Sort it out SI

[Brian Shanahan]

How is my original assertion that bugs existing over several years = SI having a terrible record of bug-fixing wrong?

Care to prove that the examples listed haven't existed over the past few versions?

If the best will in the world can't resolve these long-standing bugs (or even try to mitigate it),

then you'll have to excuse me if I don't buy another version until it IS resolved.

Fine then just ignore my proofs already given. But, acting like this doesn't make you right and far more importantly makes you look like an idiot who cannot make his own arguement and is so afraid of having a proper debate on an issue that he has to shout everybody else down.

There are so many ways I could demolish your arguement if I wished but frankly I won't and for the following reasons 1) you won't listen to them, 2) you're more interested in invective than debate, and finally 3) a half second's worth of thinking would give you at least the most important and biggest ones.

So you won't be hearing from me again in a hurry, which is a bad thing for you (there is always a small chance your myopic brain would be cracked open) but good for me (one more annoyance I won't ever have to see again).

[Neil Brock]

Ok FM11 might have had less bugs on paper, but how many of those bugs have been around for 2 or more versions of the game because they are deemed 'not a high enough priority to fix'? They might only be small niggly bugs, and yes there will be much worse bugs especially with the new features, but IMO, any bug that has been around for 2 versions of the game should be a very high priority. Bugs should not be around for a third time, especially little niggly ones that would 'appear' easy to fix to customers.

What bugs specifically have been about for two or more versions? You can't really include stuff like 'transfers aren't realistic' in that because they are worked on for every single game - it's just nigh on impossible to get it absolutely 100% perfect in relation to real life so we just have to tweak it, taking into account the masses of changes in real life (such as squad registration rules which changed everything again fairly recently) and the agents being added. And before you say 'you should have got it right 100% before putting in the agents', that wouldn't have been a wise way to spend our valuable coding time considering agents were bound to go in eventually so it'll all have to change again anyway.

[StevoRobbo]

What bugs specifically have been about for two or more versions? You can't really include stuff like 'transfers aren't realistic' in that because they are worked on for every single game - it's just nigh on impossible to get it absolutely 100% perfect in relation to real life so we just have to tweak it, taking into account the masses of changes in real life (such as squad registration rules which changed everything again fairly recently) and the agents being added. And before you say 'you should have got it right 100% before putting in the agents', that wouldn't have been a wise way to spend our valuable coding time considering agents were bound to go in eventually so it'll all have to change again anyway.

Well the OP's problem for a start. How long as that been in the game? Players not going because they have only just signed. Look at Liverpool. Meireles has just gone after being there 6 months. That wouldnt happen in FM.

[SCIAG]

Well the OP's problem for a start. How long as that been in the game? Players not going because they have only just signed. Look at Liverpool. Meireles has just gone after being there 6 months. That wouldnt happen in FM.

He's been there 12 months.

[StevoRobbo]

He's been there 12 months.

Yeh just realised. It still does happen IRL though. The OP's point has been around for a while. If the player wants to go then they should go. Not have messages coming up saying they cant because the have only just arrived.

[milnerpoint]

how many players moved in january having only signed in the summer? Or how many players left a club during the summer having only arrived in january?

[StevoRobbo]

how many players moved in january having only signed in the summer? Or how many players left a club during the summer having only arrived in january?

Thats not the point. The point is, if the player in the game wants to go, its irrelevant when they signed. If they tell you they want to go, you shouldnt be getting messages saying nobody wants him because he's just signed. And you shouldnt be getting messages off the player saying he's upset your selling him, when he's just asked to leave.

[StevoRobbo]

Anyway, Chris Smalling is one. Signed for Boro, got homesick, cancelled his contract then signed for Fulham.

[milnerpoint]

Thats not the point. The point is, if the player in the game wants to go, its irrelevant when they signed. If they tell you they want to go, you shouldnt be getting messages saying nobody wants him because he's just signed. And you shouldnt be getting messages off the player saying he's upset your selling him, when he's just asked to leave.

I think you will find in FM you will only be restricted in the first few weeks of the player signing, if you sign a player in summer you can usually sell him in January with the right situation, but agreed on the second part, its a small thing tho, easily ignored.

