What is SI doing to address customer complaints and frustrations ?

[BiggusD]

No-one at SI has said that as far as I'm aware. I've said morale makes a difference. Teamtalks have a slight effect on morale, but player form/happiness and interaction I'd say has more of an effect. This is how misinformation spreads, you've not actually read what I've said before where I didn't even specifically mention teamtalks.

Yeah morale is important obviously, but so is having the right focus. Would you say that nervousness and complacency both have a major effect on team performance?

[Neil Brock]

Yeah morale is important obviously, but so is having the right focus. Would you say that nervousness and complacency both have a major effect on team performance?

I would say they should certainly. I'm not sure of all the innermost workings of the match engine and how players adapt to it, but if a player has a low rating for important matches, expect him to be nervous for a cup final and that his performance could well be effected.

[Rupal]

Well, Svenc the fact is that there have been threads about the considerable number of remarkable half-time turnarounds in matches, and if it wasn't the half-time team talk or tactics change or MY team talk or tactics change which brought it about, then what the hangment was it? You nearly always have to react to something or other during the second half and what I am saying is that this manifests itself by either the OPPOSITION'S players apparently becoming better or MY players apparently becoming worse or both. Now however great the opposition manager is, I don't believe that he should be able to add an extra three metres of pace to someone or make someone else jump as if they had lead boots. But I take your point - and I DO understand that the effects of talks and tactics changes have to show up SOMEHOW. All I'm saying is that it doesn't look realistic!

I also agree that other areas need overhauling. I find some of the player contract negotiations ridiculous (at lower league level you can't get a decent player on a non-contract basis for the sake of £10 per week (board limit) so you offer the guy a part time contract worth LOADS more money and he won't take it.....) Scouting, press, talks..... I'd love it if there were NO new features in FM14 and there was a real effort by SI to sort out some of the issues which people have been moaning about for ages.......

[LilSaint]

An, "Is this your first time in football management" option? perhaps worded in a manner that would be less likely to infuriate the proud

good call. maybe a system like the fifa game series uses, that checks if you've played previous versions & make that determine your experience as a manager (still allowing you to change it if you so desire) although that might be stretching it too far

[YKW]

To perhaps needlessly weigh in on the other debate going on, I can't really fathom how something that is the best in it's field, and is also the best ever can really be described as 'mediocre.'

That said, to use only the FM series as the benchmark, is the FM13 ME a significant improvement on other games in the series in terms of fun/playability? I personally would have to say no. Hopefully the large strides taken forward from the technical side of things result in even better MEs in the future.

In terms of Rupal's point about competition for FM, my main hope is simply that there remains at least some other management games out there, just so that the direction of the genre isn't determined exclusively by one company (in this instance, SI). For example, as awful a game as FIFA Manager is, they still do have some innovations. The delegation of staff roles feature (an excellent addition to FM13) was in FIFA Manager first. FIFA Manager also has a "squad hierarchy" feature that shows you the power structure amongst the players, which effects happiness. Si should take this, it is a very interesting feature.

A second benefit is that the total market for football management games can grow as a result of there being more games of different focuses. For example, an increasing number of people may buy FIFA manager because of the focus they put on the life of the manager character, making the game a bit more The Simsy than Simulation. Some of these people may have never bought FM because it is more of a simulation. But once they exhaust their in game personal life they may now actually be a football sim fan, and move across to FM.

If it had nothing to do with the devils EA I would have probably bought it just out of sympathy. In a "pat on the head, nice try, keep going" type of way.

[Herbert Fandel]

at lower league level you can't get a decent player on a non-contract basis for the sake of £10 per week (board limit) so you offer the guy a part time contract worth LOADS more money and he won't take it.....)

Loads more as in, 100pw more? 200pw more? At that level it is very rarely 300pw more. Why would he give up being part-time and able to earn loads in another job (continuable beyond the age of 35), just for the sake of 200pw more? Don't confuse irritating with illogical.

[Rupal]

I didn't say it was illogical though - I used the word 'ridiculous'. What I should have done was be more clear of course. And the example which I chose wasn't particularly good. So I'll just refer you instead to the people who complain about superstars who refuse 25k a week wages offered (or even more) and then sign the next week for half that amount with an AI club........

[Rupal]

If the reference to 'mediocre' is to my comment about the match engine, YKW, then I stand by what I said. I think that there is considerable room for improvement in it.

