Letter of Grievances by some FM Fans

[Guest]

Maybe SI should consider getting rid of the player star rating system, it does make it too easy to judge a player & make the right call when buying & selling.

[Smurf]

What would you suggest instead? I agree it does make it far too easy.

[Smurf]

This is how I sort my team out. Potential and Current Ability.

Vanderlei is the one to beat. If I sign someone better than him I'd be very surprised.

Ozil is 32 - he's dropped a bit. But he's still good. At half way down the list you can see how good potentially the rest of the team is. (Column on right is Age)

The 3 columns with stars

Potential - Recommened - Current

This is Vanderlei - this is the first time I've looked at his stats. Besides when I was signing him, I believe it was on his high work rate.

At 21 - he can still get better.

This is what I'll be trying to better or replace in the future signings. Not too hard right?

[Smurf]

All I do is sell off the 3 star or below. Although I have a heart, the likes of Ozil can stay until their career is over or they want to move on. I'm happy to let the older players who played for me for years stay at the club.

The young players 3 star or below - bye bye. Hello new players.

[Smurf]

To finish it off - here's the players on my radar

I'd probably get the guy from Torino and Vannes for quite cheap, compared to the rest.

I've subscribed to the others on the off chance that I can sign them when contract is expiring.

I got two very good prospects last transfer window for free that way.

That's how I play this game - in a nutshell.

It's very very very simple to win playing this way. And I like winning. So I'll keep doing it until SI change it.

Hopefully they can make the game more challenging in the future.

It is quite fun to play the game, I love it. I just wish they would make it more difficult. Whatever way they choose, as long as it's still fun.

[Smurf]

You'll have to go to post 98 to catch up on all I've done to win in the game.

I can start with any team, any league, any where, and win like this.

[Oxford_Canary]

This statement says a lot about you. How do you know that Miles hasn't read it nor anyone else in the FM heirarchy? You need to understand how you appear to readers of this thread when you make big statements of such a speculative nature

This sums up the problem of the post......

Well said. How can the OP complain that Miles hasn't read his thread when he dismissed Neil Brock's reply out of hand? What exactly does the OP expect Miles to say anyway? Plenty of people have raised questions which the OP hasn't answered - calling them all 'defenders of SI' because they disagree with you or question your post is unhelpful. I don't think the game is perfect and I don't think SI are perfect, but I also don't expect them to design the game purely around my desires.

[Guest]

What would you suggest instead? I agree it does make it far too easy.

Why does it need to be replaced with something else?

Just be done with it other than as a background rating system that is hidden from the player, scout reports would not need to change as they will still tell you what level they feel the players is currently & potentially capable of playing at but it will require paying more attention to their reports rather than just sorting in a nicely defined order.

The main reason would be to scrap them once you've signed the player, as you've already said you use the star system to sort your players, decide who to let go & when, taking away a very specific tool like this would increase the chance of you the manager making a mistake.

Edit: Actually getting rid of them might be too extreme as it will harm the casual player so a better option might be to include it under the 'fog of war' setting, select attribute masking & you also get the game to remove the star rating graphic.

[Smurf]

Without it though, there is no visual to represent the players current level. You'd have to go to each player and ask each coach "what do you think".

The star system represents the staffs idea of how good they are at a glance. Which I'd expect some sort of report from the staff on players, especially at youth level.

I can get all that info from the Team Report too - I don't have to use the star rating system, it's just quicker that way.

And you can go to each position and see what player plays best and what each individual coach thinks of that player.

The thing I don't like about that is I can't see the coach stats - so I have to go to each coach and see what they are like in judging say youth players. Then I can go and see what they think of that youth player.

But it takes too long to work it - it's very cumbersome to use.

I'd be in favour of losing the star rating system if they revamped the Team Report section to something a bit more user friendly.

Or allowed you to select the team based on the report

Team Selection>Select Team According to Team Report 1st Players

Team Selection>Select Team According to Team Report 2nd Players

Team Selection>Select Team According to Team Report 3rd Players

I haven't thought this through, it just occurred to me. But if I'm playing a lower league club in the cup or in the same league or whatever, and I want to rest my players I should be able to

Exclude Team Report 1st players

or Include Reserve Team Report 1st Players

It's in my head how I envisage it, I'll need to think it through some more.

[ringwoodrob]

:)Sorry off thread,but would be interested to know if those players above really do get better than wot thier stats are now,i'd imagine the one with 20aggresion would be more difficult than Joey Barton!

[Johnjo]

They could fix all this by making a smarter AI. Making an AI that cheats or making things harder for the human manager isn't a viable long term solution.

When they start developing their youngsters properly, using tactics wisely, bringing in the right staff, buying good players for their system.....then it will be game on.

I don't get why some people want to insist that the game is perfect, surely they see some of the above issues. Why do you want to hold the game back?

The hardest part in any new FM is figuring out how the tactics/motivation has been tweaked. Once you work that out then your'e on the gravy train to title town.

[Smurf]

The guy with 20 Agression??? That just means he hard tackles more often, well basically all the time. He's my Roy Keane, Patrick Viera type of player. He'll just smash up players on the pitch.

Hasn't been any trouble at all.

And yes the stats do go up. Although I think he's very close to playing to his potential, I don't see them going up any more in the foreseeable future. He's injured at the moment, and some stats have gone down. But he's young enough to work them back up again.

He's absolutely savage on the pitch, Agression, Bravery, Tackling, Passing, Marking, etc. brilliant DM stats. That with his pace and acceleration, he'll be chasing down the fast strikers/midfielders and whomping them with tackles.

[Smurf]

They could fix all this by making a smarter AI. Making an AI that cheats or making things harder for the human manager isn't a viable long term solution.

When they start developing their youngsters properly, using tactics wisely, bringing in the right staff, buying good players for their system.....then it will be game on.

I don't get why some people want to insist that the game is perfect, surely they see some of the above issues. Why do you want to hold the game back?

The hardest part in any new FM is figuring out how the tactics/motivation has been tweaked. Once you work that out then your'e on the gravy train to title town.

International managerment in the later years is a Piece of Pee. The AI calls up players based on Rep and not by if they are playing well or in form.

I've seen players called up that haven't played football for 3 seasons, over players at the same club who play the same position being overlooked, and they are playing well.