[milnerpoint]

Anyway, Chris Smalling is one. Signed for Boro, got homesick, cancelled his contract then signed for Fulham.

Kinda backs up my point steve, you can only think of one, and im sure you only know that because your a Man U fanatic

[StevoRobbo]

Kinda backs up my point steve, you can only think of one, and im sure you only know that because your a Man U fanatic

Yeh thats probably right

But why have it in the game if its not possible. Why let a player beome unhappy, want to leave, you allow him to leave, then the game doesnt let you because something in the code recognises that he hasnt been their long enough (for their liking) so he cant leave. Thats a bug no matter how many real life examples there are or however you look at it.

[afced7]

Yeh thats probably right

But why have it in the game if its not possible. Why let a player beome unhappy, want to leave, you allow him to leave, then the game doesnt let you because something in the code recognises that he hasnt been their long enough (for their liking) so he cant leave. Thats a bug no matter how many real life examples there are or however you look at it.

It could be to stop a possible exploit, whereby a player's value is inflated by the price he was bought for. If the human player then sells him on, it could be possible to receive astronomical fees. If a certain length of time need to pass before a player can be resold, it allows his value to 'normalize' to a certain extent.

[x42bn6]

Exactly.. and therefore they are under no obligation to listen to you. You buy the product they produce.. you dont buy the right to demand X and demand Y feature.. You may request they though and they might listen or they might choose not to. Thats what I meant about SI not being "entitled" to listen to their customers.

SI should listen to customers - they are just entitled to not implement requests. I've never denied SI can not implement some requests.

I would argue they are still under obligation to listen (if not agree). If I walk into a shop, I would be rather insulted if the person serving me said he/she wasn't under obligation to listen to me. The customer holds the cards here.

Customers don't buy the right to demand X and Y - they have the right to demand X and Y. SI have the right to not implement X and Y. Both can coexist.

I didnt say the customers IS wrong.. I said he CAN be wrong..

I never suggested that.

Of course, if SI want to stay in the business they have to listen to the customers, but that doesnt mean that the "customer is always right".. it means that they listen to customers and sort the, excuse the wording, crap from the goodies and take it from there.

No idea is ever rubbish - you have to learn to accept even the weirdest ideas can be feasible. It can be implemented such that it does not affect the majority of the userbase whilst satisfying this crowd.

SI don't necessarily decide if something is a good idea or not - if there is a high demand for a feature, it is a good idea, full-stop. Where SI do put their own opinions into the hat is in the area of resourcing and long-term strategy - sometimes, ideas don't fit these restrictions, even if there is high demand (at which point you must evaulate why there is high demand and whether resourcing and/or long-term strategy is hindering it).

If the customer ALWAYS is right, I'm guessing you see it as a bug that, f.ex. difficulty levels arent in the game? - they've been requested from MANY customers over time.. and when they're always right, SI must implement it I guess? - hell no..

Why not? Difficulty levels would satisfy those who find the game easy, as well as providing a much smoother learning curve for newcomers - this keeps some of the userbase happy whilst growing the market. Considering difficulty levels can be used to find weaknesses in the game's existing documentation and feedback as some of the features might be hard for remarkably simple reasons but the user does not realise.

Personally, I think it's not a feature I'd enjoy using (I'd probably ignore it), but I can see why some users would want it.

Keep your mind open.

I dont know where you work in the software world, but where I come from its normally called requirments specification, shortened requirements - so I'm guessing we're talking about the same stuff here. And NO my job is NOT to serve any customer.. My job is to serve my boss and my company. The customers has NO say in ANY element regarding my job. The only thing the customer has ANY say in is the feedback he can give to the product he has bought. Do customers affect your employment in any direct way where you work? - will you get fired if you dont meet the demand from the customers? - of course not.. Its not like we, the customers, have ANY affect on how SI runs their business and how the develop the game.. all we can do it support them with feedback and suggestions

Requirements are a set of must-haves and nice-to-haves from your clients, whilst specifications turn those requirements into concrete (software) specifications. BAs are responsible for making sure the requirements are covered by the specifications. There are many different specifications - requirements, functional and technical to name a few. Developers code to the technical specification.

Your report to your boss but you serve your customer base. You may not directly interact with your clients but your team will usually do, perhaps through a BA and/or representative, perhaps directly.