Again, let us accept that FM is the best in its field for a moment. That doesn't, of itself, prove that it is actually a good game. All it does is to prove that it isn't as bad as the alternatives, which is a very different matter.

[Herbert Fandel]

I didn't say it was illogical though - I used the word 'ridiculous'. What I should have done was be more clear of course. And the example which I chose wasn't particularly good. So I'll just refer you instead to the people who complain about superstars who refuse 25k a week wages offered (or even more) and then sign the next week for half that amount with an AI club........

Why just refer me instead? you can't take one thing which isn't at all an issue and then swap it for something that quite clearly is an issue and then make out like I'm giving the same answer to both?

p.s. "AI club" alone doesn't make it a flaw, it is only when the AI club is lower rep, lower league, worse training facilities, lower city, etc. that it is an issue. Sadly even with all that it still happens

[BiggusD]

I would say they should certainly. I'm not sure of all the innermost workings of the match engine and how players adapt to it, but if a player has a low rating for important matches, expect him to be nervous for a cup final and that his performance could well be effected.

Would you say that team talks have a major effect on team nervousness and/or complacency, then?

[Rupal]

Why just refer me instead? you can't take one thing which isn't at all an issue and then swap it for something that quite clearly is an issue and then make out like I'm giving the same answer to both?

p.s. "AI club" alone doesn't make it a flaw, it is only when the AI club is lower rep, lower league, worse training facilities, lower city, etc. that it is an issue. Sadly even with all that it still happens

Of course it happens - that's why I mentioned it. And as regards the other issue let me give you a little example. I had a player turn down £150 appearance money per week plus £150 per goal (board max), plus £750 avoid relegation bonus plus over £1k promotion bonus plus maximum cup and league bonus because I could not offer him £160 per week appearance money. So he will probably end up with no money at all (cos nobody else was after him). Do you really think that makes sense? I didn't want to bore people with the details as it's a very minor issue anyway, but if you insist....

And I wish I understood your point about the reputation of the AI club. The fact is that people moan that they offer the max they can (say 25k) - it's turned down by the player and the next week he signs with another club in the same division for 'only' 12 k a week. What has the club reputation to do with it? He's now about 13k a week worse off than he would have been if he'd signed with the complainant in the first place. If he's willing to accept 12k why wouldn't he accept 25k?

Anyway, I think we've about done this exchange to death!

[Guest]

The problem of players accepting lower wages has been acknowledged however the only absolute way to fix this would likely require a significant increase in the memory requirements, once the data shows that the majority (80%+ would be commercial expected) of FM'ers are using hardware & an OS that can cope I'm sure the issue will be eradicated.

[Neil Brock]

Would you say that team talks have a major effect on team nervousness and/or complacency, then?

Effect? Likely. Major? Almost certainly not. Teamtalks don't have a 'major' effect on anything.

[Jarmel]

I would say they should certainly. I'm not sure of all the innermost workings of the match engine and how players adapt to it, but if a player has a low rating for important matches, expect him to be nervous for a cup final and that his performance could well be effected.

Does that include a positive effect or just a negative effect ? It would be both i hope but i doubt it. I play cricket and when I'm nervous is when I play at my best as I'm more alert and not over confident and stick to what i now i can and cant do.

The morale system seems to me to be to much of an influence in FM 13 and fickle , lose a game and the morale is blown completley , give the wrong talk to some one and the other players get upset by it .

I'm sure the ME tactics side is as brilliant as people say it is as i have seen some beautifull play in game, but for a layman like my self when i use the TC to create a high d line/ possesion based game and the game doesnt play like that at all , so i changed to a TC counterattack tactic only to find that the Counterattack tactic works exactly how i wanted my High d/line/pos tactic to work , well then something isnt right .

The glaring mistakes/bugs (bad programming) of defenders/ keepers just not going for the ball is totally unacceptable and should never be accepted by anyone.IF they happen again in FM 14 the those responsible need to be held accountable.

Been playing since fm 2007 so I'm no novice and FM 13 is the most unfun game. A totall lack of immersion and feels way to random and gives managers like my self no feedback to know what where doing wrong . I think the over reliance on shouts is painfull your starting tactic shouldnt need any shouts at all they should be there to change things on the fly only not to be an integral part of the tactic. Just imagine the players walk out of the tunnel and just as the whistle blows the managers start screaming out all this stuff before a ball is kicked in anger , Its not more depth its more complication and totally unrealistic.

