Football manager 2012, No bugs?

[Brian Shanahan]

Refine the features in the game rather than adding new ones. Remove the agents and other half-baked. Or at least give me the option to remove agents and other non-essential features. That will cut down on the bugs significantly.

On topic, FM12 will have just as many bugs as other versions because it's on the same release schedule as other versions.

A) how are agents non-essential. Just because you don't like their antics doesn't mean they're dispensable.

B) A feature to toggle on and off a game mechanic can result in a far worse result, for example I mentioned elsewhere what happens if you turn off espionage in Civ 4, you get an incredibly early culture win as you now have access to a secondary culture slider at Writing (they made the espionage slider produce culture as they couldn't temporarily move it). So in effect you could be asking for to send in some rattlesnakes to get rid of a rat problem.

C) If you had been reading around, you'd know that the number of bugs have been falling with each successive game for a while now. I'd put my money on this trend continuing, a modular system of programme development should be easier to test than a big lump of code.

But in general it never ceases to amaze me when people who are taking one view-point just stick their fingers in their ears and block out the noise contradicting their point of view, simply because they cannot accept that they may be wrong. You've got it here with the naysayers and you've got it in a few places with the Civ 5 fanboys.

[Ackter]

I do get some humour out of imagining the sales pitch of "Buy FM - now with only ONE bug!"

Unfortunately that one bug would be the game imploding on itself, but still.

[Brian Shanahan]

I do get some humour out of imagining the sales pitch of "Buy FM - now with only ONE bug!"

Unfortunately that one bug would be the game imploding on itself, but still.

I much rather my personal sales pitch "Buy FM and get a free Mars Bar every day for the rest of the season!"

[naxself]

A) how are agents non-essential. Just because you don't like their antics doesn't mean they're dispensable.

B) A feature to toggle on and off a game mechanic can result in a far worse result, for example I mentioned elsewhere what happens if you turn off espionage in Civ 4, you get an incredibly early culture win as you now have access to a secondary culture slider at Writing (they made the espionage slider produce culture as they couldn't temporarily move it). So in effect you could be asking for to send in some rattlesnakes to get rid of a rat problem.

C) If you had been reading around, you'd know that the number of bugs have been falling with each successive game for a while now. I'd put my money on this trend continuing, a modular system of programme development should be easier to test than a big lump of code.

But in general it never ceases to amaze me when people who are taking one view-point just stick their fingers in their ears and block out the noise contradicting their point of view, simply because they cannot accept that they may be wrong. You've got it here with the naysayers and you've got it in a few places with the Civ 5 fanboys.

A) Agents are non-essential because they don't add anything to the game. As currently constituted, they are a "feature" that adds only clicks and frustration (which is part of the computer's negotiation tactics, and the failure to fix that in previous versions and in FM11. But I digress). The agents were half-baked and shouldn't have been put in the game until they were fully baked.

B) Toggling features is not a game-killer. There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to choose between classic negotiation and agent negotiation. The code is already written for classic (i.e., FM10) negotiations. Adding a tick-box to the preferences screen isn't world-changing. This is nothing like your Civ 4 analogy, though it seems that the feature you discussed there was half-baked, as well.

C) The number of bugs might be falling in absolute terms but, to me, the new features came out half-finished last year. After X number of years, I would expect there to be fewer bugs in, say, the transfer system. So, even if I'm wrong about the absolute number of bugs - and I might be, though there's no need for you to be condescending about it - the hyped new features are buggy. I admire the willingness to push the envelope, but maybe scaling things back a little would help.

D) I don't know if that last comment is aimed at me or at people who, in general, disagree with you, but I'll respond anyway. I bought the game and I'm a huge fan of the series. I thought the agents and the press conferences were good ideas. And then I got my copy of FM11 and they were half-baked at best. To me - and notice that this is my opinion, which, to my knowledge, I'm allowed to express in a reasonable manner - that ruined the game. I don't play FM11 which means my dissertation completion and defense present to myself was, in the end, a waste of money. I have the right to voice my displeasure with FM11 and hope for the best in FM12. I can suggest things, like new tick-boxes, all I want, even though I know SI won't listen to me since I'm probably like the weirdo on Speaker's Corner. That said, I'm all for new features. I just want them to work mostly right out of the box. I don't see how that's unreasonable. I'm sorry I don't think SI are infallible. I'm sorry I disagree with you. I'm sorry I hate agents and think the feature was poorly implemented. And I'm sorry you feel the need to attack rather than discuss.

