automatically associate them with difficulty levels, but that's a different debate

No doubt about it CaptainPlanet, I think you'll meet with some people who despise the thought of tick boxes because they automatically associate them with difficulty levels, but that's a different debate

The tickboxes in effect would represent a level of difficulty. The more logical a game is, with fewer factors to consider, the easier the game would be. It's able to be beaten in the aspect that other games on the market can be "won". It would also help some more casual/novice players get accustomed to the more advanced features of the game without having to read certain forum threads.

They can in effect, start with everything un-ticked, find a winning tactic and then progress through the other options one by one and work out how to deal with them throguh the course of a game. Whilst still being the option there to ignore them all together.

Would be nice to know in this or the difficulty option thread, if this (or something similar) is something SI would consider, or if it's a definite no-no and nip the idea in the bud.

I know, I'm as bad as the "SI READ THIS" people, but I'd like to know

excellent post

I agree with most of whats being said, dunno how far that tick boxes could be taken without adding a lot to an already big, and not unprone to the odd bug, game, but i know **** all about computers other than they let me play fm and type things for uni, so il let the tech types talk about it while i listen with interest!

This is not Gears of War, no to options to tick or untick. If you want a level based game buy yourself a 360.

I honestly don't see it being added any time soon, which is a pity. If I was SI i'd sit back and think, third party software and loads of very good tactics/training schedules already available, no point in creating work for ourselves when people can avoid the more difficult aspects if they want. They may not think like that, but I wouldn't blame them.

I wish difficulty levels/tick boxes were introduced though, for the first time in years i've downloaded a tactic because I can't be bothered creating one, which feels a bit like cheating.

This is not Gears of War, no to options to tick or untick. If you want a level based game buy yourself a 360.

Very cosntructive

This is not Gears of War, no to options to tick or untick. If you want a level based game buy yourself a 360.

Other than being a fantastic troll post, you are aware that the last couple of versions of FM have been available on the 360?

Not FM09

I can't really understand the argument against difficulty settings, be it in the form of tickboxes (please God, not sliders ) or whatever. The game is multi-layered now and new users and old users alike should increasingly be able to access the game at these different levels. CaptainPlanet, I think your suggestions would be great. If the tickboxes work simply as an extension of game preferences, all the better. People could then customise as they wish.

Hmm, sliders could work too. I was hoping for a few more implementation suggestions, I'm not convinved tickboxes (or god forbid, more sliders) and the best way to put it in.

I can't believe you felt the need to put a disclaimer in LOL.

Personally, the harder the game the better. I want the game to not let me win every single match with Crystal Palace, i want to struggle and know that IF I win a game it's because I am indeed a tactical genius, not becuase the games a piece of **** to master and you can win the Champions League in 3 seasons with them!

Besides, as a Palace fan, I'm used to heartache and loss!

@ CaptainPlanet, good opening post very well argumented.

I agree with you, for me all the training stuff, I could miss it like a headache. Sometimes I wish I was a little bit of a arcade game, just for fun , get a team, field 11 players and win.

More and more it gets a little bit more difficult, in priciple no problem for me, but my main problem is time, I just don/t have the time to sort out all kinds of tactics/training when I only have a hour or so to play.

What would be nice is your suggestion of the tickboxes (or any other way) so you can setup a kind of arcade game or leave is how it is (like it is now).

In this way I would be starting two saves, one serious one with all the reality stuff etc. which I would play if I have time on my hand and one save in which I just play games and win them, for if I don't have much time.

Personally, the harder the game the better. I want the game to not let me win every single match with Crystal Palace, i want to struggle and know that IF I win a game it's because I am indeed a tactical genius, not becuase the games a piece of **** to master and you can win the Champions League in 3 seasons with them!

I'm not saying make the game easier, argh I give up some times... I try so hard to do well thought out posts and someone skim reads and adds their 2 cents.

I've been giving this more thought- the only way I could see this thoughtfully implemented (as it needs to be) would be as a glorified preferences page. On this page, you could simply customise the detail and options that you would like. Probably would have to be as tickboxes akin to the current preferences menu. I see no reason why more options couldn't be added to enable the user to choose the elements that s/he would like to see when playing.

JB22, this wouldn't make the game easier, just more 'personal'. You could pick the features and elements that you feel enhance the game play and leave out options that don't appeal. For example, if you like endless tactic-tinkering, this could be customisible. Likewise, if you want a more streamlined tactical approach, this could ne managed as well.

