What is SI doing to address customer complaints and frustrations ?

[Steve1977beyond]

Unless SI actually come out and refute peoples beliefs then they're always going to snowball and garner support - but they don't. Their silence just encourages people's dismay at times.

[themadsheep2001]

Unless SI actually come out and refute peoples beliefs then they're always going to snowball and garner support - but they don't. Their silence just encourages people's dismay at times.

They have done so in the past, repeatedly. People just ignore it half the time.

[forameuss]

Unless SI actually come out and refute peoples beliefs then they're always going to snowball and garner support - but they don't. Their silence just encourages people's dismay at times.

Like sheep says, they did it in the past and it was nothing but trouble. I kind of agree with your point though-it would be nice if SO could post on these boards with impunity,but it wouldn't matter to a lot of people what they said.

[Guest]

This thread pretty much sums up why SI staff rarely venture anywhere near GD these days - http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/326330-The-current-state-of-the-forums-%E2%80%93-Feedback-Constructive-Criticism-and-Forum-Rules.

[SCIAG]

Have they removed the media and team talk module in '13?

Actually, yes. It's called FM Classic, and it strips out all the features that had been complained about as being overly repetitive.

[MichaelBrown]

FM12. Not patch 1 of FM13

I think that after paying for over 10 iterations of the game over the years I have formed enough of an opinion of its direction. I don't hide that after the frustrations of the game since about 08 I have not felt any pangs for not buying 13, and will certainly not buy FM14 either, unless public reaction is overwhelmingly positive. And even then I'll wait for the final patch first.

But you haven't bought the game! So, wait, you are judging the game on what people think. I'll give you some stats, highest ever sales of FM13, polls on this board are overwhelmingly positive (after the third patch.). Most reviews are positive.

Think it's time you bought it.

[wwfan]

But honestly about 90% of that thread comes down to players' own unrealistic interpretations, various myths perpetuated about the game, conspiracies about the AI, and players needing to adjust their own approaches.

If anything should be taken from that thread, its inaccessibility. Lots of people get angry because they can't see why they are going wrong, it's not that they are doing badly, or doing well. They simply cannot see why, and as I've said before, it doesn't matter how many bugs you fix, if a player cant get to grips with the game they will give up long before they get to see all the depth in the game. Better feedback from the game is a must, for example a better assistant manager.

Well said. I do think there's been a big shift in understanding this year from the vast majority of users frequenting the SI fora. I've been very impressed with the quality of advice given by many of our members. It is frustrating, however, when you read threads like this, in which the same tired old false opinions about how team talks, press conferences, tactics etc work reappear.

I might well be wrong, but it has always seemed to me that these arguments are raised by people with a gaming mentality, in which there's always supposed to be a hot and cold choice for every situation. FM is far subtler than that. It obviously is not doing a great job in transmitting that information, although it's also not doing a terrible job, as an awful lot of people have grasped the subtleties. I think a lot of the failure to grasp the subtleties happens because of fansite myth, which often actually prevents people from properly understanding how things work. And therein lies the problem with the OP. If SI listen to a section of the fanbase which is categorically failing to understand the subtleties of the game in design matters, then we'll have a mishmash of a game that ultimately pleases nobody. The answer is to make things clearer, but not to spoon feed. That's a tough balance to achieve.

[imp44791]

But you haven't bought the game! So, wait, you are judging the game on what people think. I'll give you some stats, highest ever sales of FM13, polls on this board are overwhelmingly positive (after the third patch.). Most reviews are positive.

Think it's time you bought it.

OK, for the last time:

Demo: I don't see the value of demos (are they even patched?) for a long term strategy game, as a lot of the frustrations come out over the course of many seasons. A demo is (must be) limited in scope, otherwise no one would ever buy the full version. It has value if it's a game concept you've never played before, or it's some technical breakthrough you really must see (e.g. the 3d engine, or a few years back the speed of processing in FM which has been indeed much, much improved). The demo mostly shows you cosmetic changes and a few new features. It does not address the problems that have made the game such a grind in the last few years. Similarly, sales tell me exactly zip. There is only one sale that matters to me: mine. I put MUCH more value in independent paying customer opinions (and less so on the shilling "reviews" from the commercial press) than on a demo. I've seen (as they've seen) the previous versions all the way to the last century, so I zero in on the bits the bother me and see if they have been fixed. When '13 came out, I immediately saw that the problems of immersion were still there for many people. Sure, a lot of the complaints were in the vein of "I can't win!" which are meaningless to me as -as I think I've mentioned at least 3 times already- I always play LLM and losing abjectly is part of the fun. But complaints to the vein of "transformations at half time", "lower league teams pinging the ball about like Barca in order to equalise in the last minutes" and all that, EVEN IF NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE ATTENDANT CONSPIRACY THEORIES, tell me that the problems of immersion are still not solved. Instead the new version gives me 1000 (or how many they are) new features. I don't want 1000 new features, I want immersion back. Some of the changes I hear are good, or at least bold, as in the training. Well done to that. I was similarly much pleased in the past when shouts and roles/duties were introduced on top of the bare sliders - those were great moves to the right direction of immersion, and ones that do not suffer from repetition.

Which brings me to the "buy it for FMC's sake". Well, sorry, that's a bathwater/baby argument. If I want to play crippleware, I will (a) demand it for free or (b) go back and play FM04-05. I don't care about updated databases so much as for not being annoyed at a game I paid 35 quid for. Because I will still have to buy the full game (useless to me in that case), won't I? I have to say here however, that I am not as firm about this as I have not played FMC. It would seem to me that having installation options where you would choose which modules you'd like (like we now decide which database to use) is a better way. In any event. I would prefer to play the complete game. Having to play a crippled version, simply because the whole comes with an infuriating hamster maze of a media module, is an admission of defeat.

Finally, I have been furious for many years about the patching policy of this firm. I do not care if it makes business sense for them to release half-baked versions every year and only patch them three times. I also have a policy of not giving my money to merchants of this sort. Same holds for the DRM policy (I remember the 09 release debacle). They do it because they think it helps their bottom line. Good for them. I am not planning to add to that bottom line unless the product is so universally acclaimed (and not just by the auto-defenders of anything SI). I already moved my own policy from buying on release date, to buying on final patch release date since FM11. Now I have moved to the "do not buy unless" policy. And judging by the trends of both game and forum, I don't foresee this changing any time soon.

The bottom line is: It's not my job as a customer to put in the work to see whether a product is good for me after all these years of an obvious (to me, which is all that matters for my enjoyment) downward trend in enjoyment. It's the company's, if it values my business. It does not have to, of course, but it really seems to me I'm not the only one around. Which was the poor OP's point.

[Guest]

You might be on to something about the gaming mentality.

Personally I have never set out to 'beat' FM, I just play the game in as realistic a manner as I can & go with the flow, this real life thought process if what I think helps me in press conferences & other interactions as I never stop to wonder what is the right answer for the game & just go with the tone & language that I would in a real life situation.

Edit: The press conference/human interaction complaints always gets me, people are quick to say that they're boring & lack variety but there are hardly ever any suggestions for new questions & answers, just complaints & demands that SI ditch the module or add more questions.

If there was ever a feature that was perfect for suggestions from the community it's the various human interactions in FM, all it takes is to put forward a question noting the reasoning behind adding it & then offering a selection of possible answers with details on why the fit the scenario.

[imp44791]

You might be on to something about the gaming mentality.

Personally I have never set out to 'beat' FM, I just play the game in as realistic a manner as I can & go with the flow, this real life thought process if what I think helps me in press conferences & other interactions as I never stop to wonder what is the right answer for the game & just go with the tone & language that I would in a real life situation.

Edit: The press conference/human interaction complaints always gets me, people are quick to say that they're boring & lack variety but there are hardly ever any suggestions for new questions & answers, just complaints & demands that SI ditch the module or add more questions.

If there was ever a feature that was perfect for suggestions from the community it's the various human interactions in FM, all it takes is to put forward a question noting the reasoning behind adding it & then offering a selection of possible answers with details on why the fit the scenario.

You're completely right in the bit before your edit, as was the person you quoted. That's exactly the way I play. The problem is that repetitive tasks, or repeated oddities during the match (such as an incidence of hitting the post more often than normal, or poor morale people behaving like they're frunk on the pitch) ruin this "role playing game" approach.