The AI is really lacking in a lot of areas. It needs to hold onto it's youngsters for start. I can walk in and offer 2 or 3m for a youngster. Or youngsters should be more inclined to stay at their parent club.

At the moment I am just waltzing and taking what I want.

[buzzing_hornet]

"when you feel sad or deceived by something you love, it is painful! "

Blimey , it is only a game after all .

As above, the OP was amusingly over dramatic as if the bloke was typing it whilst standing on a chair with a noose around his neck.

I asked before but the OP did not answer so I will ask again, have you thought about becoming a researcher or passing on all the correction you say you've made, to SI? Then the game could benefit from it

Seems many have asked the same question but are yet to get an answer, perhaps you could harass them via social networking or suchlike

[Neil Brock]

Yeah we're aware the AI needs work, we've never suggested that it doesn't - it's a massive part of the game which has been looked at and tweaked for every single new release - as I'm sure it will for every future release - that's the thing with AI, it's extraordinarily difficult to get it perfect. In terms of difficulty system for the game I just can't see it happening beyond what's already in the game - the 'starting reputation' system which does make it harder for a user - at the start.

Again we've never come out and said 'it's a difficulty system' - but the way in which it works will make it harder for some users. For this version of the game, yes there are certain aspects which in my opinion can make it easier for a user - but users can use self-control to make it harder (this is my own personal opinion, I agree you shouldn't have to, but through very simple means you can make the game harder). If you feel the star system is an exploit for scouting don't use it. Likewise if there is a player you think is unrealistic for your level then don't sign them.

But yeah, I'm not saying that's the ideal solution, far far from it, the ideal solution is realism - players going to realistic clubs and a scouting system which perhaps could be more hit and miss. But then, how realistic and 'hard' do we want to go? IRL the average lifespan for a manager at a club can't be much more than a year - basically if you stay at a team for longer than a few years, wouldn't that pretty much be a bug? Wouldn't you be achieving too much success? As someone rightly said, it's not an easy balance between the 'casual' fun of a game and the annoyance that'll get the majority turning the game off alongside their FM P45.

[Guest]

Sure I've read that the average time at a club is 2.5yrs at a Premier league club & 2.25 years at a Football League club.

[Romanista.]

Yeah we're aware the AI needs work, we've never suggested that it doesn't - it's a massive part of the game which has been looked at and tweaked for every single new release - as I'm sure it will for every future release - that's the thing with AI, it's extraordinarily difficult to get it perfect. In terms of difficulty system for the game I just can't see it happening beyond what's already in the game - the 'starting reputation' system which does make it harder for a user - at the start.

Again we've never come out and said 'it's a difficulty system' - but the way in which it works will make it harder for some users. For this version of the game, yes there are certain aspects which in my opinion can make it easier for a user - but users can use self-control to make it harder (this is my own personal opinion, I agree you shouldn't have to, but through very simple means you can make the game harder). If you feel the star system is an exploit for scouting don't use it. Likewise if there is a player you think is unrealistic for your level then don't sign them.

But yeah, I'm not saying that's the ideal solution, far far from it, the ideal solution is realism - players going to realistic clubs and a scouting system which perhaps could be more hit and miss. But then, how realistic and 'hard' do we want to go? IRL the average lifespan for a manager at a club can't be much more than a year - basically if you stay at a team for longer than a few years, wouldn't that pretty much be a bug? Wouldn't you be achieving too much success? As someone rightly said, it's not an easy balance between the 'casual' fun of a game and the annoyance that'll get the majority turning the game off alongside their FM P45.

the problem is just that. SI have been tweaking it, but they are not IMPROVING it. you can have a playstation 2 and tweak it all you want, but it will never become as good as a playstation 3.

some of the easiness has to be attributed to lazy programming as well. for instance, AI teams key player contract expiring and they dont try much to renew the contract. it cant be hard to code the AI to go far to renew their key players contract. every year you see top players becoming available for free, and then no AI team wants them and they then go buy worse players for 5-10 million.

AI teams also sell top regen youngsters so cheaply. IRL team demand 10M+ for their top youngsters, in FM you just buy them for 2-3M.

and i would definitely prefer a realistic game rather than a 'casual fun' game and i am sure so does every one else who have been playing this game for more than 2 versions.

[Smurf]

Yeah we're aware the AI needs work, we've never suggested that it doesn't - it's a massive part of the game which has been looked at and tweaked for every single new release - as I'm sure it will for every future release - that's the thing with AI, it's extraordinarily difficult to get it perfect. In terms of difficulty system for the game I just can't see it happening beyond what's already in the game - the 'starting reputation' system which does make it harder for a user - at the start.

I appreciate that it's not easy. I have no illusions that it's a simple piece of code and it's fixed.

Again we've never come out and said 'it's a difficulty system' - but the way in which it works will make it harder for some users. For this version of the game, yes there are certain aspects which in my opinion can make it easier for a user - but users can use self-control to make it harder (this is my own personal opinion, I agree you shouldn't have to, but through very simple means you can make the game harder). If you feel the star system is an exploit for scouting don't use it. Likewise if there is a player you think is unrealistic for your level then don't sign them.

I hate that argument "self-control". Mesut Ozil was offered to me, by REAL MADRID. I'd be absolutely BONKERS to turn down that offer.

What would have made it more realistic is if the Board refused to sanction the deal of €28m - that needs to happen more often... or can't sanction his wages or something.

I bought another player for €60m. Why? Because I could. The Board needs to step in and say "No way can we sanction this deal".

If I didn't use the Star Ratings, I'd have to check each player individually - and that takes way too long, it's laborious and I doubt that any manager in the real world would step up to check out stats of individual players to rate them. The staff would compile the list of players and who is good at what.

A more realistic way though, other than stars would be to be looking at your team and filter it by Defenders, and you could ask the coaches to rate the Defenders on say Tackling, which uses a few stats, and then the players get different ratings from different coaches, all on one screen.

The potential rating is also way too accurate. This needs to be pulled back. Perhaps the Potential stars could show the DIFFERENCE between the Current and Potential ability.

A 16 year old 1* Current could have potential of 175, but his Current Ability is only 85, so the Potential Rating would show as 3* not 5*

This way - as the player gets better, with say in a year he's up to 140 Current, then he'd show 2.5* and perhaps a 4* potential.