I've been giving this more thought- the only way I could see this thoughtfully implemented (as it needs to be) would be as a glorified preferences page.

Yeah that's how I see it too, it doesn't need to be a massive list of options, but enough to be able to customise the game to suit more people.

I cant see how it would be to hard to add this feature,a simple box saying "in depth tactics" if you tick it you get what 09 is all about,if unticked you get to set your tactics something like lets say 01,then you could maybe just maybe please all of the people all of the time.

I sort of agree, but at the same time don't. I have to admit to liking the greater difficulty, and looking at it there is always the easier option of playing as Arsenal

Ultimately the game is still logical, and always will have to be at it's heart. So rather than tickboxes and options for difficulty I'd prefer to see more feedback (I'm looking at you training module) about players ability, what the stats mean, how they relate to my tactics and ultimately behind the scenes how I can offset some of the more random factors by having certain players with high stats in the right areas controlling more. To me that is the key between "realism" and "fun", getting a better understanding of what stats effect what in the match and according to how I've set my tactics means I can find a working tactic quicker and have more "fun" whilst maintaining the "realism" that people crave. True tactical geniuses will never need to look at the feedback, those of us less gifted will be able to be better managers without needing to take FA coaching badges.

But isn't everything in the game based on everything else in the game. So you couldn't just turn something off. I think if they made the basic formations you can choose from a little more effective, irc (correct me if i'm not) you can only select preset formations, the all have the 'notches' set to middle, maybe some pre-set attacking/ defending ones that people can use with success.

Ultimately the game is still logical, and always will have to be at it's heart.

Only to a certain extent, if you keep replaying the same match over and over with the same tactics you'll rarely get the same result, it's this level of randomness and non-logic that angers and confuses people.

It's a double edged sword. The game has to be logical to a certain extent, but it has to be equally random in order to mimic real football

But as has been said before, at the end of the day it is a game and it is supposed to be fun - now to some people having random injuries/losses/own goals etc. is all part of real life football and they enjoy that those aspects are included, others want a game to beat and don't want circumstances out of their control ruining their fun.

Imagine a realistic mode in Call of Duty where out of nowhere randomly you get shot/blown-up without anything you can do about it, some people will like it, others will be wtf.

others want a game to beat and don't want circumstances out of their control ruining their fun.

I'm all for difficulty levels (at the moment), but what is being described sounds like a game of shooting practice and not a management game. You're right, one persons idea of fun is another persons idea of boredom, but SI can't accomodate all preferences and if they did there would be no stopping the "can I spend my wages on thongs" threads and it would become part of, possibly ruin, the game.

Only to a certain extent, if you keep replaying the same match over and over with the same tactics you'll rarely get the same result, it's this level of randomness and non-logic that angers and confuses people.

The following is going to use what I think the match engine does, I will undoubtedly have simplified things!

That you are getting different results isn't due to the fact the system isn't logical. That's down to decision points where you can go in multiple different ways. So say your midfielder is set to short passing, has passing 5 and decisions 12, and no one within short passing range and the opposition starting to close him down. So he has a 4% chance of miskicking the ball, 65% hoofing it forward, 20% for a nice through ball and 11% passing back. Yes the option chosen is going to be random, and always will have to be, but we should be able to control the percentages with our tactics and correct players, which would give you more "control" over the outcome of any given game by the same options being more likely to be "randomly" chosen.

So what your really getting angry, IMO, at is not understanding enough about how decisions are made and being able to control those (and I'm sure we do actually have some control on all of them). The assistant manager feedback is a good example of where/how we can gain the control. i.e. telling me that there is a gap between defence and midfield. I'm sure I had that in previous versions and never knew with my tactics. What it doesn't do though is then link that back to the game itself. So it doesn't tell me to fix it I need to change the mentality settings (or get less creative players, or whatever else comes in to play). So I'm left with advice that means nothing and could become more annoying.

Maybe 1 of the best example's is in MMO's where some players love pvp where as others hate it,so alot of mmo's cater for both giving the players the harshness of pvp but having enough pve content to please the other players..its all about choice as players see fun in different ways.

For the people that enjoy FM09 then fair play too you,I myself enjoyed it alot more with the older tactics and ME,I do really really want to enjoy FM09 as it has alot of features I do like and that is why I just dont go back to play an older version(thought I would slip that in before someone said it).

If there was a way I could keep all the new features but load an older tactics/ME I would have the perfect FM game(my opinion ofc).