For your edited bit: even repeated complaints are (should be) useful to a developer. I personally don't know how the media module could be fixed in a way that is possible to program. I'm a banker, not a programmer . It occurs to me that the company's first task should be to take notice of the complaints, particularly the fact that so many people believe (even if they're not right) that the match performance is too strongly correlated with team talks/press conferences/morale. And just coming out to say it is not in this (or any other) forum is not really the answer. They have to change the way the game communicates to the player, and camouflage what morale does.

I would like a media module personally, for flavour. To help immersion. I would like it if there were (literally) 2-3 thousand possible questions and an equal number of possible answers, even wacky ones. Anything to add to the fun and completely remove any temptation on the mind of the player that choosing Box C instead for Box D was the reason his fullback started behaving like a drunk baboon after half time . One of the worst moves SI made was to put the green and red reactions after you make a team talk --> it totally reinforces the belief in there being "right" or "wrong" answer. Same goes for body language feedback. Same for the morale arrow, particularly for the opposition. What are we here, shrinks? And how do I know that the opposing AMR is "abysmal" anyway? Did I ask his girlfriend ? You should get either nothing (my own preference) or a very vague impression for the whole team.

[podunkboy]

You might be on to something about the gaming mentality.

If there was ever a feature that was perfect for suggestions from the community it's the various human interactions in FM, all it takes is to put forward a question noting the reasoning behind adding it & then offering a selection of possible answers with details on why the fit the scenario.

As for me, I'd love to be able to tell a player in a private chat why I'm playing someone ahead of him (match fitness/squad rotation/because he's two games from getting a bump in salary/etc.) or explain to the fans why I just transfer listed/sold their favorite player (because playing competitive SPL football in a 2,200-seat stadium is NOT a sustainable business model, so until we get the brand-new stadium paid off, we're going to have to tighten our fiscal belts and quit paying a rotation player 10% of the weekly salary.) The inability to speak to/explain to the fans is a shortcoming, more than answering the "which part of your team is the strongest" question EVERY press conference.

[Guest]

Most of the complaints do not even need a feature suggestions, as the modules already exist I consider any missing questions or statements to be bugs & as such log them in the bugs forum, your player chat scenario is a perfect example & the transfer of a player could easily be covered in the existing press conference system.

[Guest]

Which brings me to the "buy it for FMC's sake". Well, sorry, that's a bathwater/baby argument. If I want to play crippleware, I will (a) demand it for free or (b) go back and play FM04-05. I don't care about updated databases so much as for not being annoyed at a game I paid 35 quid for. Because I will still have to buy the full game (useless to me in that case), won't I? I have to say here however, that I am not as firm about this as I have not played FMC. It would seem to me that having installation options where you would choose which modules you'd like (like we now decide which database to use) is a better way. In any event. I would prefer to play the complete game. Having to play a crippled version, simply because the whole comes with an infuriating hamster maze of a media module, is an admission of defeat.

Finally, I have been furious for many years about the patching policy of this firm. I do not care if it makes business sense for them to release half-baked versions every year and only patch them three times. I also have a policy of not giving my money to merchants of this sort. Same holds for the DRM policy (I remember the 09 release debacle). They do it because they think it helps their bottom line. Good for them. I am not planning to add to that bottom line unless the product is so universally acclaimed (and not just by the auto-defenders of anything SI). I already

moved my own policy from buying on release date, to buying on final patch release date since FM11. Now I have moved to the "do not buy unless" policy. And judging by the trends of both game and forum, I don't foresee this changing any time soon.

A couple of points.

You call FMC crippleware yet on face value it provides one of the two solutions you're after, it takes out the modules you currently do not like. How can ask for a game without repetitive interactions & then deride the game that gives you precisely that? Granted the 3 nations limit is a bind & one I'd like to see SI remove.

As for patching, FM13 has been patched about a dozen times, if not more & that is all down to the way the game is currently distributed.

[KevMaaan]

FM Base is three times the size of SI Games forum so can hardly be called small, and SI Games should bear in mind these quotes -

“A happy customer tells one friend, and unhappy customer tells everybody.”

"Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning."

"Don’t try to tell the customer what he wants. If you want to be smart, be smart in the shower. Then get out, go to work and serve the customer!"

"I won’t complain. I just won’t come back"

And you mention sales figures being on the up is due to the fact they are the right strategy, I would suggest the sales are up more due to the early marketing with the enticement of a beta version. The true telling of how good or poor FM13 is will come when the initial sales figures of FM14 are released.

Hopefully though FM14 will be a success, as like last time they released a poor version they took on board the criticism and produced a worthwhile product.

Can't imagine how bad the game would be if SI pandered to everyone who wasn't prepared to learn how to play. Out of interest, what is your experience in any business at all, or do you just make these statements for no reason?

[Guest]

That sales figures statement gets trotted every year, it was the same last year when Steam integration was introduced. The end result year after year is increased sales on the previous year & this on the back of some really horrible marketing campaigns.

As for those business quotes, they are truly awful & are clearly written by a company that wants their workforce to act like drones, the third statement is very telling.

[imp44791]

A couple of points.

Granted the 3 nations limit is a bind & one I'd like to see SI remove.

Thanks for pointing this out yourself

I think I made it clear that I consider the FMC solution a "baby with the bathwater" solution. I would like the full game improved please.

I am not going to open the patching policy can of worms. Suffice to say that I (and many other people) consider this far from being good enough, and there are (highly successful) companies who don't follow it, without at the same time jumping to the tune of every bizarre request by gamers. Steam seems to be an ever expanding disease, with even sainted Paradox falling into its straitjacket. I don't have to like it either.

Bottom line is that the annual release schedule, unyielding (or semi-unyielding if you will) patching policy, DRM decisions and the way the game is becoming less and less fun every year, will almost certainly make me buy the game only every other year (at most), and then only on final patch release day. Now, this may or may not be something interesting to SI, but there it is, and no amount of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth from SI loyalists here will change it.

[dooro23]

Bottom line is rather, despite suggesting the opposite, everything you complained about the game can be tested via a Demo, but you still haven't played it.

I hope you can see my earlier point, why this would severely devalue the credibility of you criticising a game you haven't played?

[Guest]

Fun is such a subjective statement, the more complex the game becomes the more fun I have playing it.

It's a sad truth of game development & business in general that as you progress you will leave behind former customers, clearly you fall into that group & that is disappointing for you personally & I'm sure SI would prefer not to lose your custom but if sales figures keep rising with each stage of the game's development then the informed conclusion is that the direction that is being taken is the right one as its bringing in more returning/new customers than it's losing.

Can you really fault a company for sticking with a development strategy that appears to be working?

Edit: @dooro23, imp44791's comment about the demo only giving a brief flavour of the game is a fair one. I have tried the demo's in the past & have never felt that I got enough out of them to judge whether the latest version is an improvement on the last, thankfully due to Game points accrued during the year & a timely birthday I never have to part with any cash when getting a copy of FM so I always get it on release.

[psycho1970]

First off customer care isn't or doesn't need to be seen as pandering, it's about listening and if customers needs/expectations are unachievable then you explain in a reasonable manner why in a non arrogant way.

Elsewhere on this forum I've said it's not just about the ME or how hard the game is to some people, theres a lot more wrong with FM13 or putting it another way there's a lot of issues that previous versions have had that have still not been addressed or improved on.

But personally I think SI Games have forgotten it's just a game, while you can applaud them for making it as realistic as possible, there as to be an elementary of fun especially for the people who buy the game for the first time. Now you could say FMC caters for this category, but I think if possible it would be better to have difficulty levels for the main game.

Just going back to FMC, I remember Miles stating in one of the blogs if the challenges and DLC were a success then they would introduce more through the year, out of curiosity a month or so back I had a look on the store to see if anything had been added and I don't think there has been any new challenges added so I would guess it hasn't been as successful as they thought it would be.

My experience in business is as a market trader, where PR and sales strategy are paramount, though I'm no longer in that type of business, I still delve into the buying and selling now and again to keep my hand in just in-case I decide to return one day and immediately due to knowing about sales strategies I am a bit skeptical about the sounds to good to be true deals and general sales fluff.