[naxself]

All completely inaccurate points there.

1) Refining is just as likely to cause bugs as adding - the same amount of time will be spent in the code overall.

2) Removing agents would be time consuming and cause bugs anyway. Not putting them in the first place would have caused no bugs in the agents, but as the team would then be working on a different area instead, there'd be bugs in those areas.

3) Adding an ability to turn off and on features at the user's request would very likely turn the game into one huge bug (so there would at least technically be less bugs in it).

4) If the game was released every two years, the same amount of time will be spent altering, refining, prodding etc the code and would not result in less bugs.

1) How? When you refine, you fix it. For example, when I edit something I write, I find and fix problems thus refining the finished product. The goal is to make it as flawless as possible.

2) You don't need to remove agents. You just need to bring back the old negotiating code (i.e., FM10 and before) and add a tick-box that says "Use agent negotiation [] / Use classic negotiation []."

3) I misspoke re: turning a feature off. I meant choose between two models. My mistake for not clarifying.

4) I think it would because, as mentioned in (1), editing the code makes it better. The point I'm trying to make with agents is that the feature seems rushed, and thus severely flawed.

[Lem]

Less bugs? Fell off my chair laughing at that. What is it they claim, 800 new features? So about 800 new bugs then!

[rocky0]

The one thing that comes to mind when I read these types of threads are that sooooooo many people see there are game breaking bugs and get all upset by them yet do nothing to help fix these bugs. SI ask for saves and all the needed data to see what is happening and to fix them yet, it doesnt always happen. These people should ask to be part of the beta test process because they are so concerned about the issues yet, strangely, they never seem to care THAT much. Always makes me laugh

[Ackter]

1) How? When you refine, you fix it. For example, when I edit something I write, I find and fix problems thus refining the finished product. The goal is to make it as flawless as possible.

2) You don't need to remove agents. You just need to bring back the old negotiating code (i.e., FM10 and before) and add a tick-box that says "Use agent negotiation [] / Use classic negotiation []."

3) I misspoke re: turning a feature off. I meant choose between two models. My mistake for not clarifying.

4) I think it would because, as mentioned in (1), editing the code makes it better. The point I'm trying to make with agents is that the feature seems rushed, and thus severely flawed.

1) When you edit text, there's a chance of hitting the wrong key, making a word appear as a different word and totally changing how the sentence reads. When changing code, you can hit the right key, make the right word appear, but suddenly a different word disagrees with it and randomly changes the sentence without your say. That is a very stretched metaphor, but at least it's not a car one.

2) Which would double the amount of testing needed and double the scope of bugs that could appear as there are now two ways of doing one thing.

3) As above, the more different ways of doing something there are, the chances of something going wrong are significantly increased. That's just how it works.

4) See 1 again. Editing the code can cause any number of bugs, even if every change was correct, and the new bugs could be far more damaging than the original you were trying to fix. That's just how coding works. You can never truly predict what will happen when even the tiniest amount of complexity is introduced.

[Ackter]

The one thing that comes to mind when I read these types of threads are that sooooooo many people see there are game breaking bugs and get all upset by them yet do nothing to help fix these bugs. SI ask for saves and all the needed data to see what is happening and to fix them yet, it doesnt always happen. These people should ask to be part of the beta test process because they are so concerned about the issues yet, strangely, they never seem to care THAT much. Always makes me laugh

The chances of someone who doesn't help out when asked being invited to Beta test are very very slim. SI in the past have always looked for constructive users, people who find and log bugs, people who discuss issues in detail (note, criticism is a great thing when it's constructive), people who take an active part in the forum - there's no reason why they'd change that.

[naxself]

1) When you edit text, there's a chance of hitting the wrong key, making a word appear as a different word and totally changing how the sentence reads. When changing code, you can hit the right key, make the right word appear, but suddenly a different word disagrees with it and randomly changes the sentence without your say. That is a very stretched metaphor, but at least it's not a car one.