And please get rid of the tone on team talks and player interaction , The options we had before were fine , angry, not happy , encourage . I dont know how to encourage my players now. No matter what is said someone loses morale more often than not , even when saying pleased :/.

I write this not to bag the game but hopefully to let Si know what went so wrong in FM 13 for players like myself.

[BiggusD]

Does that include a positive effect or just a negative effect ? It would be both i hope but i doubt it. I play cricket and when I'm nervous is when I play at my best as I'm more alert and not over confident and stick to what i now i can and cant do.

The morale system seems to me to be to much of an influence in FM 13 and fickle , lose a game and the morale is blown completley , give the wrong talk to some one and the other players get upset by it .

I'm sure the ME tactics side is as brilliant as people say it is as i have seen some beautifull play in game, but for a layman like my self when i use the TC to create a high d line/ possesion based game and the game doesnt play like that at all , so i changed to a TC counterattack tactic only to find that the Counterattack tactic works exactly how i wanted my High d/line/pos tactic to work , well then something isnt right .

The glaring mistakes/bugs (bad programming) of defenders/ keepers just not going for the ball is totally unacceptable and should never be accepted by anyone.IF they happen again in FM 14 the those responsible need to be held accountable.

Been playing since fm 2007 so I'm no novice and FM 13 is the most unfun game. A totall lack of immersion and feels way to random and gives managers like my self no feedback to know what where doing wrong . I think the over reliance on shouts is painfull your starting tactic shouldnt need any shouts at all they should be there to change things on the fly only not to be an integral part of the tactic. Just imagine the players walk out of the tunnel and just as the whistle blows the managers start screaming out all this stuff before a ball is kicked in anger , Its not more depth its more complication and totally unrealistic.

And please get rid of the tone on team talks and player interaction , The options we had before were fine , angry, not happy , encourage . I dont know how to encourage my players now. No matter what is said someone loses morale more often than not , even when saying pleased :/.

I write this not to bag the game but hopefully to let Si know what went so wrong in FM 13 for players like myself.

Your problems with team talks seems to be the lack-of-reputation issue rather than the module not functioning right. It does, once the players adore you. There are still unexplainable streaks of (team) nervousness setting in from time to time, but complacency is relatively straightforward to avoid.

My tactic doesn't need shouts most of the time, only motivation and the right focus among the players.

The thing about counter-attack = possession football I have complained about for well over a year and I think SI is aware that I am not the only one. Basically FM-Attacking-Football = what England failed at in the U21 Euros in June, FM-Counter-attack was what Spain succeed with, while REAL counter-attacking football was what Norway did most of the time. The latter is not possible in the engine without lots of trickery because it requires a deep line and high defensive awareness and low risk while passing direction and run timing is Attacking in essence.

[Svenc]

Just imagine the players walk out of the tunnel and just as the whistle blows the managers start screaming out all this stuff before a ball is kicked in anger , Its not more depth its more complication and totally unrealistic.

Shouts are base tactics modifiers. No matter how future solutions will be set up, first there needs to be some kind of base strategy to be decided upon. Attacking, counter, whatever fits the bill. And then you go from there. Should we try to exploit the flanks? Go through the middle? How should build-up play be handled? Do we want to hold possession? Get the ball forward? How do we approach tackling? Which is exactly what shouts cover, which can be applied way before kick-off and for realism's sake could be called something else if you insist on it. It has been also been said many times that the strategies in the TC are more plastic as they seem. If you are confused with some of the labels, just think of them as increasingly "attacking" and forward pushing base starting points, in the exact same order as they come: contain-defensive-counter-standard-control-attacking-overload. As such, you can also get the more aggressive ones to recycle possession by applying shouts ("retain possession") or use the team modifiers "passing: shorter", etc.

For a strictly possession based tactics "control" is the most aggressive I would personally go though. It also helps to make options available, naturally, i.e. not encouraging everyone to rush forward, and to field someone playing a holding role for the defenders to always pass to. I wouldn't employ "counter" to play keep ball, since it still has the counter-element inherent to it (unless you untick the box). Contrary to what is still written in the manual, when a counter is deemed "on", and it is much more frequently deemed "on" when the box is ticked, every player's mentality and the tempo will be maxed out, with everyone bombing forward until the attack is over. As the text reads, the strategy is meant to draw the opposition out before quickly hitting them on the break when opportunity is there, and as such does what it says on the tin. Without the box ticked, it's a less aggressive, forward pushing "standard" tactics in essence (lower mentality, lower closing down, lower d-line, etc.). Naturally a lot of play will be quite safe, if not further modified by shouts and modifiers anyway. But you can do just as well with a "standard" tactic that is encouraged to keep the ball by the aforementioned shouts.