The Current * rating shouldn't be so accurate either. It should be an approximation. I don't know what the divisions are, but if say if you have a player that is currently at 150 Ability. Then this should be + or - say 20 points - so he'd either show up as 2.5* player or a 4* player.

And this would by down to how good the coaches are, and if you've signed all the coaches you can. You could still have 3 very good coaches, and 3 not so good, so the not so good coaches might be dragging his Current Ability rating down.

But yeah, I'm not saying that's the ideal solution, far far from it, the ideal solution is realism - players going to realistic clubs and a scouting system which perhaps could be more hit and miss. But then, how realistic and 'hard' do we want to go? IRL the average lifespan for a manager at a club can't be much more than a year - basically if you stay at a team for longer than a few years, wouldn't that pretty much be a bug? Wouldn't you be achieving too much success? As someone rightly said, it's not an easy balance between the 'casual' fun of a game and the annoyance that'll get the majority turning the game off alongside their FM P45.

Yeh Players with High Potential shouldn't want to go to a team with a reputation like Sunderlands.

This is the team I came 4th with in the Premiership, in my first season in charge. Granted some were not in the game at the start.

Peter Czech, no way would he sign for Sunderland, he was on a free. Why Chelsea let him go? I also got Mauro Zarate for 6m in 2016.

There's no way that I should be getting anywhere near the Top 4 with Sunderland in my first season. But here I am 4 seasons later, Champions League Winners.

When Arsenal offer Jack Wilshere you don't say no - this shouldn't happen in the game anyway. Not to a club with Rep like Sunderland had at the time.

Same with Mesut Ozil.

The AI could offer players with High Potential/Ability/Rep to certain Club Reputation levels. For a start.

The star rating could be curbed to show the star rating as an average or based on the difference between Current and Potential ability.

The Board could step in on ridiculous matters such as stopping 48 month bids for players and saying "no we can't sanction that deal". Or saying "You'll have to offload x amount of players in the next month" and if you don't the Board could get stricter with the transfer budget, or reduce it altogether, or the Chairman could step in and take over transfers for a period. Something, some kind of punishment. Board puts extra pressure on you to win games. Or fans could call for your sacking. Players morale could dip because of this etc.

Just thinking out loud.

[TomDixon77]

the problem is just that. SI have been tweaking it, but they are not IMPROVING it. you can have a playstation 2 and tweak it all you want, but it will never become as good as a playstation 3.

some of the easiness has to be attributed to lazy programming as well. for instance, AI teams key player contract expiring and they dont try much to renew the contract. it cant be hard to code the AI to go far to renew their key players contract. every year you see top players becoming available for free, and then no AI team wants them and they then go buy worse players for 5-10 million.

AI teams also sell top regen youngsters so cheaply. IRL team demand 10M+ for their top youngsters, in FM you just buy them for 2-3M.

and i would definitely prefer a realistic game rather than a 'casual fun' game and i am sure so does every one else who have been playing this game for more than 2 versions.

Only trouble is, catering almost exclusively to a subset of your customer base is a recipe for disaster. You can't just exclude swathes of people who just play the game for fun because some people on a website don't think a computer game (a bloody computer game, mind you) isn't 'realistic' enough.

I don't like a lot of the features that have been added for the sake of 'realism', with pre match press conferences being my least favourite. It's like grind-questing in MMORPGs, it's just the same questions, over and over again. I play FM for fun, not to accurately simulate the tedious bits of another job.

[Romanista.]

Only trouble is, catering almost exclusively to a subset of your customer base is a recipe for disaster. You can't just exclude swathes of people who just play the game for fun because some people on a website don't think a computer game (a bloody computer game, mind you) isn't 'realistic' enough.

I don't like a lot of the features that have been added for the sake of 'realism', with pre match press conferences being my least favourite. It's like grind-questing in MMORPGs, it's just the same questions, over and over again. I play FM for fun, not to accurately simulate the tedious bits of another job.

i hate the press conferences aswell. what i mean by realism is to be able to have a realistic career, if i want to play with everton, i want to encounter the same challenges and difficulties that moyes face in real life. selling 7 players for 30M, getting the best staff in the world, getting tons of free class players, easily finding the top regens in the world, and controlling world football in 5 years is certainly stupid and unrealisitc, now isnt it? im not saying that you shouldnt be able to become the best team in the world, of course you should because it is a game, but it must be through tactics, knowledge, getting the right players, and being smart in the transfers, not because of the stupid AI. there is no sense of achievement in the game, because no matter who you take, you are easily on your way to number 1 through the same route. this game is supposed to be a simulation after all. maybe its time they make 2 versions every year. FM simulation and FM arcade(for those that want to rule the world in 5 years with weymouth or something)

[Smurf]

Just another thought on the 48 month deals or 24 month deals.

If you do too many - the board could up their League Performance ambitions.

Say if you had to avoid relegation, they might decide now they want you to finish mid-table

Or if you were mid-table they might decide, well you should finish in the Euro Cup now

Or If you said you'd get a Champs league spot they might decide well we want you to challenge for the title, or even win the title.

If you don't, you get the chop. And that's all because you over spent in the 48 month or 36 or 24 month deals.

That would make the 48 month deal clauses a whole different ball game. But I'd still love to see the Board step in and say, "No, you made 2 high 48 months deals this season, no more we've cancelled that deal".

It could be suffixed with, "if you sell some players we might consider reopening negotiations"

Then if you do clear the players and raise funds, the Board nip off and try to finish the deal.

[Guest]

The 48 month payment issue does need fixing & certainly there must be an increased expectation of success but you do not need to use it & to blame SI for your admitted lack of self control in not using the exploit is unfair.

[Smurf]

This is my issue, Barside:

I can have self-control, but I don't simply because I feel it's an obvious hole in the FM game.

Let's weigh up the options suggeted -

1. Have self control and don't use it

2. Fix exploits that users have found in the game to improve the game.

I can report the "corner bug" and SI address it. They don't say "well have self-control and don't play that way".

I'm reporting real issues with the game. And all I am getting are "have self-control"

ok I won't do the best for my team, I won't take Mesut Ozil or Jack Wilshere. I won't sign Peter Czech on a free because it's not realistic and I have to show self-control.