2) Which would double the amount of testing needed and double the scope of bugs that could appear as there are now two ways of doing one thing.

3) As above, the more different ways of doing something there are, the chances of something going wrong are significantly increased. That's just how it works.

4) See 1 again. Editing the code can cause any number of bugs, even if every change was correct, and the new bugs could be far more damaging than the original you were trying to fix. That's just how coding works. You can never truly predict what will happen when even the tiniest amount of complexity is introduced.

So, basically, you're arguing that something *might* go wrong, so we better not even try anything different? You'd think, based on that logic, that SI employs 1 million monkeys randomly banging away at keyboards hoping to create a soccer management simulation. But they don't. SI employs professional coders who do this for a living (kind of like how I write and edit, among other things, for a living). So, assuming they're professional and they all know what they're doing (something I have to assume since SI is a company held in high esteem), what's the problem with adding a feature? There doesn't appear to be any problem adding an entirely new entity (i.e., agents) nor is there a problem adding press conferences. If the coding is modular, as you mentioned, making an agent module and a classic negotiation module is a one-for-one exchange; they would never be active at the same time.

Further, your assertion that adding one thing would "double the amount of testing needed and double the scope of bugs that could appear" is wrong. SI have bug-free code for the classic negotiation module. The coders should, in theory, be refining (i.e., editing) the agent module. Sure, there exists the possibility that if someone types "agenr" instead of "agent" just once, the whole game world could come crashing down, but I thought that's why QA people existed. That said, there's no way it would double the testing time. Extending that logic, FM would never get released because bugs could appear at any point.

[Ackter]

No, something will go wrong. Not might. That's the nature of the business.

Like I said - if you do everything as best as it's possible for you to do, the game can (and will) still glitch. Code is fun like that.

SI do not have bug-free code, there is no such thing (even Minesweeper has bugs, and that's an incredibly simple game).

If FM was held back until all bugs were fixed it would never be released. There comes a point in every game's development where someone has to decide "ok, that's as good as we're going to get it before we run out of money. It's time to release".

You write for your living - I test games for mine. I've been involved from start to finish in 15 separate titles and at least that again in bits and bobs. What I'm talking about here is just the reality of the games industry.

[Deisler26]

Am I the only one who doesn't notice bugs?

[x42bn6]

Hello Mr. Wenger.

[chesterfan2]

Bug free code ? .....Hang on,.. there's a 'proper' response to that....ah, here it is......

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha............................................................................ ha,ha ha.

[Brian Shanahan]

A) Agents are non-essential because they don't add anything to the game.

This does not even make sense. What's the point debating with you, when you come out with statements like this?

Of course they add to the game. Now you've got a more realistic picture of how the transfer system actually works (not very realistic yet, we've still to encounter all the ancilliary fees associated with transfers, and we're unlikely ever to see the dirty tricks players agents and clubs do pull). Even in the game you're negotiating representative to representative, and there are now more strategies to use when trying to negotiate a deal (you can bribe the player, bribe the agent, offer bonuses instead of pay, etc.) which are all more effective to seal a deal than any other previous iteration of FM.

I'm not going to go any further because starting from here doesn't inspire me with confidence of the lucidity of the rest of your post.

[AndyPass]

I for one really like agents and think they add plenty to the game. I'm sure improvements will also be made to them in FM12.

If you don't want to play with agents and you want to play with the old transfer negotiation module then maybe a former version of FM is for you?

[grade]

This does not even make sense. What's the point debating with you, when you come out with statements like this?

Of course they add to the game. Now you've got a more realistic picture of how the transfer system actually works (not very realistic yet, we've still to encounter all the ancilliary fees associated with transfers, and we're unlikely ever to see the dirty tricks players agents and clubs do pull). Even in the game you're negotiating representative to representative, and there are now more strategies to use when trying to negotiate a deal (you can bribe the player, bribe the agent, offer bonuses instead of pay, etc.) which are all more effective to seal a deal than any other previous iteration of FM.

I'm not going to go any further because starting from here doesn't inspire me with confidence of the lucidity of the rest of your post.

I don't deny that all of that happens in real life, but to be fair most of it isn't correct, some even unethical in any shape or form or how you look at it. To be fair I prefer the game to be ethical as possible (I even doubt that SI can make those things like you said, due to legal issues). Sure it isn't realistic, but I prefer to be fantasy and ethical, then to be like real life and unethical.