[dooro23]

The things he mentioned before and after the post, that I think you refer to, were things that are part of the Demo and don't need a long-term save to get up to date. It's still anybody's choice, i just think it skews up discussing things, when you could have easily dipped into it a bit, that's why I take those posts with a pinch of salt.

[Guest]

First off customer care isn't or doesn't need to be seen as pandering, it's about listening and if customers needs/expectations are unachievable then you explain in a reasonable manner why in a non arrogant way.

That's very much a customer facing retail philosophy, the games industry is first & foremost an entertainment business & is more closely linked to the movie business where success is solely defined by units sold or in rare cases critical acclaim for a low unit independent release, in this case the rules of retail do not transfer all that well.

[Dagenham_Dave]

I would like a media module personally, for flavour. To help immersion. I would like it if there were (literally) 2-3 thousand possible questions and an equal number of possible answers, even wacky ones.

Apart from the glaring mathematical anomaly there, ie there would need to be at least double the amount of answers than questions to make it worthwhile, I'd tend to think SI have more important aspects of the game to work on than add in more superfluous scenery.

Also, I don't know what a 'wacky answer' would bring to the game. Completely unnecessary.

[psycho1970]

Fun is such a subjective statement, the more complex the game becomes the more fun I have playing it.

It's a sad truth of game development & business in general that as you progress you will leave behind former customers, clearly you fall into that group & that is disappointing for you personally & I'm sure SI would prefer not to lose your custom but if sales figures keep rising with each stage of the game's development then the informed conclusion is that the direction that is being taken is the right one as its bringing in more returning/new customers than it's losing.

Can you really fault a company for sticking with a development strategy that appears to be working?

Edit: @dooro23, imp44791's comment about the demo only giving a brief flavour of the game is a fair one. I have tried the demo's in the past & have never felt that I got enough out of them to judge whether the latest version is an improvement on the last, thankfully due to Game points accrued during the year & a timely birthday I never have to part with any cash when getting a copy of FM so I always get it on release.

What would be interesting to know is how the sales figures compare between the 1st month for FM12 and 13 and subsequent months after that as I still think that sales would have been inflated by the pre-order beta release for FM13, the months that would probably tell the true story is March after the final patches and then the first month of FM14's release. But unfortunately their unlikely to release such data.

[Guest]

FM is top of the UK PC sales charts for the week ending 22nd June, sounds like it's still shifting units even at this late stage.

[Svenc]

Yes, I know that you don't have to look at what the silly pundit is saying and that you could conceivably send your assman to do the talks. But most people won't do the latter as they're afraid (justified or not is not the point, they're still afraid) that the assman will mess it up and as morale is supposed to be everything they will lose through no fault of their own.

Everyone who thinks that way is likely coming from a very specific school of playing FM, one often influenced by forums myth being accepted as truth when it isn't. None of the player management mechanics has that much of an influence on morale (it is performance first and foremost). And whilst SI should finally document the game seriously better, just sensibly playing the game tells you there's barely a reason to be this afraid of your assistants or believe in those unreasonable forum myths as fact.

I have a bit of a PR and Marketing background myself, but there is a fine line between sensibly filtering customer support and design by comitee - the latter one being something I strongly advocate against, even if it would mean facing a direction I'm personally left out in the cold in. Some products just aren't for me -- and that is okay, as long as they are for SOMEONE and have vision and direction proper to back them and make them all the stronger for it. The only sensible feedback I can personally filter from most of this thread, this is not an insult in any way, given that many vocal posters haven't tried FM 13 and appear to be stuck in the disproven forum myths going around, is that there clearly needs to be better documentation and in-game feedback alike. The documentation in particular is horrible, and hasn't been made better ever since a printed manual was completely abandoned after about FM 2008. That isn't helped by mechanics which must be horrid to document themselves (such as the sliders everybody touches believing they are truly experts when even popular fan guides contradict themselves on/are outdated/incomplete). But the mechanics are all SI's fault and nothing new on FM 2013 or any version prior.

Another feedback I'd take from this thread is that there are certain limitations in the FMC mode that plain don't make any sense - such as the three countries maximum limit. I know FMC is supposed to be a quicker, stream-lined FM experience, but completely getting rid of database customization is taking things a bit far.

FM 2013 was advertised on additional feedbacks, but on top of that it also sported some of the biggest overhauls the ME at its core had in seasons, and that is a fact, whether you deem the a success or not. Some of which likely weren't even noticed by most FM players, there is a reason why shortly after release another of the (sadly) inofficial playing guides was posted adressing the changes. I personally didn't notice myself how strikers were always running straight through their markers as if they weren't there making completely unrealistic tactics far too successfull (and efficient defending a bit of a bitch, in particular at set pieces) -- until I was prompted to it by the 2013 iteration and took a closer look.

[imp44791]

Fun is such a subjective statement, the more complex the game becomes the more fun I have playing it.

Absolutely correct. Which is the reason why I suspect that FMC isn't for me.

Look, I'm happy that SI is still shifting units. Their policy (development, patching, DRM and release cycle) isn't for me, but in the past the underlying merits of the game were such as to make me disregard them. I have now reached my personal breaking point, and no amount of excellence in the database (which is consistently excellent) or the occasional correct (to me) change of direction like shouts and and roles will easily change it. Others haven't reached that stage yet, and yet others (most, if you prefer) don't mind at all. Such is the nature of commerce. It doesn't make my (or other people's complaints) any less valid, or at least worth checking without the instantaneous appearance of a posse of SI-defenders going on the umpteenth variation of "It's Your Tactics" . And, I'm sorry to say, the occasional responses by the company over the years, particularly over the issues of DRM and patching, haven't been what I would consider courteous to the paying public.

EDIT: It also upsets me on a more visceral, or rather tribal, level to see consumers jump to the defense of producers and attack other customers. Perhaps I should call them the "if it ain't broke" crowd. Hint: as a customer your attitude must be "it's always broke. Fix it".

[dooro23]

Very flawed:

That only works if it's your very own bought item that needs support, not if it affects the course of a product for others, who disagree with you and your feedback.

The vast majority of those, that oppose common FM myths - in your opinion "posse of SI-defenders" - usually have a track record of constructive criticism that deals with facts, not the other thing. You'll find exceptions of that rule of course.

[prince0102]

I don't understand all the uproar from the posters here. What is wrong about SI looking at customer feedback ?

If there is such a large body of feedback, it is their job to look at the root cause. Incorrect or Correct, they cannot just dismiss it. If it is incorrect why is it so prevalent. Should we provide more in-game feedback ? They need to figure it out.

IMHO, The only way you can know if some of these "supposed myths" are true or not is if you are an SI employee who is coding the ME. If not.... yours is just an opinion and feedback like everyone else and mine... nothing more.

[themadsheep2001]

I don't understand all the uproar from the posters here. What is wrong about SI looking at customer feedback ?

If there is such a large body of feedback, it is their job to look at the root cause. Incorrect or Correct, they cannot just dismiss it. If it is incorrect why is it so prevalent. Should we provide more in-game feedback ? They need to figure it out.

IMHO, The only way you can know if some of these "supposed myths" are true or not is if you are an SI employee who is coding the ME. If not.... yours is just an opinion and feedback like everyone else and mine... nothing more.

Wait, where is the uproar? Who said it was dismissed? There is looking at it, and there is acting on it. They are two quite different things. There are also feedbacks threads here all the time.

Well no, because SI have debunked them time and again. There is nothing "supposed" about them. You also don't need to know the code to know some of them are complete garbage. Some feedback is quite obviously better than others, and its up to them to decide on what they act/don't act on.

Your opening post

"I think it should be called "Morale manager 2013". I am convinced that the game decides the outcome based on team comparison/ morale/ media prediction etc. and all the match engine does is play it out."

This has been debunked time and again, PaulC himself posted about it not too long ago. Wwfan has posted about it on this thread already, and repeatedly so in the past. Don't think it needs much more than that does it.

I've already spoken about accessibility as being the games biggest. But also players need to take bit of responsibility.

There is this weird idea in some quarters that because its "just a game" it must therefore inherently be easy/simple. Since when has this been a definition for a game. Civ, Hearts of Iron and any other number of games would tell you a game doesn't need to be simple. Dark Souls is just a game, its also one that can is brutally difficult.

The game is trying to be close to real life football in the majority of its facets. It's going to require some modicum of thought and planning by the player, and always will. You are going have to get it grips with it, or be punished. Much like real life managers get punished. Real life football isn't black and white, so why would a representation be different?