I fell I don't only report issues, but I offer solutions that are somewhat viable, I feel. And all I get is "have self-control".

Well how about "fix it"?

[Neil Brock]

Peter Cech being on a free and signing for a lesser club is of course of bug. We will try and fix it, but it's not just a case of 'let's code it so Cech doesn't do that' - every minor change in AI intelligence has a massive knock-on across the entire game.

Have to say, the AI 'tweaks' and the complaint there hasn't been any improvement - have to massively disagree there has been a vast improvement in the way the AI thinks over previous games, more factors are taken into account and the AI actually do build squads and look to the future which in some older versions it didn't.

Saying all that, I am of course aware that it can be improved and we are aware of a number of issues. Sadly it's just not an easy fix across the board, if it was it'd have been done long ago.

[Smurf]

I totally agree.

What about Mesut Ozil, at 28, signing for Sunderland??? He was offered to clubs. Why pick a team with low Rep?

What about Wilshere, at like 22 or something, also offered?

I know it's a bit of a bug. And I appreciate the responses. I know the AI is a absolute minefield. Make a change here it has a knock on effect, sometimes these knock on effects aren't even noticed because they happen so far down the line.

Bu that's why I'm here - to give feedback to what's happening in my game and how I exploit it, and I exploit it because it's fun!

Honestly - if I'm Sunderland and my objective is to finish Mid-Table, then I shouldn't be allowed to finish 4th. The AI should kick in when I'm winning and make the teams above me win also.

It should take a miracle for me to finish 5th or 4th.

These are just some things I notice with the game. I only say them because I love the game, I've played them from the first version of the game. I want it to better, as I'm sure you all do, and all at SI.

Genuine feedback from a genuine fan.

[kensteidel]

The reasons for the easiness of the game can often be boiled down to "it's easy exactly because it is a game. Because it is a game, the element of real risk a manager is exposed to, is minimal. A real-life manager would have difficulties in earning promotion from a lower league for different reasons that become real instead of virtual:

-Responsibility to the club's budget. A manager in FM is under no real threat if he signs 5-10 good free agents on top of an existing squad. This will usually strain the wage budget, but you find yourself only under a virtual threat from a board being displeased that you cannot control the wage budget.

In real life, this manager would actually run the very real risk of making enemies with both his employers and the players being in danger of losing their jobs after a bancrupcy.

-Man handling necessarily becomes an easier job as you only deal with virtual people that don't create any kind of empathy in you. Therefore, it is easier to offload players and sack staff because in the end, you have no real bond or responsibility to them. Dealing in this psychopatic manner in real life, would probably earn you a bad reputation, discouraging both backroom staff and players to work with you.

-A real life manager would also be obliged to take on advice and rotate the squad in order to keep under-performing primadonnas happy. My job becomes easier in FM because i can easily offer these surplus players to other clubs for free (disregarding the board's wish that you cash in on the highest possible amount of your players). You also don't have to confront their sad or angry faces every day in training, because you don't actually relate to players in FM on a personal level.

-On the matchday, you won't normally suffer from stress because the situation is only that of an innocent game. Your honour or real-life job is not at stake. You can remain as cool as a cucumber and react logically to any problem that arises. You won't complain about the ref, getting yourself fined or banned from the matchline. Because it is only a game, you can also take unlikely risks, not being afraid of the actual reprecussions or sucesses that follow.

There are probably thousands of more factors that become easier by virtue of being virtual, as in any other game. The risk level will always be zero, even if you play a 1st person shooter or live for thousands of years in Civilization. Becoming familiar to the game also lets you play through the same scenario tens of times before eventually becoming a manager deity. The first try at managing a team will hopefully pose a challenge, but the next time around, you can start afresh doing all the right things and avoiding all the mistakes you made, Groundhog Day-style.

[BiggusD]

Peter Cech being on a free and signing for a lesser club is of course of bug. We will try and fix it, but it's not just a case of 'let's code it so Cech doesn't do that' - every minor change in AI intelligence has a massive knock-on across the entire game.

Have to say, the AI 'tweaks' and the complaint there hasn't been any improvement - have to massively disagree there has been a vast improvement in the way the AI thinks over previous games, more factors are taken into account and the AI actually do build squads and look to the future which in some older versions it didn't.

Saying all that, I am of course aware that it can be improved and we are aware of a number of issues. Sadly it's just not an easy fix across the board, if it was it'd have been done long ago.

But a change to the AI in regards to both tactics and squad building don't have to have major knock-on effects! Why don't they get to have the same tools as we do? why don't they get to look at attributes? Why don't both clubs and players have long-term plans? Why don't the players know their own CA and at least a basic idea of their PA? Why don't the AI manager read match statistics, analyse where things go wrong and then have a small toolbox of proper tactical responses? Why don't the AI managers know that in order to develop their wonderkids they need to play matches at a level they can handle? Why, after 18 years, is the AI still fielding injured players with 60% condition just because it's their best player only to have him injured for the rest of the season - while the other 14 players in their 25 man squad are at 50% match fitness and steadily declining?

[Smurf]

Some of these things can be addressed by the Board putting on pressure. If you sign 10 players then the Board should expect a higher league standing than previously arranged. And if you don't get results the Board should pressure you more. Morale and things of the players can be affected etc. Making it more difficult. Hence, you made a mistake in signing 10 players, no you are paying the consequences. These consequences don't exist in the game as is.

Similarly for spending money on players, big money. I bought a player for 154m in FM11 and nobody batted an eyelid.

At the moment I don't think the relationship between the Board and the manager are intertwined with performance. Look at Liverpool and Benitez, he found himself in dire straits with them due to Press meetings etc.

But look at Ferguson and his Board. Yes the Utd Board have done some interesting things and the Glazers were hated on, but Ferguson handled himself well in the media and it all died down.

The only time the Sunderland Board interject for me is to dump more money into my lap.

I currently LOSE €11m a MONTH and the Board are ok with it. They say they are in a healthy financial position.

I get this with every club I manage. Constantly lose money per month, yet climb the financial rankings. And then I always have a transfer budget of 50m or thereabouts. When I get years into the game I have transfer budgets up to €500m.

I am Sunderland in my current save. And I've spent close to about €350m in about 4 seasons. And somehow I should show self-control???