[x42bn6]

This does not even make sense. What's the point debating with you, when you come out with statements like this?

Of course they add to the game. Now you've got a more realistic picture of how the transfer system actually works (not very realistic yet, we've still to encounter all the ancilliary fees associated with transfers, and we're unlikely ever to see the dirty tricks players agents and clubs do pull). Even in the game you're negotiating representative to representative, and there are now more strategies to use when trying to negotiate a deal (you can bribe the player, bribe the agent, offer bonuses instead of pay, etc.) which are all more effective to seal a deal than any other previous iteration of FM.

I'm not going to go any further because starting from here doesn't inspire me with confidence of the lucidity of the rest of your post.

From a game point of view, anything that is annoying can be considered unnecessary.

It's not more effective since it forces the user to go through additional rounds of negotiations and undertake more effort in order to complete a transfer compared with earlier versions.

Personally, I think agent fees should simply be a hidden cost that perhaps just bumps up the transfer fee by a small percentage. I genuinely don't see how agents are fun in any way - users just want to sign players!

[GR Choke]

soon as i started talking about the match freezing it starts doing it

[Brian Shanahan]

From a game point of view, anything that is annoying can be considered unnecessary.

Ok then, lets get rid of injuries, transfer budgets, wage budgets, the possibility of financial losses, the possibility of being beaten on the pitch, the possibility of players regressing in their development, the possibility of you possessing players of CA/PA less than 200 and of other teams possessing players of CA/PA greater than 1, for they are all things which are annoying to some extent or another and in your view point unnecessary to the game.

See how bad your arguement on agents is when taken to it's logical conclusion (not an etreme case, not an exaggeration, but just the simple analysis of where you have to end when you start on that journey). If we were to get rid of every annoyance in the game (and logically we must if we follow your line of thinking) then all we'd be left with would be one screen consisting of a giant red button, marked "press here to win!"

[x42bn6]

Ok then, lets get rid of injuries, transfer budgets, wage budgets, the possibility of financial losses, the possibility of being beaten on the pitch, the possibility of players regressing in their development, the possibility of you possessing players of CA/PA less than 200 and of other teams possessing players of CA/PA greater than 1, for they are all things which are annoying to some extent or another and in your view point unnecessary to the game.

See how bad your arguement on agents is when taken to it's logical conclusion (not an etreme case, not an exaggeration, but just the simple analysis of where you have to end when you start on that journey). If we were to get rid of every annoyance in the game (and logically we must if we follow your line of thinking) then all we'd be left with would be one screen consisting of a giant red button, marked "press here to win!"

Slippery slope much?

Injuries are "fun" too because they offer a genuine gameplay change, by using your squad. You build your squad expecting injuries. Injuries don't feel "forced", nor do they feel repetitive nor frustrating, as injury crises are relatively rare (in a previous version of FM, this wasn't the case, where you could see screenshots of tons of injured players).

The "advantage" of injuries is that you can use your squad and youngsters, but most importantly, this is one of the more exciting times in football - when your club throws youngsters in the deep end, or squad players emerge as heroes.

Transfer budgets too are realistic because everyone likes finding a rough gem rather than signing every single star. The same applies for wages.

Losses aren't forced - you can make a profit, and balancing the books is something we are all vaguely familiar with. It encourages planning and youngster development - again, exciting and expected.

Losses are expected but the game is good in the sense that it is extremely difficult to lose consistently with a decent team. I credit things likethe tactics creator with it.

Players that regress are extremely rare and down to personalities and/or bad luck - unlike agents, which are ever-present in any transfer negotiation.

You having players vastly superior to any other club is so unrealistic that I'm not sure it's even worth considering.

Look at agents - the only reason for agents is to stall negotiations and to be realistic. Quite frankly I don't know why anyone would enjoy having agents in the game because they delay what is important for a lot of people - building a great squad, moulding your team's future and winning on the pitch. Agents is paperwork and red tape that hinders a user from enjoying the game. How do you enjoy the agents feature? How does it add to the fun of a user?

You are confusing "fun" with "easy", really. A "win" button is "easy" but not necessarily fun, whilst agents are very "annoying" whilst not necessarily easy.