[MichaelBrown]

OK, for the last time:

Similarly, sales tell me exactly zip. There is only one sale that matters to me: mine.

But you haven't bought the game. Likewise, many thousands have bought the game and it continues to sell. That suggests to me that people are happy with what the product is and they're prepared to spend their hard earned money on it.

I put MUCH more value in independent paying customer opinions (and less so on the shilling "reviews" from the commercial press) than on a demo. I've seen (as they've seen) the previous versions all the way to the last century, so I zero in on the bits the bother me and see if they have been fixed. When '13 came out, I immediately saw that the problems of immersion were still there for many people. Sure, a lot of the complaints were in the vein of "I can't win!" which are meaningless to me as -as I think I've mentioned at least 3 times already- I always play LLM and losing abjectly is part of the fun. But complaints to the vein of "transformations at half time", "lower league teams pinging the ball about like Barca in order to equalise in the last minutes" and all that, EVEN IF NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE ATTENDANT CONSPIRACY THEORIES, tell me that the problems of immersion are still not solved.

What ''customer opinions'' do you speak of? If the consumer is that disgusted, that horrified with the product, why have they bought it? Likewise, how do you possibly define which customer opinions are credible and legitimate? Months ago, this forum had dozens of people saying that the game was broken etc etc and, whilst there was many issues with the game, there was also issues with how people understood tactics. You'll find that some people whined and went back to FM12, but most took advice on board and are now enjoying FM. So, I'll repeat again, which customer opinions do you go on?

Instead the new version gives me 1000 (or how many they are) new features. I don't want 1000 new features, I want immersion back. Some of the changes I hear are good, or at least bold, as in the training. Well done to that. I was similarly much pleased in the past when shouts and roles/duties were introduced on top of the bare sliders - those were great moves to the right direction of immersion, and ones that do not suffer from repetition.

So amusing that you are ''wanting'' things from the game which you don't actually own. I like most of the new changes. Why don't you listen to me?

Which brings me to the "buy it for FMC's sake". Well, sorry, that's a bathwater/baby argument. If I want to play crippleware, I will (a) demand it for free or (b) go back and play FM04-05. I don't care about updated databases so much as for not being annoyed at a game I paid 35 quid for. Because I will still have to buy the full game (useless to me in that case), won't I? I have to say here however, that I am not as firm about this as I have not played FMC. It would seem to me that having installation options where you would choose which modules you'd like (like we now decide which database to use) is a better way. In any event. I would prefer to play the complete game. Having to play a crippled version, simply because the whole comes with an infuriating hamster maze of a media module, is an admission of defeat.

Hardly crippleware, it's quite insulting to suggest that a welcomed feature is being described in such a way. It's fair to say that some people dislike the 3 country limit, yet people are happy with FMC, it allows them to play the game in a mode which suits them. They are essentially making the choice that you believe they aren't entitled to.

Finally, I have been furious for many years about the patching policy of this firm. I do not care if it makes business sense for them to release half-baked versions every year and only patch them three times. I also have a policy of not giving my money to merchants of this sort. Same holds for the DRM policy (I remember the 09 release debacle). They do it because they think it helps their bottom line. Good for them. I am not planning to add to that bottom line unless the product is so universally acclaimed (and not just by the auto-defenders of anything SI). I already moved my own policy from buying on release date, to buying on final patch release date since FM11. Now I have moved to the "do not buy unless" policy. And judging by the trends of both game and forum, I don't foresee this changing any time soon.

I forgot that FM was the only game that is patched. Plus, I don't see this as a negative. For the record, I think that FM13, at the start, was botched and I was angry, like many others. However, I also commend FM for listening to customers and solving the deficiencies. SI does a lot for its customer base and I think that should be welcomed and encouraged, even if it's to solve the little issues such as data rather than game-breaking bugs.

I await you saying ''release it every 2 years'' which is absolute nonsense as SI are essentially a profiteering company. Then again, I will await you bothering to buy a game in which you are so happy to criticise and mock.

Likewise, it's funny that you complain about the ''auto-defenders of anything SI.'' I can only assume that you will disagree with anybody who is happy with the game as it suits your anger towards those of us who actually enjoy playing 13.

[prince0102]

Your opening post

"I think it should be called "Morale manager 2013". I am convinced that the game decides the outcome based on team comparison/ morale/ media prediction etc. and all the match engine does is play it out."

This has been debunked time and again, PaulC himself posted about it not too long ago. Wwfan has posted about it on this thread already, and repeatedly so in the past. Don't think it needs much more than that does it.

Mine is also just an opinion. I am just giving feedback as a person who paid money for this game.

After playing this game for a few months and every game year in a long term save seeing the same pattern - start of year win streak or mid-year slump and no tactics/ transfers able to change that win-win...draw.. loss-loss pattern has me convinced. Doesn't mean I am right but I am surely frustrated with this ME and want to know what is SI doing about the feedback ?

[MichaelBrown]

Mine is also just an opinion. I am just giving feedback as a person who paid money for this game.

After playing this game for a few months and every game year in a long term save seeing the same pattern - start of year win streak or mid-year slump and no tactics/ transfers able to change that win-win...draw.. loss-loss pattern has me convinced. Doesn't mean I am right but I am surely frustrated with this ME and want to know what is SI doing about the feedback ?

They are listening to feedback I presume. Problem is, a lot of the 'feedback' we see or hear about is people expecting too much of the game or, as much as it hurts me to say it, not understand the key mechanisms.

[themadsheep2001]

Mine is also just an opinion. I am just giving feedback as a person who paid money for this game.

After playing this game for a few months and every game year in a long term save seeing the same pattern - start of year win streak or mid-year slump and no tactics/ transfers able to change that win-win...draw.. loss-loss pattern has me convinced. Doesn't mean I am right but I am surely frustrated with this ME and want to know what is SI doing about the feedback ?

Well the first thing that would be said is that, it's not to do with the ME. That kind of streaky form is a big indication you are unable to manage your players consistency. Transfers. man management, tactics, squad management/building all go hand in hand. But you only mentioned two of them, sounds like you are neglecting at least one, if not two of the four, and that's assuming you are getting the two you mentioned spot on each time. That's less a need for feedback and more a need for some helping advice.

[wwfan]

Mine is also just an opinion. I am just giving feedback as a person who paid money for this game.

After playing this game for a few months and every game year in a long term save seeing the same pattern - start of year win streak or mid-year slump and no tactics/ transfers able to change that win-win...draw.. loss-loss pattern has me convinced. Doesn't mean I am right but I am surely frustrated with this ME and want to know what is SI doing about the feedback ?

The only thing they can do prior to the release of FM14 is to promote good content on these forums, so that users like you can access good advice rather than be swayed by bad fansite myth. There's going to be a problem if you think all opinions are of equal worth, as you'll dismiss the right advice and grasp onto the feedback that supports your perception.

The following is typical of the complaints in the 'frustrations thread" your OP referenced:

Scripted events in the game.

I have a few saves going but one is just for experimenting e.g trying out new saves/tactics. Anyway certain games I lose and I reload the game and try something different to try and better understand the ME and I'll choose a completely different tactic, some different shouts, opp. instructions but the game will still finish the same as the one before I reloaded. And it's not just my games either. Its other games what finish the same scores and I have even got the same team in the FA cup draw before! I would understand if this was a one off but it keeps happening. As if it's 'meant to be'.

Another example is when you're chasing a game, throwing players forward, using shouts, overload etc but no matter what you seem to do it's as if you know the game will not let you score, even though the opposition doesn't even change their tactics or anything to counter this. This is the same when hanging onto a lead, no matter how many defenders you put on, whether you try and keep the ball, counter the opposition or just keep it the same, you always know that late goal will come and surprise surprise it does.

And my final example is mid-season slumps. Particularly when you have by FAR the best team in the league and players, that slump will always come. I respect there are a whole number of reasons as to why this could be but it's just a matter of 'when' and there's not a lot you can do to prevent it. Sometimes, instead of trying to change everything, it's best just to try and wait it out and take your medicine as it is just a scripture in the game that happens to everyone to prevent the game becoming to easy.

Because of this my motivation of playing the game has dropped dramatically as it feels like the game changes the outcome and not you (maybe the very rare aggressive, overpowered half-time teamtalk).