If you do not meet your clients' requests, then you risk losing your job because it affects the company's financials.

It isn't "serve" as in customer service - it's "serve" as in satisfy their desires. An individual developer may have little contact with the client but they still develop for the client. It is like the chef in a restaurant - his clients are the diners at that restaurant, although he likely does not serve them as a waiter. The chef's job is to make tasty food - negative feedback from customers will hurt his career.

What I meant was that no customers have anything to do with the game until they can play it.. all they can do is suggest features and discuss subjects on forums, as we do here. They cannot affect the development in any way and cannot give feedback until they try the game, well because what can they do until they try the game? Lets take FM12 as an example.. other than listen to the podcast how can we in any way directly affect the development of FM2012? - we can discuss things on the forums and suggest features.. thats it.. and we wont even know if SI will implement the feature or not until the game is out or the feature is announced.. So my point is stil valid, wether you understand it or not.. "customer have nothing to do with the game (directly) until it is finished".. by finished I meant, trying the game, which includes beta-testing.. should have mentioned that of course

Did you not answer your own question there? We can influence development - by discussion and requests. Can we definitely influence development? No, but then again, neither can a full customer relationship, as there are some things companies cannot do. In other words, it is a red herring.

Customers can lobby producers to make software that they want. I strongly suspect DLR was only done due to the strong desires for it. Customers indirectly set requirements based on demand. Lots of demand for a feature? Consider it.

For once I actually agree with you.. customers ARE entitled to request/require/demand whatever they like.. but they have NO POWER over whether what they requested is actually added to the game.

Oh, we have more power than you think. Consumer pressure has pushed banks to change policies. Consumer pressure has brought down entire companies. The power of a consumer is extraordinarily powerful. Just look at the News of the World, for example. And the banks, with additional legislation and regulation. And various companies found to be exploiting child labour in third-world countries.

They have no definite power, like a puppet, but then again, even customer service doesn't have that sort of power.

What is consumer power? Not buying the product or service. If a user has a strong requirement for something in Football Manager, not giving it will risk that consumer not buying the next version. One or two customers isn't going to make a huge difference in the financial bottom line but then again that's still lost customers. Then imagine it happening on a larger scale.

This is why if there is heavy demand for a feature, it should be seriously considered. SI aren't indispensible - customers are. Customers hold the purse strings.

Specifications/requirements/requirements specifications.. call it what you want.. and the customers do NOT make these specifications.. dont you get that? SI makes them.. they MIGHT use some suggestions from the forum and add it to the specifications, but the customers do NOT do this themselves.

No, they don't do it themselves - I've never suggested that. Ideally, customers actively cooperate with the company in creating requirements. However, the company cannot pull requirements out of thin air - it has to come from somewhere! And that "somewhere" is the customers.

If anything, they will use suggestions from the forum. They won't use all of them, but then again, I never said that - there are other pressures such as resourcing and strategic vision that inevitably mean things have to be cut.

It is 100% up to SI and therefore SI (and other software developers) do NOT "serve" customers.. they produce a product and make it available to us.. we are not their employers.. we are their customers.. there is a huge difference.

Answered previously (it impacts your pay cheque - or indeed, whether you get one).

Because they dont work for SI. Simple as that. Lets say you request the best feature ever thought of in the world.. What power do you have in any way to make sure that feature makes it to the specifications?

I cannot guarantee the software will have the feature, but I can guarantee that I will not support them if they do not add the feature.

I have never said that consumers are puppet-masters of a company.

My action would be not to purchase the software. And I might go and make a lot of noise to convince others to support my position, to gather support.

Sure, it might just be a child's slap to the face rather than a knockout punch, but that's consumer power.

If my suggested feature is awesome, but SI can't implement it for some reason, I'm still right, because the feature is awesome. Sure, I can't force SI to implement it, but I have never suggested that. It is perfectly possible for me to be right, and for SI to be unable to implement that feature.

- None.. you can suggest it on the forum and talk passionately about it.. but if SI dont feel it would be right for the game or that maybe it would cost too much to implement then the feature is out.. What then? how would that fit with your "the customer is always right?"

As stated above - yes.