Video games are all about balancing challenges against rewards. By all means, offer a solid challenge if it gives a good reward. I'm just not sure the agents feature is "rewarding" enough to justify any sort of challenge.

Go on, answer this - why should a relatively new user, who knows something about football but not much about FM, find the agents feature "fun"?

[Mike7077]

It's not more effective since it forces the user to go through additional rounds of negotiations and undertake more effort in order to complete a transfer compared with earlier versions.

Personally, I think agent fees should simply be a hidden cost that perhaps just bumps up the transfer fee by a small percentage. I genuinely don't see how agents are fun in any way - users just want to sign players!

I love negotiating with agents! It feels a lot more realistic. I go into every negotiation knowing it won't necessarily go my way, but that's football. I don't need a game that just makes signing every player I want really easy. And anyway, plenty of times I've managed to talk the agent down to somewhere nearer where I want the contract to be.

The old method of signing players was stupid. It didn't happen in real time so it would take longer to get anything finalised and you were only ever negotiating with the player, which isn't how it happens generally.

[themadsheep2001]

I love negotiating with agents! It feels a lot more realistic. I go into every negotiation knowing it won't necessarily go my way, but that's football. I don't need a game that just makes signing every player I want really easy. And anyway, plenty of times I've managed to talk the agent down to somewhere nearer where I want the contract to be.

The old method of signing players was stupid. It didn't happen in real time so it would take longer to get anything finalised and you were only ever negotiating with the player, which isn't how it happens generally.

+1. I love negotiating with them ( and usually getting my way after tough rounds)

[x42bn6]

I love negotiating with agents! It feels a lot more realistic. I go into every negotiation knowing it won't necessarily go my way, but that's football. I don't need a game that just makes signing every player I want really easy. And anyway, plenty of times I've managed to talk the agent down to somewhere nearer where I want the contract to be.

The old method of signing players was stupid. It didn't happen in real time so it would take longer to get anything finalised and you were only ever negotiating with the player, which isn't how it happens generally.

In all honesty, you could have had that real-time feature without agents, and you could easily have replaced the player's name (say "Wayne Rooney") with the agent's name or title ("Wayne Rooney's agent Ivor Lott-Cash"), and you would immediately be negotiating with agents.

All that happens is that the agent payments are rolled up into the signing-on fee or transfer fee.

[milnerpoint]

I love negotiating with agents! It feels a lot more realistic. I go into every negotiation knowing it won't necessarily go my way, but that's football. I don't need a game that just makes signing every player I want really easy. And anyway, plenty of times I've managed to talk the agent down to somewhere nearer where I want the contract to be.

The old method of signing players was stupid. It didn't happen in real time so it would take longer to get anything finalised and you were only ever negotiating with the player, which isn't how it happens generally.

+2, they have added a great new dimension to contracts, and its is brilliant they are now in real time rather than offering a contract waiting for a few days, and doing that a few times over. I have also managed to get a few players on brilliant contracts because i had a great relationship with them. They also have aided to the scouting part of the game, i have found heaps of players because they have either been with the same agent as some of my current players, or the agent has offered them to me, big thumbs up for me!

[themadsheep2001]

In all honesty, you could have had that real-time feature without agents, and you could easily have replaced the player's name (say "Wayne Rooney") with the agent's name or title ("Wayne Rooney's agent Ivor Lott-Cash"), and you would immediately be negotiating with agents.

All that happens is that the agent payments are rolled up into the signing-on fee or transfer fee.

Then i'm negotiating with the player, and not the agent, who has a vastly different "personality" to the player. Im happy with the way its been implemented, even if some scales on the agent demands needs to be worked on (not experienced it myself, but am aware its an issue for some)

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Then i'm negotiating with the player, and not the agent, who has a vastly different "personality" to the player. Im happy with the way its been implemented, even if some scales on the agent demands needs to be worked on (not experienced it myself, but am aware its an issue for some)

Sorry, insects don't have personalities.

[x42bn6]

Then i'm negotiating with the player, and not the agent, who has a vastly different "personality" to the player. Im happy with the way its been implemented, even if some scales on the agent demands needs to be worked on (not experienced it myself, but am aware its an issue for some)

Are you? The demands are merely the sum of the agent and players' demands. Indeed, a player might have a team of agents that work behind the scenes - you could be working through many intermediaries all at once.