[wwfan]

Honestly - if I'm Sunderland and my objective is to finish Mid-Table, then I shouldn't be allowed to finish 4th. The AI should kick in when I'm winning and make the teams above me win also.

That's not AI. That's rubber banding. There's no way this can happen. Would destroy FM.

[Smurf]

It's already destroyed by letting teams like Sunderland who were battling relegation when I took over to reach 4th place.

In 4 years, I've brought a Prem League title, I've brought a 2 Champions League title and I final. I've won the League Cup, and FA Cup. Before me there was no success.

I'm not suggesting a total rubber banding. I'm suggesting that in no way shape or form in 4 years should I have had the success I have had at Sunderland.

When I took over at Sunderland it was a long term project. Now it's short term. I just want to develop the team and players into the best they can be and move on now.

Before this - same saved game

When I was at Santo Andre FC 3rd Division to 1st and State and league Champions back to back. Took me from 2012 to 2016, that's 4 seasons to bring Santo Andre FC to the best team in Brazil.

When I left them, I noticed all the Star players were sold off. And they got demoted. Despite being the winners in that league for and state for 3 seasons ( I think), the Brazlian league thing and State kept on going didn't really get a break.

Summarise

4 years at Santo Andre FC - 3rd Division to multi-time league and State Champions

4 years at Sunderland - relegation battlers to league and Champions League winners... twice

My point is - if you tell your Board, "We'll finish mid-table" it should be very difficult to get higher than that. Maybe next season you say "Euro Spot" and you can make it to that position.

There is just no way I should be able to take a team from obscurity to World Beaters in 4 seasons.

I've done it twice in the same save. I've done with every save I've ever had.

Perhaps the AI winning more is a bit extreme. Perhaps I should be allowed to finish 2nd, 3rd , 4th in League. If that's the case - then don't let the reputatoin go up so high that I get offered world class players, like Ozil, Czech, Wilshere, Zarate

These are players that shouldn't be playing at a club with my REP. Perhaps Rep needs to be slowed down a bit.

But the game has to "rubber band" you somewhere. It's just not there. And I've proven it with every single game I've played with FM 12.

[Neil Brock]

But a change to the AI in regards to both tactics and squad building don't have to have major knock-on effects! Why don't they get to have the same tools as we do? why don't they get to look at attributes? Why don't both clubs and players have long-term plans? Why don't the players know their own CA and at least a basic idea of their PA? Why don't the AI manager read match statistics, analyse where things go wrong and then have a small toolbox of proper tactical responses? Why don't the AI managers know that in order to develop their wonderkids they need to play matches at a level they can handle? Why, after 18 years, is the AI still fielding injured players with 60% condition just because it's their best player only to have him injured for the rest of the season - while the other 14 players in their 25 man squad are at 50% match fitness and steadily declining?

Although I'm not a coder I would imagine it'd take about five hours to process a day if AI managers thought in that level of depth, or something to that extent. A lot of those things you mention do happen - they do look at attributes, they do look at a rough CA/PPA, players and clubs do have long-term plans.

The squad selection stuff is actually a completely different type of AI entirely and is something else we're aware of. Judging by your response, no offence intended, but I don't think you understand quite how complex and difficult a game of this type is to code.

[x42bn6]

Although I'm not a coder I would imagine it'd take about five hours to process a day if AI managers thought in that level of depth, or something to that extent. A lot of those things you mention do happen - they do look at attributes, they do look at a rough CA/PPA, players and clubs do have long-term plans.

The squad selection stuff is actually a completely different type of AI entirely and is something else we're aware of. Judging by your response, no offence intended, but I don't think you understand quite how complex and difficult a game of this type is to code.

Contradiction?

I don't think long-term planning is a terribly difficult algorithm. Just extrapolate CA growth (or decline) of the players to some hypothetical future point, and take yearly "snapshots". Then the AI can plan depending on where troughs occur.

As for reading match statistics, I suspect that this might be something that can be done with a neural network with trained human users. The advantage is that the neural network can be precomputed.

Look at, say, Civilization - which is arguably miles more deeper than Football Manager due to the sheer number of options, but AI moves take seconds on even old hardware.

[Ackter]

Hah, Civilization's AI is incredibly, incredibly basic.

[x42bn6]

Hah, Civilization's AI is incredibly, incredibly basic.

The sheer number of options available, in addition to the fact that Civilization isn't necessarily 2-player, makes it very complex (even if it employs some method of rubber-banding).

For example, even fan-made AI can complete an entire 6-civilization game in an hour on old hardware (by today's standards): http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184128

[wwfan]

Contradiction?

I don't think long-term planning is a terribly difficult algorithm. Just extrapolate CA growth (or decline) of the players to some hypothetical future point, and take yearly "snapshots". Then the AI can plan depending on where troughs occur.

As for reading match statistics, I suspect that this might be something that can be done with a neural network with trained human users. The advantage is that the neural network can be precomputed.

Look at, say, Civilization - which is arguably miles more deeper than Football Manager due to the sheer number of options, but AI moves take seconds on even old hardware.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced you have no notion of what you are talking about. Two leading coders I know personally are awe-struck at the FM ME and AI. Despite both being incredibly successful in their respective fields, one arguably a world-leader, they wouldn't touch this kind of complexity with a bargepole.

Yet, for you, it is all 'relatively simple'. Wish I had that kind of talent.

[Ackter]

No, the sheer number of options available are actually very small. Each unit can do one of about 8 things - that's it. The vast majority of those "decisions" are also very one-dimensional.

It also doesn't get cleverer or more complex either. All the AI in Civ does is apply massive multipliers to everything. If you play on Chieftain difficulty, every unit has an evens chance of defeating any similar unit. On Settler, your units have a 1.5 chance of beating a unit of the same difficulty. On Sid, the AI units have something like a 5.0 chance of beating your similar units.

This is my most hated type of "AI" - the only other type that comes close to this is rubber-banding.

[x42bn6]

No, the sheer number of options available are actually very small. Each unit can do one of about 8 things - that's it. The vast majority of those "decisions" are also very one-dimensional.

It's not just the units being moved - it's everything that can be performed in a single turn. All your units being moved, any units/buildings being created, any changes made to what you have now (i.e. changing your culture/level sliders, technologies to research, diplomacy, battles, etc.). An AI "turn" lasts seconds, even when civilizations become extremely large and the AI has to perform many actions.