What, exactly, can SI take from this feedback? The user is convinced the game is scripted (it isn't) and that nothing he can do will change things (it can). His strategies are as follows:

1: Randomly try tactics to see if he can get a result in a reloaded game. Many problems here. Firstly, the pre-match motivation and morale will be set in stone, so a certain type of match is to be expected unless the user does something systematic to avoid it. His random tactics will not be match ready. He is going to learn absolutely nothing, so his feedback from the situation is next to worthless.

2: Following a random game plan that involves loading up strategies and shouts willy-nilly to try and grab / not concede late goals. Again, if there's no systematic approach, he's never going to learn anything and results will be random.

3: Deciding that there's no possibility of stopping slumps, so has stopped trying to work out how. Given they always happen when the weather gets worse, the solution is actually staring right at him, but he's given up trying to find it.

Why should SI listen to somebody who's not even trying to learn how to play and throwing in random tactics / pressing continue until the bad things happen? And that's without the perception bias issue of "always" conceding or failing to score late goals. It just can't be taken seriously other than accepting that in-game feedback should better help point out what he should do (which will be useless in the reload scenario anyway). However, if that goes into spoon feeding mode, the rest of us will be somewhat miffed.

[MichaelBrown]

Could you imagine WWFan, a team losing in real life and then in the next fixture, the manager saying listen guys, we're gonna play an absolutely wacky formation that we've never done before and none of us have ever played before as we can only win the game that way.

I've personally found (and feel free to correct me people) that the smallest changes result in the biggest differences. I play decent football, but sometimes I just want to throw on my 6 foot 6 striker and try to get the messy goal rather than the superb finish. Sometimes I like to press that bit more to try and pressure poorer defenders in hoofing it to my defence rather than playing on the counter. The skill in FM is knowing when and how you should apply changes in order to defeat the AI. In the past games, this wasn't necessary as you could build/download some plug and play tactic that would give you a 100 game unbeaten run.

[prince0102]

Fair enough wwfan. I have read some of your stickies before and I really like your posts.

However, I don't think just because a customer is not able to grasp the ME means his feedback is irrelevant. Why doesn't SI try to make the game such that customers can figure out what was wrong and what they should be doing ?

And if Si doesn't do that then I implore you wwfan to make some "lets play football manager videos". Sometimes, a community with people like you can make a world of difference. Example take a team in a slump, show what you do in a game and make a video so others can learn.

Show us in an actual game how you changed shouts when at half time you trail by 2-0 and your team morale is shot.

[prince0102]

Eve online is a perfect example. The game has a lot of depth and complexity and help available from CCP is terrible.

However, the game has a api system so that the community can analyze and use the data openly. The community makes mods to make it more user friendly. The community is he reason why people play that game.

So rather than dismissing that feedback, maybe starting a wiki, "lets play" videos etc. might be the answer.

[wwfan]

Fair enough wwfan. I have read some of your stickies before and I really like your posts.

However, I don't think just because a customer is not able to grasp the ME means his feedback is irrelevant. Why doesn't SI try to make the game such that customers can figure out what was wrong and what they should be doing ?

And if Si doesn't do that then I implore you wwfan to make some "lets play football manager videos". Sometimes, a community with people like you can make a world of difference. Example take a team in a slump, show what you do in a game and make a video so others can learn.

Show us in an actual game how you changed shouts when at half time you trail by 2-0 and your team morale is shot.

My main point is that his method of playing is so alien to actual football that I'm querying more than just how he plays FM, but how much he knows about football in the first place. It's very difficult to know exactly where to place the blame. Is it that:

1: The user doesn't understand the basics of real life football or real life management

2: The user has been corrupted by bad FM myth and is struggling because the advice he's read is so bad

3: FM isn't giving the user enough help

My feeling is that it is all three. It is tough to help somebody in that situation. He'll get defensive if you query his football knowledge or suggest he doesn't understand sliders. You might even see the onset of cognitive dissonance if he continues to rationalise his defensive behaviour.

Sorting out a team in a slump is not that difficult. Take all the pressure off and play more conservative football. Grind out a few ugly results, and then begin to open up again as confidence returns. However, people panic and try all types of crazy solutions, such as random tactic switching, strategy changes, shout combos, hoping against hope that something will work. This is bad management and should be punished. That a forum myth has developed around tactic switching producing results as the AI has no longer "cracked" your tactic is the result of a few people lucking out and getting a result anyway.

It's going to be tough to produce any videos. Lots of work in the first place, but more importantly I'll be artificially forcing situations, which means my long-term management has to be bad. I don't get bad morale or long slumps, because everything I do stops them from happening. It's not a simple "do x, y & z in a match to win" but a holistic strategy in which you never get stuck in a negative spiral in the first place. Chances are, if you are 2-0 down and the team is at very low morale, the match is gone. I'd try to calm them and play on the counter, hoping to sneak a goal and get back into it. Even so, I'd expect to lose. However, my long-term strategy results in me never being in that situation in the first place.

[Ackter]

Just popping in to say that "casserole of nonsense" is one of the best terms I've ever seen on here.

Carry on.

[YKW]

Indeed, having glanced through the thread you've mentioned, it seems to be a microcosm of the whole SI fora. You have one or two people vocally complaining that the game sucks, usually because they aren't winning. You have a few bad theories, regarding one notch of the slider making lots of difference, the AI cracking your tactic, or team talks being overpowered. You then have a few knowledgable people explaining how things work (Mike. The BetterHalf, ajt09), who invariably don't get listened to.

wwfan I have a great respect for you and really appreciate the time you take to help people understand the game better, but for me this quote epitomises the "head in the sand" attitude that imo SI and their defenders seem to be taking when it comes to criticism. For me, it's a classic straw man. Firstly, there are more than "one or two" people complaining. Secondly, the complaints aren't all as remedial as saying "the game sucks." Thirdly, not all people who have criticisms are losing at the game. Fourthly, the sheer arrogance of saying that 100% of the time the "knowledgeable" people are ignored is ridiciculous, and if you really do regard this is as a microcosm of the SI forums then I think that to say that is really disrespectful of the many, many people who have expressed gratitude to you for your incredible advice.

The quoted post is probably the worst you will ever make, in my opinion, because it is absolute rubbish from start to finish, and I have to admit that it has annoyed me. You have knowledge on your side. You have facts on your side. So why seek only to undermine your opposition? This doesn't seem right to me.

What about the people who don't think "the game is crap," but who:

are frustrated at the lack of improvement in AI squad building (considering how long it has been identified)

sick of the number of "new features" that are hyped every year (there will be over 1000 new features in FM14, considering trend.)

feel cheated because they bought a game that they were told had "huge improvements" to the match engine, only after complaints for the makers to refer to it as a "work in progress."

disagree in principle with the chosen DRM method

feel like SIs hype over being able to hire two new programmers was slightly misleading. Personally I thought (and feel as though I was lead to believe) that this would benefit the main game, but it seems as though this was mainly for the introduction of Classic/Challenge modes. At the very least I expected the game to improve at a faster rate than previously, which I don't feel has been the case.

feel lost because no effort is put into helping the player learn how to play the game.

This is a selection of points which, when raised, are almost always ignored. Yet the brainless and butt-hurt complaints are jumped on and refuted and treated like a triumph against all complaints. Then we have to sit back and watch ourselves be blindly painted as one of "the vocal minority" or a "militant anti-SI fundamentalist" etc, with our genuine concerns entirely ignored.

I can only speak for myself, but I used to pre-order CM/FM every year, even though it always needed to be patched really soon. Now I feel I have to play the demo first, because I just don't have faith in what SI say. I don't care about the release day bugs, or the bugs in general (game breaking ones aside, which are rare), because that's a part of gaming. But most of the problems in my list above aren't bugs, and more importantly they aren't old problems. I wasn't annoyed about these things 5 years ago and to me that represents the degradation of my relationship with SI. Still love and respect them, and love FM, but definitely less than before.

BTW +1 for "casserole of nonsense" haha!