[themadsheep2001]

Are you? The demands are merely the sum of the agent and players' demands. Indeed, a player might have a team of agents that work behind the scenes - you could be working through many intermediaries all at once.

the demands are what the agent feels he can get his client, what feels he can get varies from agent to agent. his client may not act the same in a negotiation. in fact thats something i have experienced with players in game. Like i said im happy with the way its implemented in game

[themadsheep2001]

Sorry, insects don't have personalities.

Thats very harsh on insects, they are infinitely more useful that agents

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Thats very harsh on insects, they are infinitely more useful that agents

You're right of course, and I unreservedly apologise to every insect on the planet.

[grade]

You're right of course, and I unreservedly apologise to every insect on the planet.

This is the post of the week. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[naxself]

This does not even make sense. What's the point debating with you, when you come out with statements like this?

Of course they add to the game. Now you've got a more realistic picture of how the transfer system actually works (not very realistic yet, we've still to encounter all the ancilliary fees associated with transfers, and we're unlikely ever to see the dirty tricks players agents and clubs do pull). Even in the game you're negotiating representative to representative, and there are now more strategies to use when trying to negotiate a deal (you can bribe the player, bribe the agent, offer bonuses instead of pay, etc.) which are all more effective to seal a deal than any other previous iteration of FM.

I'm not going to go any further because starting from here doesn't inspire me with confidence of the lucidity of the rest of your post.

That's a shame. Perhaps you would have seen where I was going. Good thing others pointed out and reinforced my point.

Nevertheless, you've a right to your opinion. And I've a right to mine. And I see no reason why SI can't try to accommodate both points-of-view.

[Brian Shanahan]

That's a shame. Perhaps you would have seen where I was going. Good thing others pointed out and reinforced my point.

Nevertheless, you've a right to your opinion. And I've a right to mine. And I see no reason why SI can't try to accommodate both points-of-view.

Nevertheless what point do you have? The fact that what you said makes no sense still stands, and just because others make an equal lack of sense doesn't magically validate your point.

As I said up the thread, if you are going to say that annoyances are unnecessary (which is as close to sense as has been made on your side) then logically you will have to remove every feature from the game and replace them with a button marked "Press this to Win!".

[BiggusD]

A bug is when a computer program isn't working they way it was intended to, harming game-play value. Nothing more nothing less.

When AI managers sign players they don't bother registering for the tournaments they are competing in, that is a bug. Possibly game-breaking in the long term. When home-grown players are not considered home-grown when registering the team for the European cups, that is a bug. When a youngster under contract with one of the biggest clubs in the world does not want to go on loan to get match experience at a club playing at a level fitting his ability ... for the sole reason that said club does not have a high enough reputation for him to consider a move... then that is a bug. When you negotiate an offer (of base value) for one of your players and set a price of more than 125% (estimate) that offer, the bidder will withdraw the offer and not come back. That is not how these things happen when the human manager bids, and so that is a bug too. When you sign a player who arrives at the club before transfer deadline you may risk that he cannot be registered because the player registration is closed. That is a bug. When killer strikers like Huntelaar and Del Piero, both able penalty shooters, needs to be "frozen out" of the penalty taker queue because they miss them all, then at least I experience that as a bug. How many penalties have those guys missed in their entire careers? Two? Three? For me they missed four out of five, and the same goes for all other strong penalty shooters (all relevant attributes 15+) I have had in FM11.

I could go on like this for ever, but I have better things to do.

[x42bn6]

Pretty much that.

Brian Shanahan is confusing "annoying" with "not easy". The idea that removing annoying features makes things easier. Of course, something can be extremely annoying but without this annoying thing, the job is even harder.

I'm not a fan of adding barriers as an excuse for difficulty.

[Brian Shanahan]

Pretty much that.

Brian Shanahan is confusing "annoying" with "not easy". The idea that removing annoying features makes things easier. Of course, something can be extremely annoying but without this annoying thing, the job is even harder.

I'm not a fan of adding barriers as an excuse for difficulty.