That said, no matter what future iteration's tactical setups will look like, you need a base to cover, and then individual customization from there. If your starting line-up is sound, there is no way it will completely fall apart just because you aren't applying further customization. Sometimes that isn't even needed, depending on your approach not anyway. However you likely aren't getting the best out of your team in each and every situation. I.e. not encouraging a wingless opposition to be exploited by overlapping full backs or exploited flanks. Still, such isn't a requirement for success. Many an FM player goes by just fine by superior player development and scouting alike anyway.

There was also a guy who complained that he didn't understand what the shouts were doing and thought "work the ball into the box" was meant to encourage through balls when all it does is to discourage pot shots. For that there needs to be better documenation also. I don't think there has ever been a specific section in the online manual (the only piece of official documentation left). Shouts were extensively covered in Tactical Theorems 10 though, but a lot of information in there should have always shipped with the game ever since the TC was introduced. Above laying some ground work in terms of football tactics and logics as modelled in FM (which FM doesn't do out of the box, and which isn't necessarily obvious, see the many misconceptions going around), it is as good a manual for the TC as they come.

I understand the initial mistrust though. The first thing I did before really using the TC was checking how each of its concepts (strategies/philosophies/roles/shouts) was set up in terms of sliders. Its hard to let go if you're used to different. However, if anyone thinks the sliders to be more intuitive, he/she's either PaulC in disguise or just plain weird. As documented, even a lot of the most well-known posters on these forums had THEORIES on the effects of some of those. THEORIES, think about that. A shout encourages exactly what it does on the tin.

[BiggusD]

Effect? Likely. Major? Almost certainly not. Teamtalks don't have a 'major' effect on anything.

Yeah that is what I have been talking about the last two months, also in Darthrodents teamtalk thread. There are underlying "currents" of nervousness and complacency that managers are not told about in-game, and they are heavily influencing team performances - but there are limited tools to deal with them.

I think that many of those who feel the game is "scripted" and rebrand the game Teamtalk Manager 13 are really describing how the morale and motivation system drives the events of the game without human input.

What it IS: nervousness and complacency waxing and waning as the season goes by, influenced by wins, losses, player personalities and man management.

What it looks like on the pitch: your players actively sabotaging your game plan.

[Guest Satchy]

Hmm, regarding the team talks I find that the biggest effect they have is on motivation and nervousness. I completely agree that nervous players really cause problems. I find that fielding more youngsters requires a more 'no pressure' team talk, and that it significantly affects the levels of nervousness in the subsequent half of play. When I expect a win of my squad, it can cause more nervousness in young players, but also lead to more motivation in the subsequent half of play for the players with more established mental traits.

[wwfan]

Untrue, and disproven, according to studies by Roland Loy (google if you like) in about 1/3 of the matches the team that sees more of the ball wins the match. That's 33% in 1000 matches being recorded by him. Possession itself doesn't mean a thing, though going the complete opposite (aka not being able to hold it any, aka the traditionally "British" game) obviously can make for big disadvantages against certain opposition and in certain climates. As does the shot count: what good is it going all battle-ram against a side sitting deep and blasting it 30 times wide from distance.

Just to back this up:

Possession: Thanks to OPTA stats and The Guardian, we have exact knowledge of how often a team wins when having more possession (57%) and more shots (71%). Even if you always dominate the shot count, over a 60 match season you should expect to fail to win circa 18 times. Obviously, you will win some matches very easily. The key to being good at FM is not those matches, but reducing this 30-40% figure to one that will ensure you win some trophies.

CCCs: Thanks to OPTA, we know that most players convert less than 50% of their CCCs. Of the 33 players having 10 or more CCCs in last season's EPL, only 8 scored with 50% or more of them. In contrast, 11 converted 30% or less. Further, some strikers are almost completely reliant on CCCs for their goals, normally Target Man or Poacher types. As we've explained in these forums for FM13, that is one reason why they generally don't make good lone forwards. In contrast, as page two of the article illustrates, more complete strikers can fashion chances out of nothing.