[wwfan]

wwfan I have a great respect for you and really appreciate the time you take to help people understand the game better, but for me this quote epitomises the "head in the sand" attitude that imo SI and their defenders seem to be taking when it comes to criticism. For me, it's a classic straw man. Firstly, there are more than "one or two" people complaining. Secondly, the complaints aren't all as remedial as saying "the game sucks." Thirdly, not all people who have criticisms are losing at the game. Fourthly, the sheer arrogance of saying that 100% of the time the "knowledgeable" people are ignored is ridiciculous, and if you really do regard this is as a microcosm of the SI forums then I think that to say that is really disrespectful of the many, many people who have expressed gratitude to you for your incredible advice.

I was referring to the thread the OP was discussing, not the forums in general. If we compare the 15,000 active members to SI's 187,000, then "one or two" obviously multiplies. I stand by my summary of it. Furthermore, one of the mods at that forum, who regularly contributes to that thread, agreed with me. The rest of my post refers to the trend in that thread, which focuses on losing matches the user thinks he should have won and morale management.

As for the rest, you do have some points. In general, debate about the strength of AI squad building is not a significant element of these forums, although it is a point well-made. I also wasn't referring to any non-game playing elements, such as DRM, marketing strategies or hiring practices. It's somewhat disingenuous of you to criticise me for not covering such issues given the flavour of the thread.

What about the people who don't think "the game is crap," but who:

are frustrated at the lack of improvement in AI squad building (considering how long it has been identified)

It is getting better and can be minimised by loading up enough high quality leagues for the AI to have access to a large group of good players. It is obviously a difficult balancing act or it would have been dealt with by now.

sick of the number of "new features" that are hyped every year (there will be over 1000 new features in FM14, considering trend.)

Take it up with marketing.

feel cheated because they bought a game that they were told had "huge improvements" to the match engine, only after complaints for the makers to refer to it as a "work in progress."

There are huge improvements (ball physics, collision detection) and it is always a work in progress. PaulC's message that he's never satisfied with the ME and never regards it as finished is 100% consistent. The actual statement was "it is a little rough round the edges", which does not negate the huge improvements.

disagree in principle with the chosen DRM method

Take it up with the games industry and software pirates.

feel like SIs hype over being able to hire two new programmers was slightly misleading. Personally I thought (and feel as though I was lead to believe) that this would benefit the main game, but it seems as though this was mainly for the introduction of Classic/Challenge modes. At the very least I expected the game to improve at a faster rate than previously, which I don't feel has been the case.

That's your own personal perception and you're welcome to it. Reviews quickly pointed out the value of FMC, so the decision looks justified from a reputation/sales perspective. I know for a fact that some people's love for FM has been rekindled by FMC.

feel lost because no effort is put into helping the player learn how to play the game.

Effort is being put in. The TC added footballing terminology. The training has been made far simpler. The AssMan and backroom team are providing more information. Team talks have far less significance than previously, so getting them badly wrong doesn't matter so much. As I wrote earlier, the key is in the balance between enough good information to play and spoon feeding the user.

When it was recognised that people were struggling this year, SEGA marketing directed people to guides. The problem that those of us giving good advice face is that we are competing against a wealth of bad myth and theory that populate so many other forums. Then people refer to our advice as just being opinion, which it patently isn't. The more I read, the more I'm convinced that people struggle with FM because they have a "gamer" mentality and, although FM has largely transcended gamer solutions, many fansites and forums have failed to catch up and still try to devise game breaking methodologies. I will continue to address this through offering advice and directly arguing against theories that FM is "Morale Manager 2013, as suggested in the OP.

[psycho1970]

This is my opinion of the features that need work or a clearer understanding of how they work -

Match Engine, I don't think anyone can refute that the match engine in FM13 is a step in the right direction, however although I don't think SI Games/Miles lied outright about the state of it in the blogs and posts after the demo was released, I do think that that we weren't told the whole story. Now whether that was down to them believing that it could be fixed before the full game was released or was a PR decision it's ended up turning a lot of people to be disillusioned about the game in whole.

Team talks, Press conferences and Morale, As stated somewhere above this has been a issue for a few years now and I can see it's probably one of the hardest things to get right. Offen I've had to respond to a rival managers press statement and where they are in the relegation zone and I'm at the top one of the questions is "do you agree with ???? that you can avoid relegation" and unfortunately one of the answers isn't "of course we f****** can you T**t". And when you get these respond to ??? questions you then have to do a match press conference where your asked the same questions again. To me the respond to ??? should be similar to the FMC press conference where it's only 1 question and if its hard to code varied questions in, then have it so you only have to answer 2 or 3 questions and leave the respond to ??? question within the main press conference.

Team talks and player and overall team morale needs to be explained in more depth if the FM forums myth's are to be dispelled and with players that are unhappy with not playing first team football they need to set a time limit and take in injury time out into the equation, the amount of times I've had a player that has requested first team football and I've given it to him come back and say there still not happy even after playing in the majority of the next games where there fit and able is unbelievable, though once I tell them their disrespecting me and the club they usually chime down.

Training - this is the one area I don't understand in FM13, it seems like they've dumbed it down and I just don't feel I'm in total control of it, if its a better system it needs a lot more explaining on how it work as it just seems to me that if you choose defensive/attacking/set pieces etc training the whole team does it, I want my defenders to do defensive training and my strikers to do attacking training and maybe at times to mix it up if I so desire.

Tactic's, I remember a few (quite a few) years back you could set a player anywhere on the pitch and pretty much make custom formations i.e. 7-2-1 if your heart desired. Now I remember they changed this due to the new (at the time 3D)ME and new tactical creator not being able to understand these type of formations (probably due to collision detection more than anything), with the advancements of the new ME it would be nice to see this come back.

The Editor, this is where personally my main frustration is, Since FM10 we've been stuck with the same editor, they've added new features sure, like Continental and international Rules etc but with each adage less and less things seem to work as they should i.e. Promotion and relegation, divisional regions via the league rules panel, championship Play-offs, transfer preferences and general flexibility i.e. a lot o people want it so they can change the prize money/squad rules for leagues/cups without having to build the whole system. The Editor needs a complete overhaul, whats needed most though is a middle ground between the standard editor and whats known as the Advanced Editor.

If SI Games want to go down the road of being more a simulator than a game, then whats needed is a official guide so either entry level players or those that struggle with the current state of play can learn from or have a better understanding of how it works. I personally don't think this needs to come with the game, it could well be another source of income for SI Games so could well be a win-win situation for all.

[YKW]

I was referring to the thread the OP was discussing, not the forums in general. If we compare the 15,000 active members to SI's 187,000, then "one or two" obviously multiplies. I stand by my summary of it. Furthermore, one of the mods at that forum, who regularly contributes to that thread, agreed with me. The rest of my post refers to the trend in that thread, which focuses on losing matches the user thinks he should have won and morale management.

As for the rest, you do have some points. In general, debate about the strength of AI squad building is not a significant element of these forums, although it is a point well-made. I also wasn't referring to any non-game playing elements, such as DRM, marketing strategies or hiring practices. It's somewhat disingenuous of you to criticise me for not covering such issues given the flavour of the thread.

Apologies, I didn't mean to come across as criticising you for not addressing the points I made, I didn't have that expectation of you. I felt you were too blase and generalised too much in your post, which I said, and then went on to list my personal grievances as evidence that there are other complaints, not as a list of points you should have made. Thanks again for all the help you offer people. And thanks for responding to my points.

Re: AI squad building

It is getting better and can be minimised by loading up enough high quality leagues for the AI to have access to a large group of good players. It is obviously a difficult balancing act or it would have been dealt with by now.

I really appreciate the difficulty of any kind of AI, and realise that it will just be a matter of time. Personally I would debate to what extent it is "getting better," as loading more leagues has always helped the issue, and having a large group of good players doesn't solve the problems of: 1. AI teams signing players in positions that they don't need, 2. AI teams holding on to aging players for an unrealistically long period of time (also on huge wages). These problems are very prevalent up to and including FM12. I only have demo experience of FM13, so cannot have a first hand opinion, but I have seen mention of these same issues on the forum from career gamers.

I personally only play long games of FM (at least 10 seasons, usually closer to 30) and so this is something that I look out for every year, usually by running a holiday game before I start. I don't want to seem biased so I will add that I loved the addition of dynamic league rep in FM12, and the add/remove leagues feature (I used it sparingly and avoided the problems many others had).

Re: the ridiculous amount of "new features" every year:

Take it up with marketing.