And you are confusing essential parts of the game with "unnecessary annoyances". Just because you don't like something (which is as close to a coherent reason given in this thread for dropping agents) doesn't mean that a) you are right, b) that it is a bad idea, or c) it is broken. Agents are not broken nor are they "unnecessary". Yes they need improvement, and development, and yes there probably are some bugs in the code for them. But that does not diminish the fact that they are a valid addition to the game, and should be retained and improved, not thrown out just because some people here have thrown their rattles out of their prams just because they are annoyed that agents act somewhat like they do in real life.

If you don't like that then my best suggestion is to go off and buy another game (maybe one of the Dora the Explorer ones).

[Huney Munster]

Never been a computer programme coded without bugs yet, and chances are there never will be, at least when coded by human hand and brain.

Yes there has, I successfully coded "Hello World" in Java 100% bug free....

[x42bn6]

And you are confusing essential parts of the game with "unnecessary annoyances".

What makes agents essential to the game? The transfer module wasn't broken without them in FM08 and further back and we got on fine without it, so it couldn't have been essential.

Just because you don't like something (which is as close to a coherent reason given in this thread for dropping agents) doesn't mean that a) you are right, b) that it is a bad idea, or c) it is broken.

I'm not the only one - look at the number of threads and posts complaining about agents.

The number makes me think that it is not necessarily a good idea.

Agents are not broken nor are they "unnecessary". Yes they need improvement, and development, and yes there probably are some bugs in the code for them. But that does not diminish the fact that they are a valid addition to the game, and should be retained and improved, not thrown out just because some people here have thrown their rattles out of their prams just because they are annoyed that agents act somewhat like they do in real life.

There are many things that are realistic that are not included in this game, including going to the bathroom, agents of the club negotiating with agents of players, the game progressing at real-time speed, third-party ownership and getting hate mail. Realism is not always a good pure argument for adding features, which is why I question why you assert that it is a "valid addition".

Few football fans like agents in reality, so the game essentially is adding something fans dislike into the game. That is something you have to be very careful arguing about, because FM is a game at heart. Maybe the realism engages you - but it does not engage everyone.

Play Devil's Advocate - for someone who may not have as much experience with the series and/or doesn't read the forums, agents didn't exist previously and everyone was fine without them, then agents show up and start ruining deals. You need to pamper the player and the agent, who can seemingly turn unreasonable at times and it does not seem realistic. Can this someone ever feel that a (perfected) agents feature adds depth to their gameplay experience? Remember - realism is not necessarily an argument.

Personally, if a piece of software annoys me, then I am less likely to use it. We all play games to make us happy - this piece of software is doing the opposite. So if FM introduces a feature, it should not annoy me if they want me to play the game. This is why I honestly don't think users are wrong to throw their toys out of the pram if something annoys them, regardless of whether it's realistic or not.

I'm sure you've read this thread: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/266323-Falling-out-of-love-with-the-game - not everyone appreciates more depth or more realism. Some just want to have fun. If something in the game annoys them, they are right to state it. If something in the game annoys them, then it is valid to question why that something exists in the game in the first place.

[Ackter]

Removing features isn't the way to bring back those fans - delegation of duties is the only way to keep the game going forward while still appealing to as much of the fanbase as possible.

Agents aren't essential, but they do add to the game world.

[grade]

Removing features isn't the way to bring back those fans - delegation of duties is the only way to keep the game going forward while still appealing to as much of the fanbase as possible.

Agents aren't essential, but they do add to the game world.

If the AI use them correctly. We all know perfectly what the Ass. manager AI did in Press Conferences did in FM09 and even some of us complain about this still today.

My vote is a choice or option to remove some features, but i understand the complications and the effects of removing those feature that could have in the game.

However i do recall the old CM4 to have training schedules and SI decided to remove them an use it something far simpler. I do recall there wasn't much reclamations or critics or fan uproar of boicots here because this was changed. We all want realism in the game, but it needs to have a bit of fantasy, for us to fantasise to hire players and lead the clubs to eternal glory, where in reality some of them still remain in lower leagues.

[Ackter]

All SI changed, more or less, for the training was the UI - underneath the training still worked in pretty much the same way.

It wasn't until a few versions later that SI changed what happens under the hood (and introduced changing the shape of players' development)