In this Guardian article, OPTA even go so far as to determine a probability conversion for each chance. In a match in which Newcastle outshot Reading by 16 to 7 and had 56% of possession, they lost 2-1. The OPTA analyst suggests that Reading deserved to win, for they had the two best chances in the match with a 49% and 69% probability of conversion, compared to Newcastle's best chance, which had a 34% probability. In actuality, Reading won because they scored from a 17% probability chance. Across the match the data suggested Reading should score 1.6 goals and Newcastle 1.4, so the 2-1 result was a fair one. Whereas FM doesn't yet have that level of analysis, an educated subjective eye on the match analysis screen should be a good substitute.

[wwfan]

Me:

Are you serious? What other outcomes are there?

And saying that how the sliders have moved is totally irrelevant seems hugely ignorant to me, seeing as they are the factors that result in the relevant outcome. I think your great understanding of the topic is deluding you here, if I handed you a circular combination lock and tasked you with unlocking it would you spin the dial randomly and claim that the only relevant outcome was whether the lock opened, and what numbers were being used were irrelevant? A more logical approach to understanding the lock would be to compare the numbers you input with the result you got, and work from there.

Absolutely serious. The sliders are tools, the TC has concepts. You need tools to be able to build things. You only need to understand the concepts to be able to work them.

There's a wonderful Vincent D'Onofrio film, Happy Accidents, in which he plays a time traveller. People keep on asking him to explain how time travel works, stating that if he can't, then they won't believe him. He replies by telling them although you can drive a car, do you know how the engine works? Same thing for time travel and same thing for the TC. If you understand the basic footballing concepts, you don't need to have access to the tools.

You, personally, might want to use tools, but, for the general user, they shouldn't be required. All the advice we give in tactics is based around the concepts. We rarely ever mention how the sliders work anymore.

[wwfan]

Been playing since fm 2007 so I'm no novice and FM 13 is the most unfun game. A total lack of immersion and feels way too random and gives managers like myself no feedback to know what where doing wrong. I think the over reliance on shouts is painful. Your starting tactic shouldn't need any shouts at all. They should be there to change things on the fly only not to be an integral part of the tactic. Just imagine the players walk out of the tunnel and just as the whistle blows the managers start screaming out all this stuff before a ball is kicked in anger , Its not more depth its more complication and totally unrealistic.

Shouts are an advanced strategy, which is why you can load them en bloc before a game starts. A lot of the better tacticians have a number of shout groups pre-made, which they can then load up in a match. You need to think of them as an integral part of match preparation that players are ready to switch to whenever the right situation applies. Thinking of them as panicky, last-minute screams obviously makes them look unrealistic. I recognise that this is not clear enough in the game, but it has been slowly becoming more explicit.

And please get rid of the tone on team talks and player interaction , The options we had before were fine , angry, not happy , encourage . I dont know how to encourage my players now. No matter what is said someone loses morale more often than not , even when saying pleased :/.

The tones relate to player and squad personality and can produce in match results. If you want a team to give their all in a derby, the passionate is likely to result in a free for all with cards being handed out all over the shop. If you want the players to control themselves, the calm is a better option. Both can be related back to media interactions.

The richness is wonderful if you stop and think about it for a few seconds. Making this richness explicit is obviously where SI are struggling, but, as I said previously, if it is made too explicit, it spoon feeds and suspends imagination, which makes for a worse game.

[themadsheep2001]

Speaking of shouts, I'd like the ability to save shouts in the way you do tactics, so that you can immediately load them into a new save, rather than having to create them again for each new save.

[thomit]

If the reference to 'mediocre' is to my comment about the match engine, YKW, then I stand by what I said. I think that there is considerable room for improvement in it.

Again, let us accept that FM is the best in its field for a moment. That doesn't, of itself, prove that it is actually a good game. All it does is to prove that it isn't as bad as the alternatives, which is a very different matter.

But it IS a very very good game. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be buying it each and every year. Even the ME, which is flawed, is very good ... why? Because there are none better. That says to me that the ME is relatively close to be as good as it can be, given our limitations in technology and the limits in the users' hardware (processing power). The players on the pitch is mechanised, scripted, automated ... whatever you want to call it - they can't think. Each and every little action the players do or don't do have to be automated beforehand. If this happens, the player does this. If this and this happens, but not this, the player does this. SI's task is to automate and take into consideration as many "causes and effectses" as possible. (This includes team and player form, skill, morale, fitness etc.). And then throw some randomness into the mix. And there's no way SI or anyone else could make a player AI (for each of the 22 players), real time, act like real, thinking football players. We haven't got the technology, not to mention the processing power needed. Of course there will be hilarities, and "stupidity", and frustrations. And plain wrongness. But I'm afraid it has to be. And it will always be. All SI's ME tinkerers can do, is to try to automate as much as possible, try to iron out as many flaws as possible, and try to do that without it having effects elsewhere they do not want. I think you probably have far, far too high expectations of what a ME with only rudimentary "AI" can do. And rudimentary the AI will remain. To make even 1 single player act anything like a real, thinking football player, would take processing power that is way way way above what your poky little pc can offer. Not to mention the programming needed. It still hasn't been done, anywhere, by anyone, you know.