If anybody has contact details then I will. My problem is more to do with feeling like the excessive hype of new features only makes the game slightly more disappointing to play. Perhaps this would be useful feedback to the marketing team, perhaps not.

Re: the ME

There are huge improvements (ball physics, collision detection) and it is always a work in progress. PaulC's message that he's never satisfied with the ME and never regards it as finished is 100% consistent. The actual statement was "it is a little rough round the edges", which does not negate the huge improvements.

Apologies for the misquote. And you are right, but only up to a point in my opinion. The changes in ball physics and the collision detection are undeniably huge fundamental improvements. But that has not immediately translated into huge gameplay/fun improvements. As the gamer I'm not interested in the technical improvements, it's about how it plays. It's fair to say that the early releases weren't received that well at all. And so just as correct as it is to say there have been huge improvements (from the technical side) I personally feel as though it is just as fair to say that there have been huge unimprovements (from the gameplay side). To be more concise about it, I think it is entirely unfair to persuade people to spend their money on your game using the carrot of a "hugely improved match engine" and then deliver what they did upon the game's release.

I've had fun on the recent demo version and don't really have any complaints. But I still, from my personal perspective, don't feel huge improvements in what I am seeing. I'm happy to accept if others do, because it is much improved on the initial version. To me it kind of feels like when somebody tells you they are going to tell you an incredibly funny joke, and then they tell it and it is pretty funny, but you expected more because of their intro.

Re: DRM

Take it up with the games industry and software pirates.

No, it's a principle. As a consumer "taking it up with" is done by keeping your money. How the DRM debate is relevant to my relationship with SI is that I accept their right to put protection on their work, and want them to make as many legal sales of the game as possible. But I don't like using "services" which could one day at any time simply vanish along with all the money I spent. So my perspective on the issue is that I'm happy for FM to be on Steam, because I have been told that it will really help the development of the game and it will be better in the long run. So now I buy the game on the basis of the evidence for or against that. This year so far it has been no. If the game wasn't a steam exclusive then I would probably have bought it regardless, as I always have in the past. I'm not a Steam basher, I used it for FM12 and aside from not realising that I had to put it to offline mode BEFORE I had no internet, I found it to be an incredible service! But on principle I can't accepting owning so little of what I have paid for.

I don't need to go and take it up with anybody. I'm not demanding changes from people, I'm explaining my position. It's relevant to SI because there are at least some other people who also think like this. I'm not demanding they stop the steam thing (it's a great service), I just think they have quite severely underperformed this year, which from my perspective shouldn't be a part of the steam bargain. It's a frustration. I feel like things should be improving faster now.

Re: the new programmers

That's your own personal perception and you're welcome to it. Reviews quickly pointed out the value of FMC, so the decision looks justified from a reputation/sales perspective. I know for a fact that some people's love for FM has been rekindled by FMC.

I also know somebody who says this about FMC so I fully respect its inclusion. However if the main game development didn't have an increase in man power this year, which is what I suspect and what appears to be the case, then I think I rightfully feel mislead, because I feel as though the microtransactions have taken priority over the core game. It is a petty annoyance, but having to pay for a son did really annoy me more than anything else in my FM career. I've played the game for over a decade and always yearned for a son, but no improvements to this in the main game, only things you can pay for. I know how silly this sounds, but I am just being honest.

I do understand it from a business perspective, but I feel as though FM14 is make or break for me in terms of SIs reputation, because they now have the benefits of the steam deal, the added income from the microtransactions and also an improved ME that should continue to improve. If FM14 is as similarly underwhelming as 13 (not to say it is bad) then I will feel really upset, to be honest.

Re: lack of help to players

Effort is being put in. The TC added footballing terminology. The training has been made far simpler. The AssMan and backroom team are providing more information. Team talks have far less significance than previously, so getting them badly wrong doesn't matter so much. As I wrote earlier, the key is in the balance between enough good information to play and spoon feeding the user.

When it was recognised that people were struggling this year, SEGA marketing directed people to guides. The problem that those of us giving good advice face is that we are competing against a wealth of bad myth and theory that populate so many other forums. Then people refer to our advice as just being opinion, which it patently isn't. The more I read, the more I'm convinced that people struggle with FM because they have a "gamer" mentality and, although FM has largely transcended gamer solutions, many fansites and forums have failed to catch up and still try to devise game breaking methodologies. I will continue to address this through offering advice and directly arguing against theories that FM is "Morale Manager 2013, as suggested in the OP.

I was harsh in saying no effort is being put in. The guides you mention I don't think have anything on the advice you have given. But with all due respect, you are just some forum member. Maybe there wouldn't be so much myth and theory if there was a bit more solid and official documentation. It would help if you had a slightly higher level of endorsement.

Regarding the bolded, I actually think this is a source of confusion. I was having internet problems when trying to post in your reflections thread, but this is the post I was trying to make. It was regarding people claiming that they didn't understand the game. It wasn't directed at you but it explains my thoughts on the confusion.

I'm open to being corrected, but from what I have read on here, the frequency of (ridiculous) defensive errors leading to goals is still something of an unexplained phenomenon. I don't think this is a problem that can really be just put in the category of "failing to understand the game."

I have never had long term problems with adapting to a new FM or CM, and every version evolves and brings with it new challenges and means of exploitation. With regards to "lacking an understanding of tactics or at least how to convert them into FM," this is a fair point. However there is certainly a case to be made, as I have done on this forum, that the tactical changes actually make less rather than more sense to the average football fan as it has introduced highly subjective terminology which may mean 1 single thing in FM, but, firstly, means different things to each individual fan of football, and secondly often doesn't exist in normal conversation about football.

Mentality, Forward Runs, Run With Ball, Through Balls, Closing Down, and Tackling. These were the tactical factors 10 years ago, and they are still the tactical factors, as "deep lying playmaker" or "inside forward" are just pre-set combinations of the different slider levels. So with the aim of making things simpler, they have actually in some ways been made more complex as I am now further removed from the bit that actually makes objective sense. I now need more understanding, some of which is an understanding of someone else's opinion.

Similarly, where on classic CM/FMs I would change a slider and then see the outcome and learn from it, now I am selecting different roles, or using shouts without (unless I check manually) any indication of what I have ACTUALLY changed. Therefore I lean by trial and error exclusively instead of by being able to understand the mechanism.

I honestly think this is one of the biggest causes of the slightly polarised opinions on the game. I use the tactics creator and the shouts, and would even say that I enjoy them, and think they are a decent addition. But like most of the big changes to the game it is only a cosmetic change and while it may make the game easier to play, it makes it much harder to understand. It's a big problem in my opinion.

[fireychariot]

Why have I wasted time reading this thread instead of playing the game I stopped reading some people's post especially from those who have never played the game. .......oh just wait I'm wasting my time writing on this thread now as well. lol

I love the game. A lot of people have probably played the series just as long as I have probably longer however I do admit bar probably 1 year it has always improved and I enjoy it further each year as well. I do not remember a year where I got to the point that I did not want to buy the next in the series. I have never got to a point where I had a bad experience and so was going to boycott buying it.

Ok constructive criticism first(All of which I have put in the relevant threads) ------ Yes ok some aspects like the same predictive questions being asked in press conferences however I do understand that a game can only have a limited amount of questions and reactions to your answers as well it can not be like a real person who will think on their feet and ask follow up questions to any answers.

Why can the Director of Football only try and sign one player at once or offer out one player at once on the transfer/unwanted lists respectively

A few more interactions with players for instance you join a team and want to persuade them not to leave on a free by offering them some promises and ability to offer them a contract

A game is all subjective and people will have numerous ideas that they want to have introduced and I have no doubt that the SI do look and listen as well.

Those saying they seeing a lot of negatively have to remember how often do you see people actually talking about how brilliant a game is....Why? probably because they will be too busy playing it (as I should be however I felt I needed to have my say on this) however if somehting is not too their taste or find something wrong waste no time to moan about it and so forums will often have a lot more downs than ups really.

Back to my Coventry mission(already been sacked by them however they have offered me the job back and I ready to take them up from league 1 in the following season)!!!

[wwfan]

I was harsh in saying no effort is being put in. The guides you mention I don't think have anything on the advice you have given. But with all due respect, you are just some forum member. Maybe there wouldn't be so much myth and theory if there was a bit more solid and official documentation. It would help if you had a slightly higher level of endorsement.