I'm all for difficulty levels (at the moment), but what is being described sounds like a game of shooting practice and not a management game. You're right, one persons idea of fun is another persons idea of boredom, but SI can't accomodate all preferences and if they did there would be no stopping the "can I spend my wages on thongs" threads and it would become part of, possibly ruin, the game.

But it's not a new idea, earlier incarnations of the CM/FM series were more logical and less random, by random I mean things that they can't control to a high degree. I think the two sides of the market can be accomodated for, whether through tickboxes or some other way like an "FM Light" when it's just a different tactics screen and match engine.

Yes it's sounds like shooting practice because in theory you can "beat" the game, because some people want to do that rather than endure the difficult challenges that exist. Hang on, didn't you download a tactic purely for this reason?

I downloaded the tactic more because I couldn't be bothered spending the time creating one, not because I wanted to win at all costs

I don't think there's a need for different tactics screens or match engine, greater clarity in the workings of each tactical slider is what is needed. FM08 had the exact same tactics screen and I was perfectly happy with it, whereas I was lost at sea with 09.

by random I mean things that they can't control to a high degree.

But do those things really exist in the game? Personally I don't think they do that much, I just think that more options are available at each decision point so your unlikely to see the same outcome constantly. However, I still believe we have control on those decisions, we just might not understand as much as we did in previous versions (some of which is because we've only had a month on this one vs at least a year on previous ones)

greater clarity in the workings of each tactical slider is what is needed.

Alongside how they work with the available (and to some degree hidden) player stats.

On the CoD thing, I play Stalker: SOC. I modded with more 'realistic' damage. It got to be one shot, one kill, but often from an apparently random source - enemies just did not miss, even if their weapons were rusted and about ready for scrap (as most weapons I found on the mod seemed to be). It did spoil a lot of the enjoyment for me. If I want that level of realism, I'll move to Kabul, where I can use all my senses to keep myself safe(ish). Using a keyboard and mouse to look around isn't the same as just turning my head and having all my senses feeding me info. So realism, there, has to take a back seat to an extent, hence the 'multiple hits' thing you get in FPS games.

FM is a different beast. Logic applies, but only as much as it ever does in any football. You have to expect to lose if your tactics and team selection are wrong, and tbh, I can remember management games on older machines that were rock hard, kept you bottom of the table regardless of what you tried, and did indeed seem to 'cheat' to make sure you got nothing out of games (not the original FM, I have to say).

So I think in FM realism has to have a place. On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that not everyone has the time, inclination, or perhaps even aptitude to think like a real manager - if we could, surely we'd all be at it and getting £3 million payouts for being useless.

The problem with tick-boxes and difficulty settings would be the danger of spoiling the game for those who do want a highly realistic experience (as far as is possible, at any rate); it's human nature to want to win, so would any of us, truthfully, opt to play a game that was hard/beat us often when we could go for a 'softer' setting and win almost without effort?

It's a tough one to call.

My answer would be to improve things within the game to give more control. Looking at various threads, people seem to be saying training doesn't matter as much as it should or does IRL. That's true. The sliders and other instructions are still unrealistic - I've played football at several levels (never league, sadly), and managers don't micro-manage your attacking mentality. They can't. 'A bit more attacking' or 'Get forward more often' is the best they can do. They can't go 'you're at attacking 11. I want you at 13 in the second half and nudge the creative freedom up a notch'. That, for me, is what is lacking.

I know there are arguments and reasons for the sliders, but a more limited range would leave it open to the player's interpretation a bit more...and bring the concentration and decisions stats into play more.

Look at RL football and watch Ferguson, Capello, and - this season particularly - Wenger doing their nuts because their instructions have been misunderstood or ignored.

Take the micro-managing of sliders away, at least to a degree, and people will still lose...but IMO people seem to be complaining about the difficulty of understanding the slider settings and interaction between them and other instructions more than the realism that is already in the game.

Sorry if that was all a bit waffly and rambling. lol.

Alongside how they work with the available (and to some degree hidden) player stats.

I'm not sure that's necessary, because the two should be separate entities that have have separate degrees of influence on how the game pans out. This is a conversation that I had with chopper99 yesterday and it's difficult to find a definate answer in relation to a game because I think it would be difficult to implement.

Should the players play to tactics and that's that? Or should they play to tactics, to a point and then attributes be the defining factor when necessary?