It also doesn't get cleverer or more complex either. All the AI in Civ does is apply massive multipliers to everything. If you play on Chieftain difficulty, every unit has an evens chance of defeating any similar unit. On Settler, your units have a 1.5 chance of beating a unit of the same difficulty. On Sid, the AI units have something like a 5.0 chance of beating your similar units.

This is my most hated type of "AI" - the only other type that comes close to this is rubber-banding.

Civilization is complex and does require rubber-banding, probably because of the number of options available to the AI, making tree-pruning infeasible (it is closer to Go than checkers, say, where checkers can be brute-forced as there's only around 30-40 possible immediate ply moves at worst in checkers). In Civilization, a unit may only have 8 possible "moves", but if there are two units, that becomes 64 possible combinations - standard search algorithms won't work here.

[Ackter]

Civilization doesn't have rubber-banding.

There are, at last count if I remember rightly, 8 different leader types? Each type has a set of rules for their units to follow, making one kind of move more likely than the others. Try turning on all of the automation** for your own units and cities - its the exact same AI used throughout the whole game. It's very one-dimensional. 2 units does not become 64 possible combinations, as it's one calculation that decides where everyone moves to next*

Civilization is a load of 1 + 1 = 2 calculations. FM is a bit more complex than that...

*while that's an over-simplification, every unit as a group (or set of groups) is basically governed by a set of simple rules.

** spend some time watching automated workers, automated city governors or automated explorers to see what I mean.

[x42bn6]

Civilization doesn't have rubber-banding.

There are, at last count if I remember rightly, 8 different leader types? Each type has a set of rules for their units to follow, making one kind of move more likely than the others. Try turning on all of the automation for your own units and cities - its the exact same AI used throughout the whole game. It's very one-dimensional. 2 units does not become 64 possible combinations, as it's one calculation that decides where everyone moves to next*

Civilization is a load of 1 + 1 = 2 calculations. FM is a bit more complex than that...

*while that's an over-simplification, every unit as a group (or set of groups) is basically governed by a set of simple rules.

Sorry, I mean "cheating" rather than "rubber-banding", where the AI gets quicker unit building and no fog of war, and things like that.

Every leader has different personalities and leads to different "tendencies", such as Montezuma being extremely violent and aggressive. However, there is still a need to compute each unit's set of moves and evaluate what is best for them. For example, a battle unit owned by Montezuma may be able to move to 20 different squares, and each square has a different evaluation function. For Montezuma, the weighting might be higher if there is an enemy unit on the square. For a settler, it might be higher if there is water around it. And so on.

In FreeCiv, for example, there is a function that is executed when a city sees an attacking unit, and picks a defender that is best-designed to defend against that situation. And there are multiple functions, depending on battle ability and movement type, for example.

"Group" AI does exist but it certainly doesn't simplify things - it is better used for things like grand strategy where, say, one AI might target a weaker AI as an overall goal. However, they still need to move their units to achieve that goal. That's what takes heavy computation - the individual moving of units.

A "simple set of rules" per leader seems extremely simplistic. FreeCiv's AI module is around 15,000 lines of code. It is extremely unlikely that Civilization IV's AI boils down to leader personalities and a "simple set of rules".

Assuming the "tactics" bit would be the most complex, it does strike me as something that is wouldn't be achieved by pruning/minimax, because there's still too many moves (i.e. for passing, you can move from any value between 1-20). However, this is why I suggested a neural network. You feed in everything you know, such as the match statistics, and it spits out what you need. The bulk of the computation is done beforehand.

[Ackter]

Again - actually watch the automation in it and see how it works.

The same actions in the same situations, every single time.

[SiN8]

I think FM scouting needs an complete overhaul. It's just too easy to build a superstar squad. I'd like to see PA almost completely eliminated from any scout star calculation. Rely on CA, age and personality attributes. Building through youth will be much tougher as teams will just buy young players with high CA, but their development will be a complete crapshoot. Kinda like RL.

[x42bn6]

Again - actually watch the automation in it and see how it works.

The same actions in the same situations, every single time.

It doesn't mean that it is "automatic".

A chess AI could choose the exact same move/set of moves if you replayed it from a particular point again and again. It doesn't mean that it isn't undergoing complex computation whatsoever in determining that move.

The AI could need to perform X calculations in order to determine Civilization IV's AI's moves. The X calculations are the complex bit - the fact that the AI does the same thing again and again doesn't necessarily mean a thing. It just means there's no randomness involved in said process.

[Ackter]

No, automation is the term Civ themselves use for it when a human unit is assigned to AI control.

The AI's units follow the same automation procedures, except with leader traits (etc) modifying that behaviour.

It's a system, by a large order of magnitude, simpler than that used in FM.

[marty78]

I think FM scouting needs an complete overhaul. It's just too easy to build a superstar squad. I'd like to see PA almost completely eliminated from any scout star calculation. Rely on CA, age and personality attributes. Building through youth will be much tougher as teams will just buy young players with high CA, but their development will be a complete crapshoot. Kinda like RL.

Completely agree. Being able to see even a rough representation of potential makes no sense. It should be a big gamble spending big money on a wonderkid but in FM provided injuries are few and far between then your pretty much guaranteed a star. With hidden potential it should also be possible to have late bloomers rising from the lower leagues without getting snapped up too early and stuck in someones reserves for four years.

I'd much rather when receiving a scout report it said something like "player X would be a decent championship player and has the potential to improve significantly/further/a little". Then it is a case of the player having to guess from stats, performances and personality etc wether they will make the grade. It should also take more scouting to reveal players attributes especially aspects of his personality that are not hidden. At the moment one scout report card will tell you much of what you need to know when IRL players are scouted for weeks or months.

I think the star sytem works okay for CA but should be removed completely for PA.

[Spart]

I think FM scouting needs an complete overhaul. It's just too easy to build a superstar squad. I'd like to see PA almost completely eliminated from any scout star calculation. Rely on CA, age and personality attributes. Building through youth will be much tougher as teams will just buy young players with high CA, but their development will be a complete crapshoot. Kinda like RL.

I think the attributes of scouts needs to be used more severely.