There are forum members and there are forum members. SI obviously pick their moderators for a reason. Those who are seen to be genuinely knowledgable about certain aspects of the game get invited to moderate the forums. FrazT, for example, is great at fixing technical issues with FM. If he suggests how you might fix something to get FM working on your PC/Mac, you won't tell him "that's just your opinion" and do something else entirely. It's the same with the tactical mods. They are asked to mod because we know they get tactics, often better than many (even all) of the SI employees themselves.

Obviously the tactics mods are under an extreme amount of pressure to get things right, as we most directly deal with how to play FM, and a lot of our input quickly disseminates. Each of us also has a different speciality. Cleon goes deep into the nitty gritty about conceptualizing and employing certain player roles, formation shapes and shout combos. Heath (when he's around) gives great advice on media and motivation strategies. I try to provide a simple overview of how the TC works and explain the strengths and limitations of the ME. Furiousuk gives well-rounded advice across all aspects of tactics. If somebody is not sure about something, he can ask Paul (ME), Riz (motivation) or me (TC).

This obviously puts us in a different category than people who moderate fansites. In general, those who mod the better sites (thinking of the FM-Base and Dugout mods here) have a really good understanding of how things work. However, there are an awful lot of people drifting around the fansites/blogs that don't and give advice that's often plain wrong. There's nothing we can do about that except hope the good information spreads.

As you might have noticed, we've clamped down hard on the serial moaners, ranters and diggers this year. Partly that was because they made the forums a horrible place to visit, for SI staff, moderators and general members alike. They also made it impossible to spread good information about how things work, because every time we posted some advice, they'd vehemently attack it. The helpful information was getting drowned out in a torrent of abuse and vitriol. It's been extremely noticeable that a greater number of people than previously are grasping the intricacies of FM, and some of the threads over the last six months have been fantastic to be involved with.

Having said that, I'll now try to respond to your analysis of the TC.

I have never had long term problems with adapting to a new FM or CM, and every version evolves and brings with it new challenges and means of exploitation. With regards to "lacking an understanding of tactics or at least how to convert them into FM," this is a fair point. However there is certainly a case to be made, as I have done on this forum, that the tactical changes actually make less rather than more sense to the average football fan as it has introduced highly subjective terminology which may mean 1 single thing in FM, but, firstly, means different things to each individual fan of football, and secondly often doesn't exist in normal conversation about football.

Mentality, Forward Runs, Run With Ball, Through Balls, Closing Down, and Tackling. These were the tactical factors 10 years ago, and they are still the tactical factors, as "deep lying playmaker" or "inside forward" are just pre-set combinations of the different slider levels. So with the aim of making things simpler, they have actually in some ways been made more complex as I am now further removed from the bit that actually makes objective sense. I now need more understanding, some of which is an understanding of someone else's opinion.

I do struggle with this argument. Prior to the TC, you had to ask a player to have a mentality of 16, closing down of 12, passing of 4 etc, etc. Firstly, this is horribly abstract and very few people have ever been able to adequately grasp how things fit together. Secondly, if you do work it out, it provides a ridiculous amount of micro-control, beyond that which any football manager could ever have in reality. There's just no way that you can change players' behaviour with 5% margins.

The TC does three things. It firstly removes the abstraction of the sliders. It secondly reduces the level of micro-control. Thirdly, it increases the level of dynamic control. While that is a big methodology shift in FM, it is far more akin to the tools a real manager has at his fingertips. It basically takes decision making out of the slider module and into the match.

As for the terminology, I'd question whether there is that much subjectivity in how the various roles work. Even if you don't entirely agree, you can change the individual player instructions to reflect your opinion. As long as you don't touch mentality, you'll keep tactical coherence. If you have another opinion on mentality, it will be wrong. There can be no other opinions as the ME is designed around a very specific mentality logic that has no real world equivalent. Everything else can be changed to your heart's content (although each manual change reduces the dynamism).

As for the "normal conversation" element, I don't think it is relevant. FM is a football management simulation, not an armchair pundit simulation. If users aren't being pushed to understand football concepts beyond the everyman in the pub level, then I'd question the legitimacy of the term "simulation" and argue that FM is getting dumbed down.

Similarly, where on classic CM/FMs I would change a slider and then see the outcome and learn from it, now I am selecting different roles, or using shouts without (unless I check manually) any indication of what I have ACTUALLY changed. Therefore I learn by trial and error exclusively instead of by being able to understand the mechanism.

I honestly think this is one of the biggest causes of the slightly polarised opinions on the game. I use the tactics creator and the shouts, and would even say that I enjoy them, and think they are a decent addition. But like most of the big changes to the game it is only a cosmetic change and while it may make the game easier to play, it makes it much harder to understand. It's a big problem in my opinion.

This argument is only relevant if you are still focused on slider interaction. I designed the TC slider interaction and have so much forgotten they exist that I need to go under the hood to check if the settings are as I remembered. For me, the only relevant outcome of a tactical change is what happens on the pitch. How the sliders have actually moved are totally irrelevant.

Unless the argument can be made that a real life manager must understand player and team instructions to 5% margins over and above knowing how players should move and pass within a standard formation, I don't see any actual defence of sliders outside of a gaming one. Sliders are useful in that they can inform a dynamic higher level control, but should be irrelevant in the wider scheme of things. In FM13, I think they pretty much are, as messing with them is more likely to break a tactic than make it.

[mentalist123]

But there are a few moderators who are aggressive to complaining users.

They behave like an authority and these attitudes give more frustration to users.

I suggest point system for moderators.

Good moderators like wwfan get high points, but those few moderators with low points would be deprived of their moderator authority.

[themadsheep2001]

But there are a few moderators who are aggressive to complaining users.

They behave like an authority and these attitudes give more frustration to users.

I suggest point system for moderators.

Good moderators like wwfan get high points, but those few moderators with low points would be deprived of their moderator authority.

By and large they are an authority, in terms enforcing of the rules, and also in terms of knowledge. Frankly if you are getting someone like Kriss wound up, then you have more than certainly crossed the line pretty badly

[looknohands]

To the OP and those of the same viewpoint:

What are you doing to help SI correct what you feel is wrong with the game? Posting your complaints to a general discussion forum--much less on forums outside of SI's control--isn't going to do much good.

Here's a helpful tip--gather evidence to support your grievances and post it in the proper bugs section. Explain what the problem is, why you think it's wrong, and what SI can do to fix it.

From the OP:

Personally, I am so frustrated with the game. I think it should be called "Morale manager 2013". I am convinced that the game decides the outcome based on team comparison/ morale/ media prediction etc. and all the match engine does is play it out.

I think this game needs to be made more challenging but this is just a ridiculous way of doing it.

Well, that doesn't really clear things up, does it? Posts like this must drive SI mad because there's no possible way to defend/explain a point that hasn't really been made. The game decides the outcome based on team comparison? Meaning what? What is being compared? Morale? I've lost numerous games with a team flying high and manage to find a way to win in the playoffs almost yearly despite a seemingly-predictable slump at the end of each season that guts team morale.

The bugs section exists for a reason, people. Use it. I've personally hounded poor Henry Charnock in the US section with suggestions on improving the MLS experience, but not once has he come off as dismissive and/or defensive. Quite the opposite, in fact; he's been more than happy to explain why things were happening the way they were, the rationale behind it and that any and all suggestions raised will be looked into, if possible. FM13 was the first FM in the past 4 or 5 years (as long as I've been playing) that didn't suffer from a game-breaking bug within MLS' convoluted structure, and the biggest reason for this has been the consistent involvement of a handful of MLS fans that have actively engaged with SI representatives, as well as SI's willingness to listen and accept the feedback of their customers.

[Richey2008]

If this thread was a court case, the judge would be banging himself over the head with the gavel.

[MichaelBrown]

By and large they are an authority, in terms enforcing of the rules, and also in terms of knowledge. Frankly if you are getting someone like Kriss wound up, then you have more than certainly crossed the line pretty badly

Knowledge is a fair point and I agree that those, especially at the start who argued ''OMG this game and the developers are crap'' offer no substance in their arguments and therefore don't contribute to the debate. However, it was only on another thread where a moderator said something along the lines of ''I'll just ban you tbh'' which, in my eyes, is AS BAD as the posters who just whinged and moaned.