This is raised because, imo, tactics do play too much of a role in player decisions and the fact that tempo can force a striker with 20 finishing and 20 composure to fluff a one on one is ridiculous. Then again, how can we expect a game to have the cpacaity to know when it should ignore tactics and rely on atributes :confused:

For me the tactics are too complicated, and have too much of an influence ont he game. Then again, if we made them easier or less detailed it wouldn't feel liek we were stamping our mark on the team via tactics and our team choice would be the main aspect of management.

I haven't provided any answers, just more questions

Sorry, There is too much here from the last few posts for me to comment on everything without getting RSI, so I'll pick a couple of points...

The problem with tick-boxes and difficulty settings would be the danger of spoiling the game for those who do want a highly realistic experience (as far as is possible, at any rate); it's human nature to want to win, so would any of us, truthfully, opt to play a game that was hard/beat us often when we could go for a 'softer' setting and win almost without effort?

It's a tough one to call

There is the possibility of using the editor to make things easier already, many people don't use that so I don't see why a set of customisable preferences for a cumulative difficulty level is that different, if it's human nature to want to win, nobody would ever pick hard mode on other game types.

But do those things really exist in the game? Personally I don't think they do that much, I just think that more options are available at each decision point so your unlikely to see the same outcome constantly. However, I still believe we have control on those decisions

Things aren't fully under control at all, you can mitigate the randomness to a degree though, as your percentages say you won't get 100% passing efficiency.

Lets not forget that the goal of this thread is to make the game appeal to more casual players, more hints and tips in game about how your tactics work isn't enough of a work around for the person who wants to pick up and play 4-4-2 with his favourite side and win things.

Yes it's not realistic, yes it's not how a lot us see the game or want to see the game, but I feel the option should be there to appeal to that playerbase.

The following is going to use what I think the match engine does, I will undoubtedly have simplified things!

That you are getting different results isn't due to the fact the system isn't logical. That's down to decision points where you can go in multiple different ways. So say your midfielder is set to short passing, has passing 5 and decisions 12, and no one within short passing range and the opposition starting to close him down. So he has a 4% chance of miskicking the ball, 65% hoofing it forward, 20% for a nice through ball and 11% passing back. Yes the option chosen is going to be random, and always will have to be, but we should be able to control the percentages with our tactics and correct players, which would give you more "control" over the outcome of any given game by the same options being more likely to be "randomly" chosen.

So what your really getting angry, IMO, at is not understanding enough about how decisions are made and being able to control those (and I'm sure we do actually have some control on all of them). The assistant manager feedback is a good example of where/how we can gain the control. i.e. telling me that there is a gap between defence and midfield. I'm sure I had that in previous versions and never knew with my tactics. What it doesn't do though is then link that back to the game itself. So it doesn't tell me to fix it I need to change the mentality settings (or get less creative players, or whatever else comes in to play). So I'm left with advice that means nothing and could become more annoying.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you on this....I'm with CaptainPlanet.

In my experience - though not tested "scientfically" - I can play a game using the same tactic and the same team against the same opponent and seem to get wildly different results. Now you could expect some difference because of the random factor but it's how wildly different they are that's bizarre.

I recently played as Newcastle against Anderlecht in a pre-season. I had to run the game twice because of a crash. In one version I totally spanked them 0-5 away. They didn't even get a look in - they were totally outplayed.

In the second game I drew 2-2 in a pretty even game.

It just "feels" too random.

I think the other problem is that as the FM/CM franchise gets older a lot of the devoted fans have got older too - got married, had kids, got responsible jobs - basically got less time. But as they have got less time the game has become more complex and needs more time to play.

I have been playing the game since CM2 - a lot of years now - and used to be able to spend hours messing and tweaking. Now I just don't have the time and end up downloading tactics etc just so I can get on and play for the spare hour I've got.

But ultimately that's just not as fulfilling. Perhaps we've got too old or perhaps FM has become too complex. Doesn't really matter which way round it is or if it's a combination of both. In the end we'll just grow apart!

Should the players play to tactics and that's that? Or should they play to tactics, to a point and then attributes be the defining factor when necessary?

Shouldn't players play to the tactics described to the best of their ability?

Ask a poor decision maker to play in a free role, and you won't get the best results (although they might learn). Play a highly creative midfielder in the defensive midfield role and expect their to be gaps in midfield. This is why I think the attributes come in to play, and we need that level of feedback. It's not really just enough to know that player x is a 6 star midfielder in your team, is he a 6 star midfielder to your tactics and how you want him to play?