Perhaps only scouts with the highest atts. for 'judging player ability/potential' should be able to give star ratings for either CA or PA? A high level of determination, discipline, motiviation and adaptability is required for consistant and detailed reporting however.

That way, the top clubs would hire the most 'skilled' scouts, as it should be, who report consistant, detailed and rated reports. Whilst this may seem harsh on lower league managers, they would still be able to use scouts effectively, just with more compromises eg. a scout with high 'judge potent.' but low determination, discipline etc. would give a generalised but accurate star ratings with very little supportive detail such as strengths, weaknesses and so on, whereby a scout with low 'judge potent.' and high mentals would give a highly detailed report that would just require some reading and understanding by managers.

star ratings could also be tempered too. maybe add in a percentage to the mix: "there is a 50% chance 16 year old Joe Bloggs will become a leader premier league left-back *****"

[aderow]

I'm just gonna echo something that I've read mentioned once or twice.

In this day and age, due to the immense popularity of the Football Manager series, SI has the extremely difficult task of keeping their older, more experienced fans interested, while trying to interest new consumers to use their product. There are so many different types of players these days that no matter what SI does, someone will be unhappy. The OP wants FM to be more hardcore. There are people who wish FM was easier. How is SI supposed to satisfy both sides? (I guess difficulty settings would probably be an answer but thats not the point I'm trying to talk about right now). Its like asking a game studio to make a game that is both ARMA 2/Project Reality and MW3.

There are things in FM that I am unsatisfied about to the point of frustration and that is why I still play FM10. But there is something that I do understand. I understand that SI has a finite amount of time and finite resources to make their product. So expecting perfection from them is slightly unfair. The best thing you can do is note all the things that you feel are not right with the game and mention them on these forums. Thats how we can help them improve the game.

SI is a business. Businesses are supposed to make money. Businesses need money to survive so SI will always try to reach as many players as possible. Businesses also need the faith of their consumers. I imagine SI is doing what it thinks will keep the vast majority, of their consumers happy (but like I said before every decision made will leave someone unhappy).

SI probably wishes they could make everyone happy all the time because it means that they'd make more money. And with more money, they could improve the game even further and thus continue to keep us happy.

I like to believe in the good in people. Have faith in people. Thats probably a fault on my part, but I'm gonna believe that SI is taking note of all the issues we post on this forum and doing their best to address them accordingly.

[Spart]

SI probably wishes they could make everyone happy all the time because it means that they'd make more money. And with more money, they could improve the game even further and thus continue to keep us happy.

I like to believe in the good in people. Have faith in people. Thats probably a fault on my part, but I'm gonna believe that SI is taking note of all the issues we post on this forum and doing their best to address them accordingly.

Based on how community feedback has shaped the game in the past, I think you've got it spot on to be honest!

[BiggusD]

Although I'm not a coder I would imagine it'd take about five hours to process a day if AI managers thought in that level of depth, or something to that extent. A lot of those things you mention do happen - they do look at attributes, they do look at a rough CA/PPA, players and clubs do have long-term plans.

The squad selection stuff is actually a completely different type of AI entirely and is something else we're aware of. Judging by your response, no offence intended, but I don't think you understand quite how complex and difficult a game of this type is to code.

I can appreciate it is difficult to code within the limitations of the current computing power, so it is clear that it is in the ground-level design of the mechanics that the most important decisions has to be made. I also know that it is difficult to think new paths when the old ones have exhausted their options, so what I am talking about is a re-design of the way the AI make its decisions. You have probably noticed that I am sceptical of the current use of "reputation" as a multi-tool in every aspect of the game (now also "difficulty"), and I am 100% sure that if the guys at SI erased that word from their vocabulary and started thinking about how to balance the game without it they would come up with much better solutions wherever it previously contaminated the game with its presence.

It is not reputation that governs a club's popularity as an employer, but its chance to win titles currently and in coming years plus the size of its fanbase

It is not reputation that governs a player's popularity among clubs, but what his particular skillset brings to the game

It is not your reputation in the country or in the world that governs the players' trust in your ability, but your ability. That should be clear to the players after maximum half a year, and shouldn't be dependent on the amount of trophies you bring to the club. The Chelsea fans and players aren't doubting Villas-Boas credentials or being sceptical to his lack of experience; they are doubting his ability or if he is the right man for the club, because the results haven't been quite good enough.

[Able.Ryder]

The reasons for the easiness of the game can often be boiled down to "it's easy exactly because it is a game. Because it is a game, the element of real risk a manager is exposed to, is minimal. A real-life manager would have difficulties in earning promotion from a lower league for different reasons that become real instead of virtual:

-Responsibility to the club's budget. A manager in FM is under no real threat if he signs 5-10 good free agents on top of an existing squad. This will usually strain the wage budget, but you find yourself only under a virtual threat from a board being displeased that you cannot control the wage budget.

In real life, this manager would actually run the very real risk of making enemies with both his employers and the players being in danger of losing their jobs after a bancrupcy.

-Man handling necessarily becomes an easier job as you only deal with virtual people that don't create any kind of empathy in you. Therefore, it is easier to offload players and sack staff because in the end, you have no real bond or responsibility to them. Dealing in this psychopatic manner in real life, would probably earn you a bad reputation, discouraging both backroom staff and players to work with you.

-A real life manager would also be obliged to take on advice and rotate the squad in order to keep under-performing primadonnas happy. My job becomes easier in FM because i can easily offer these surplus players to other clubs for free (disregarding the board's wish that you cash in on the highest possible amount of your players). You also don't have to confront their sad or angry faces every day in training, because you don't actually relate to players in FM on a personal level.

-On the matchday, you won't normally suffer from stress because the situation is only that of an innocent game. Your honour or real-life job is not at stake. You can remain as cool as a cucumber and react logically to any problem that arises. You won't complain about the ref, getting yourself fined or banned from the matchline. Because it is only a game, you can also take unlikely risks, not being afraid of the actual reprecussions or sucesses that follow.

There are probably thousands of more factors that become easier by virtue of being virtual, as in any other game. The risk level will always be zero, even if you play a 1st person shooter or live for thousands of years in Civilization. Becoming familiar to the game also lets you play through the same scenario tens of times before eventually becoming a manager deity. The first try at managing a team will hopefully pose a challenge, but the next time around, you can start afresh doing all the right things and avoiding all the mistakes you made, Groundhog Day-style.