If I think that the police should eradicate all crime from the UK, 100% and nothing less, then I am right to demand it because it is something that would benefit the entire United Kingdom. The government, of course, is correct to point out that it is likely to be extremely difficult indeed, to the extent that they cannot guarantee a 100% crime reduction.

It's too easy to think from a developer's perspective where "Oh, that customer is wrong to think difficult feature 1 is right! It's a nightmare to do!" How would you like it if you went to a supermarket and the manager said you were wrong because you did something different to most customers, or because you have made life difficult for them? For example, you might have brought a screaming baby to the supermarket - it inconveniences the staff, but the customer is still right - the customer's expectation is that they should be allowed to bring their children to a supermarket.

Play Devil's Advocate. You request a feature to SI, only for them to point and say, "You're wrong." How would you feel? SI have imposed what they think is "correct" upon you - but they don't design the game for themselves - they design the game for customers. Customers, quite frankly, are always correct.

... lol @ this one... no need to comment I think

What is wrong with it? If there is a decently-sized set of customers who want a feature, it would be suicidal to simply reject them. The feature may sound silly to some, but not to this set of customers. SI, however, could design the feature so well that it satisfies both sets of customers, growing their consumer base and making some of them happier.

I would not assume that my own opinion is correct and can be extended across every single Football Manager user. You might think an idea is stupid, but then again, maybe some people think some of your ideas are stupid too. Who's correct? Isn't it possible that both of you are correct, and SI should be looking at both your ideas?

SI cannot decide something is wrong, since it means that they can selectively ignore customers. Well, that's not really the definition of "customer", is it?

What is there to demand if you have no say in it at all? - To demand a crime-free UK is fine.. and you may run for office in order to achieve it.. good luck with trying that with SI.. as I said.. there is NOTHING you can to directly affect SI's decision on what goes into the game.. and thats the main point here I think. Keep saying "customer is always right" is so naive and reminds me of my old business school teacher when we had our first "business"-lecture - dont know what its called in english.. I'm not a native english-speaker - "Customer is always right" is ONLY true if you are a telemarketing salesman or any other "sell as much as you can, no matter what"-type of producer.

Tell that to the News of the World. I'm sure they'll agree with you.

Tell that to Facebook when they introduced controversial privacy measures and redacted them due to backlash. I'm sure they'll agree with you.

Tell that to clothing stores that introduced over-sexualised clothes for children, and received huge threats of boycotts and negative publicity. I'm sure they'll agree with you.

Tell that to Nokia, whose customers wanted great smartphones but Nokia ignored them and sat on its laurels. Now it's nowhere in the smartphone industry. I'm sure they'll agree with you.

There are hundreds and thousands of mistakes made when companies didn't do what their consumer base wanted. The Internet is littered with stories like this, this, this and many more.

We do have the ability to hold SI to high standards. It is up to their suave tongues to underpromise, overdeliver and convince us that they are awesome. We shouldn't ever need to defend SI. We should be allowed to let our creativity and imagination go in suggesting features. Everyone should have an open mind, even if you personally think some idea is rubbish. We shouldn't accept excuses; we should throw it back in their faces. We should vote with our wallets (more so since FM games can realistically be played over several real years, and over newer revisions of FM). That is consumer power - that is how we pressure SI into doing what we want.

We're not wrong - we just want an awesome game, and everyone has different definitions of "awesome".

[StevoRobbo]

It could be to stop a possible exploit, whereby a player's value is inflated by the price he was bought for. If the human player then sells him on, it could be possible to receive astronomical fees. If a certain length of time need to pass before a player can be resold, it allows his value to 'normalize' to a certain extent.

But surely that would be a problem with the transfer system. Why shouldnt you be allowed to sell players that want to leave, or players that you dont want because of the transfer system?

A LOT of work needs to be done on the transfer system. We all know that. But another problem is the player interaction. You tell a player you will sell him in the next window and he's happy. Then two weeks later he's moaning again about not playing and saying he wants to leave.

Hopefully they have addressed things like this for FM12. If they havent and have added more features, that will probably be half finished again anyway, I dont think i'll be buying it.

[afced7]

But surely that would be a problem with the transfer system. Why shouldnt you be allowed to sell players that want to leave, or players that you dont want because of the transfer system?