Firstly, the OP's opinion is not totally out-there. I agree, it would be nice for many gamers to have a bespoke game to suit their every need. However:

I should say off the bat that I'm no programming expert, but from what I have picked up over the years in an IT-heavy environment (and years of FM/CM playing), tick boxes simply will not work the way the OP suggests. Every minor tweak in programming FM results in a knock-on effect to everything associated with that tweak, and everything that is affected has a knock-on effect to things associated with that... dominos if you will.

For example, (not necessarily given by the OP, I know, but bear with me) if you have a tick-box that takes away press conferences, this leaves a big gap in terms of player confidence for both your team and the away team, meaning that for a gamer to use this feature, a whole new batch of code needs writing for when users deselect press conferences (they are not just cosmetic). Then imagine if the user deselects press conferences AND manager interraction AND chairman interferrence; this then has 3 functions changed but it's not just 3 apsects to game upon the user selecting these options, it 3 functions for EVERY AREA OF THE GAME THAT THESE AFFECT.

So 3-4-5-10 different scales of randomness-to-logic options will affect pretty much EVERY area of the game, since these are pretty much every area of the game is dictated by logic/randomness/calculations based on pre-set attributes. In other words, it's a different game for every area of logic.

While I agree it would be nice to have more options, I just don't think it will be possible.

Going off-topic slightly, but it's relevant: people have suggested many times that tick-boxes would be a good idea for difficulty levels, eg, easy, medium, hard - like many games have. But since the whole FM game is based around pre-set attributes and the ME is programmed to work based on calcluating these in conjuntion with tactics, player morale, plus the 'hidden' attributes (and other stuff), a whole new match engine would need to be programmed to cope with the different responses for the various options. Alternatively, it could simply favour the human user by "boosting" his team's attributes behind the scenes or reducing the AI's team - eg, if you are playing as Man U Ronaldo's stats are the same but when playing against Man U the ME lowers his ability to either one third (easy), two-thirds (medium) or full ability (hard). Personally I'd hate this, and I also think (THINK!) it would need three different match engines to cope, probably meaning 3 different games as I can't see how you'd fit it all onto one disc. However, all this said about difficulty, I think this would be EASIER to implement than the logic-to-randomness ratios as suggested - because it has fewer combinations of knock-ons / domino-toppling.

Things aren't fully under control at all, you can mitigate the randomness to a degree though, as your percentages say you won't get 100% passing efficiency.[/Quote]

No, and I don't think we can ever say they will ever be fully under our control. But the same is true in any computer game, they all work with some level of AI so we react as best as we can. The difference between FM and a shooter (to use the analogy) is that we get feedback in the shooter that running around a corner is bad, because we hear the shooting and maybe take a bullet and see our health go down, at which point we take more care. In FM, we have many more variables but lots of less in game useful feedback. I can watch the game, but that doesn't say my creativity 20 midfielder is actually a bad fit for position A, he just plays badly and I'm left to work out the reason.

Lets not forget that the goal of this thread is to make the game appeal to more casual players, more hints and tips in game about how your tactics work isn't enough of a work around for the person who wants to pick up and play 4-4-2 with his favourite side and win things.

To be honest, that's pretty much what I do. I don't spend an age tweaking tactics, I pick 4-4-2. I put the default positional positions on. I tweak it a bit more attacking and go. Played 3 seasons, not changed the tactic. Had fun and been relatiively succesful. Maybe I'm expecting less of the game? So if the above is actually good enough for pick up and play, and yes it could be improved as default player tactics leave you with the dreaded midfield and defence to far apart, then it comes down to the individual on what is fun and I can't see that anything SI can do will fully mitigate that.

Yes it's not realistic, yes it's not how a lot us see the game or want to see the game, but I feel the option should be there to appeal to that playerbase.

I think that isn't where FM is trying to market itself. Yes they want as many people to buy the game as possible obviously, but there is LMA, FIFA etc. that already compete in the appeal to a wider audience marketplace. I would guess your looking at a more strategic decision not to appeal to that playerbase to be fair.

Would be interested to see tick boxes for certain features of the game. There’s already one to disable 3D so I’d like to see if one could work for disabling press conferences and team talks.

It's not really just enough to know that player x is a 6 star midfielder in your team, is he a 6 star midfielder to your tactics and how you want him to play?