Excellent post!

[Smurf]

I think FM scouting needs an complete overhaul. It's just too easy to build a superstar squad. I'd like to see PA almost completely eliminated from any scout star calculation. Rely on CA, age and personality attributes. Building through youth will be much tougher as teams will just buy young players with high CA, but their development will be a complete crapshoot. Kinda like RL.

As I said earlier - Scout and Coaches should only show the DIFFERENCE between the players CA and the PA.

A player that is 16 could have 100 CA and PA of 180. The difference being 80. So the Player would would get 1* Current Ability and 3* Potential Ability. The closer that player gets to their PA the more PA stars they get. So the player next year could go to 2.5* Current Ability, and you'd see his Potential Ability up to 3.5* or 4*.

Currently you see a very close reputation to what their potential is. And it makes it too easy. So having a PA in the game that is dynamic and moves in accordance to how close the player is to their PA.

Like a player could be CA 120 and PA 140. Hence they'd get 2* CA and 3* PA - which would indicate he probably won't get to 4* PA.

Players with very high PA shouldn't be tempted by clubs with Reputations that are that low, they should be limited. If my Club Rep is (I don't know how they rank them) say 1500 and I want to sign a 16 year old Wonderkid from French League 2, then that Wonderkid would go, hey your reputation is 1500, and my ambition is to play for a club with a rep of 3000 or above.

Of course some players would have lower ambitions, and they wouldn't have as a high a level of professionalism, work rate, team work etc. and lower traits in loyalty etc. that makes a young player develop quicker.

Whereas, the good talented players with high traits in professionalism, work rate, team work, etc. would be more likely to sign for Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool. Man City, Real Madrid, Barca, Inter, AC Milan, Bayern etc.

I know the above is very rough. But none of that currently happens in the game. And it should happen more often.

At the moment in my Sunderland save, Mesut Ozil, Jack Wilshere, Peter Czech and Mauro Zarate all signed for me, in my first season in charge, where Sundeland had finished 11th in the league the year before.

That's not right, so I hope in future that Players have a "ambition" trait where they only sign for clubs over a certain REP, this could be based on their Current Ability/Potential Ability and the Difference in the two. Like it would be more likely I'd sign a 36 year old Lampard with CA 125 and PA 180 (I don't know what his PA is really) than signing someone like Mesut Ozil, at 28 years of age, in his prime, from Real Madrid. Ozil should have wanted to sign for Man Utd, Arsenal, Bayern, Inter, etc. that's who he should have been offered to.

I really hope that Club Reputation is taken into consideration when players are offered out. And that players and clubs are aware of Club Rep before offering out players.

I'd much rather when receiving a scout report it said something like "player X would be a decent championship player and has the potential to improve significantly/further/a little". Then it is a case of the player having to guess from stats, performances and personality etc wether they will make the grade. It should also take more scouting to reveal players attributes especially aspects of his personality that are not hidden. At the moment one scout report card will tell you much of what you need to know when IRL players are scouted for weeks or months.

I think the star sytem works okay for CA but should be removed completely for PA.

I think this is easily addressed.

There are hidden Coach Ratings, if you've ever used FM Scout you'll have seen them. I use it time to time for fun.

Well coaches have Percentage Ratings. So if your coach has rating of say 75%:

Player has CA of 180, therefore the coach has a 25% error range. So the Coach would rate that player anywhere between 135 and 180.

That would potentially give the player a * rating of 3.5 to 4.5. Which is still a good indicator of how good he is.

But another player with CA of 170 could be rated higher, because it's arbitrarily rating the player based on a random percentage.

Same could happen with PA. If your Scouts Rating is only 40% then there could be a 60% margin of error in his star rating.

PA of 160 = 160/100*60 =

160 - 96 = 64

So he could have a rating of between 64 - 160. It's just that you have an awful scout so that would be very reflective.

So the Scout Reports that he has a * rating between 1* and 3.5*

Meaning you'd have to scout him more to narrow that range. But you'd never get an absolute.

But if you had a scout with say 80% - just a really good scout. Then there would only be a 20% chance of error. So the good scout would report back with a * rating between 128 and 160 - so he'd be rated between 2.5* and 3.5* as potential.

You still get a nice scout report. But it reflects the margin of error. And tells you yeh he could be good. Take a higher rated PA player of say 195.

Scout has a rating of say 74%

195/100*26

Would mean that the Scout sees a rating of between 150 and 195, so you'd get a 3* to 4.5* rating.

Yeh he could be world class, but you don't know. He could equally be just average, so you have to scout more. Look at stats, personality etc.

It could equally go the opposite way - over compensating for his talent

Scout rating 80% - Player PA = 170

There's a 20% chance of error.

170/100*20= 34

So the player could be estimate to have a PA of 136 - 200.

Hence a Potential Rating of 3* - 4.5*

I wouldn't mind if the game AVERAGED these results for the potential.

Say for the above - (136+200)/2 = 168

Potential Rating = 3.5*

Of course you have more than 1 scout. And you have a Scouting Pool. Say 4 scouts rate the player at

130 to 190

120 to 170

140 to 185

110 to 160 (because he's not a good scout)

You get a Potential rating of 160 from your Scouting pool. So he's reported back to have Potential Rating of approx. 3.5 stars.

Just a rough idea.

I think the attributes of scouts needs to be used more severely.

Perhaps only scouts with the highest atts. for 'judging player ability/potential' should be able to give star ratings for either CA or PA? A high level of determination, discipline, motiviation and adaptability is required for consistant and detailed reporting however.

That way, the top clubs would hire the most 'skilled' scouts, as it should be, who report consistant, detailed and rated reports. Whilst this may seem harsh on lower league managers, they would still be able to use scouts effectively, just with more compromises eg. a scout with high 'judge potent.' but low determination, discipline etc. would give a generalised but accurate star ratings with very little supportive detail such as strengths, weaknesses and so on, whereby a scout with low 'judge potent.' and high mentals would give a highly detailed report that would just require some reading and understanding by managers.

star ratings could also be tempered too. maybe add in a percentage to the mix: "there is a 50% chance 16 year old Joe Bloggs will become a leader premier league left-back *****"

I totally agree.