A LOT of work needs to be done on the transfer system. We all know that. But another problem is the player interaction. You tell a player you will sell him in the next window and he's happy. Then two weeks later he's moaning again about not playing and saying he wants to leave.

Hopefully they have addressed things like this for FM12. If they havent and have added more features, that will probably be half finished again anyway, I dont think i'll be buying it.

I'm not saying it should be in the game, just giving a possible reason why. If it wasn't, there'd be threads popping up just like this one with people saying 'OMG I bought a player for £20 million and sold him the next day for £50 mil how is this realistic, SORT IT OUT SI!'. Ideally there wouldn't be any problems with this feature at all but if I had to choose I'd rather have the problem we currently have.

[StevoRobbo]

I'm not saying it should be in the game, just giving a possible reason why. If it wasn't, there'd be threads popping up just like this one with people saying 'OMG I bought a player for £20 million and sold him the next day for £50 mil how is this realistic, SORT IT OUT SI!'. Ideally there wouldn't be any problems with this feature at all but if I had to choose I'd rather have the problem we currently have.

Oh yeh me too. If that was the alternative

[pigfacemonkeyman]

I'm not saying it should be in the game, just giving a possible reason why. If it wasn't, there'd be threads popping up just like this one with people saying 'OMG I bought a player for £20 million and sold him the next day for £50 mil how is this realistic, SORT IT OUT SI!'. Ideally there wouldn't be any problems with this feature at all but if I had to choose I'd rather have the problem we currently have.

You do realise you have set an imaginary scenerio against an existing one, and come to a conclusion that favours the existing scenario? The actual scenario that has been complained about! :confused:

[afced7]

You do realise you have set an imaginary scenerio against an existing one, and come to a conclusion that favours the existing scenario? The actual scenario that has been complained about! :confused:

I know, but I was only speculating. To me, that is the most likely reason for this bug existing. I don't really care either way. Frankly I must be better at this game than people who manage to annoy new signings so much in the first 2 or so months of them arriving that they want to leave, and its never happened to me.

[dking]

I know, but I was only speculating. To me, that is the most likely reason for this bug existing. I don't really care either way. Frankly I must be better at this game than people who manage to annoy new signings so much in the first 2 or so months of them arriving that they want to leave, and its never happened to me.

So now it's gone from speculation to dick measuring eh?

This isn't about who upsets players by mistake, or who is "better at the game":applause: , it's about a bad bug that doesn't allow you to change some of your team when you start a new save.

Has it ever occurred to you that people upset players on purpose so that they hand in transfer requests so they can finally get rid of them? Or not, as the case may be and what this thread is all about!

The bug hasn't been left in on purpose to stop people making a mint on free transfers, it's quite clearly a mistake on SI's part.

[BiggusD]

The New-Signing thing in FM11 is annoying yes, especially after the third patch and beyond. There are so many new players in all the clubs if you start a new game with an updated database now that it has consequences for the balance of the game!

Too many new players = a problem.

Therefore most clubs have problems when you start a new save now. The solution is to make it possible to remove previous transfer history when loading a database.

[afced7]

So now it's gone from speculation to dick measuring eh?

This isn't about who upsets players by mistake, or who is "better at the game":applause: , it's about a bad bug that doesn't allow you to change some of your team when you start a new save.

Has it ever occurred to you that people upset players on purpose so that they hand in transfer requests so they can finally get rid of them? Or not, as the case may be and what this thread is all about!

The bug hasn't been left in on purpose to stop people making a mint on free transfers, it's quite clearly a mistake on SI's part.

Actually if you look really closely, I said I don't care, and I can understand why SI don't either. How about you play the game instead of moaning about it.

[dking]

Actually if you look really closely, I said I don't care, and I can understand why SI don't either. How about you play the game instead of moaning about it.

Seriously, just stop it. Stop posting such absolute rubbish. You're just coming across as ridiculous.

[CityAndColour]

"That's not fair, I think I've played pretty well..."

Every. Single. Time. Player has a poor game and I bollock him, he agrees and promises to improve. I try and criticise a player for a RUN of form, even if he's averaged 3.2 over his last five, and I get that answer.

[afced7]

Seriously, just stop it. Stop posting such absolute rubbish. You're just coming across as ridiculous.

Huh. Ironic coming from you.