Interesting thought, coach reports or assistant manager feedback could link each of the sliders to the players personal preferences. This already happens to a degree on in-game assistant manager feedback (Barry likes to close down opponents more) but could be taken to a more detailed level. (e.g. Jim Smith likes to play with a slightly attacking mentality, to put in hard tackles and enjoys shooting from range)

Maybe in the same way that they show red on the tactics screen if put them physically out of position, they could turn red if you're asking them to play differently to how they naturally want to.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you on this....I'm with CaptainPlanet.

In my experience - though not tested "scientfically" - I can play a game using the same tactic and the same team against the same opponent and seem to get wildly different results. Now you could expect some difference because of the random factor but it's how wildly different they are that's bizarre.

I'll disagree on it being bizarre. Maybe the key first decision on your game was a centre half clearing the ball, in the game you won he clears it cleanly and gets more confidence meaning he plays a better game. In the game you lose, he fluffs it and gives it to the opposition, loses confidence and lets the strikers easily run past him every game. Those simple differences can have huge knock on effects, but if you have better knowledge of what causes those differences then you can offset them.

For example, many people say that watching the full game gives a much better knowledge of how the team is playing, when to make subs etc. Which is obviously true because your seeing all of the decisions played out in front of you, and therefore getting some more feedback. If however, you play on Key highlights, your obviously missing information that is never presented to you in any other manner. Assistant feedback is a start to that, but still a long way behind the ME. For the casual player who doesn't want to spend the time in full games (or extended highlights, which are my prefered choice) you need the same feedback as watching the full match, and for it to relate to the actual game mechanics.

I think that isn't where FM is trying to market itself. Yes they want as many people to buy the game as possible obviously, but there is LMA, FIFA etc. that already compete in the appeal to a wider audience marketplace. I would guess your looking at a more strategic decision not to appeal to that playerbase to be fair.

It's only a suggestion

Lots of people have been on the forums saying that the game is too hard as it stands now, many people are turning away from FM because of the road it's going down - I like the road it's going down as do many others, but aside from development time there is nothing negative against appealing to a wider fanbase, including long-time players who are becoming disillusioned with the series.

For the casual player who doesn't want to spend the time in full games (or extended highlights, which are my prefered choice) you need the same feedback as watching the full match, and for it to relate to the actual game mechanics.

Then you're making watching the full match cosmetic because any information you gain from doing it has already been given to you by your assistant manager. A step in the wrong direction - UNLESS it was a choosable option, say with a tickbox perhaps?

Interesting thought, coach reports or assistant manager feedback could link each of the sliders to the players personal preferences. This already happens to a degree on in-game assistant manager feedback (Barry likes to close down opponents more) but could be taken to a more detailed level. (e.g. Jim Smith likes to play with a slightly attacking mentality, to put in hard tackles and enjoys shooting from range)

Maybe in the same way that they show red on the tactics screen if put them physically out of position, they could turn red if you're asking them to play differently to how they naturally want to.

Absolutely, I think Assistant feedback is probably the best thing in this release and improving it with all the more of these suggestions is going to be a huge boon to getting people in to the game.

One thing I think they're missing though is then what to do with that advice. When I started I got the midfield to defence message because I used the default settings. But I had no idea what to do to change that until I read the forums. Same with others, I have several bits of feedback each game saying player x likes to play a faster tempo, or isn't used to closing down. But I don't really know what effect that is having in each game, if I need to do something about it, and what I need to do. So the advice almost needs several extra levels.

"John Smith isn't use to closing down as much. If you ease his closing down, down then he'll be out of position less often"

of course, it's easy to write the sentence, coding it is going to be a lot harder!

Interesting thought, coach reports or assistant manager feedback could link each of the sliders to the players personal preferences. This already happens to a degree on in-game assistant manager feedback (Barry likes to close down opponents more) but could be taken to a more detailed level. (e.g. Jim Smith likes to play with a slightly attacking mentality, to put in hard tackles and enjoys shooting from range)

Maybe in the same way that they show red on the tactics screen if put them physically out of position, they could turn red if you're asking them to play differently to how they naturally want to.

This would just add yet more micro management to a game that already has way too much,even after you had the team set up subs/injuries to players you would have to do it all again for the player comming on,this is 1 idea I dont like mate.

Some people have posted about the loyal players have aged somewhat and there lives have moved on,I am 1 of those players but still love the FM series but I just dont have the time to spend hours upon hours playing,I jump on and play for 1-2 hours each day and I really miss not getting a whole lot done,I have seen me only play 2 matches in that time and it is really taking the fun away.