What I see in the ME, is that they have done a bloody good job, limitations considered. Still niggles to be ironed out? Certainly. Loads. Still glaring wrongness that needs to be sorted out? Certainly. Quite a few. But overall, a bloody good job.

[Guest Satchy]

The richness is wonderful if you stop and think about it for a few seconds. Making this richness explicit is obviously where SI are struggling, but, as I said previously, if it is made too explicit, it spoon feeds and suspends imagination, which makes for a worse game.

You are a positive light around here, sir. Keep up the good work.

[andyinuk]

I always found it funny that there are people who actually believe SI staff will turn up to work every day and say to themselves, "Hey these mugs would have bought the game regartdless. Let's pop down to the pub again today instead of working."

[Rupal]

There is a huge logical flaw in the suggestion that, because there are no better MEs around, it follows that the FM ME must be good. That's like saying that, because it's better to have a cold in the head than pneumonia, it follows that having a cold is good for you.

Now the great claim made for FM is its 'realism'. If people moan about injury rates, for example, they are told that FM is a realistic simulation and the injury rates correspond to the real world. Fair enough. But if we are going to use 'realism' as a benchmark we need to be consistent. People who suggest that the injury rates/severity can spoil the playability of the game are generally on the receiving end of howls of protest that this would ruin the realism. So much the worse for playability. Again, fair enough. And yet, some of the loyal defenders of FM seem to be prepared to accept extraordinarily unrealistic player behaviour on the pitch; things happen which, frankly, look really, really silly. For many of us, the matches are a very important, if not THE most important, parts of the game and surely there should be realism there as well? In addition, we use what we see in the matches to give us some idea about how to turn things round if we're losing, or stay ahead if we're winning and so it seems to me that it's very important for the ME to present as realistic a picture as possible. If you end up losing a match 2-0 because of some utterly bizarre piece of player behaviour by your goalkeeper and a freak goal from the halfway line that really is NOT going to be helpful in the slightest.

People can't have it both ways. Either this is a 'realistic' simulation or it isn't. I am NOT expecting FM 'players' to be 100% accurate little virtual versions of real footballers. But I do think that it's not unreasonable to expect them to behave more realistically on the pitch than, at times, they do. I could be even more boring than usual and provide a list of all the silly player actions I've seen in the ME but I think that would waste everyone's time, including my own. What I am asking for is for the ME to be improved and for the most glaring inadequacies at least to be eliminated. I really don't think that any useful purpose is served by people trying to maintain that the current offering is better than it actually is.

[cerud]

I love comparison arguments when people are using different measuring sticks Fun read.

[wwfan]

There is a huge logical flaw in the suggestion that, because there are no better MEs around, it follows that the FM ME must be good. That's like saying that, because it's better to have a cold in the head than pneumonia, it follows that having a cold is good for you.

Oooh, an illogical analogy. My favourite. The best you can be is well. If FM's ME sets the standard against which all other MEs must be judged, the having a cold is good for you analogy doesn't follow.

That's not to say I don't think the ME can't be improved. Just that, at the moment, it is the healthiest ME around. Unless, of course, you can illustrate how other ME's might be better than it.

[Ackter]

It's the best SI engine yet.

It's the best engine that's ever been in any football and football management game.

Can it be improved? Yes.

Could it realistically have been improved more than it was? Not by much. Time constraints and the difficulty of making a great engine are always going to be problems.

[hursty2]

The people that are having these frustrations are still into the game. Spare a thought for me who likes the idea of the game but can't get into any save at all.

Help.

[Rupal]

Oooh, an illogical analogy. My favourite. The best you can be is well. If FM's ME sets the standard against which all other MEs must be judged, the having a cold is good for you analogy doesn't follow.

That's not to say I don't think the ME can't be improved. Just that, at the moment, it is the healthiest ME around. Unless, of course, you can illustrate how other ME's might be better than it.

Indeed, the best you can be is in perfect health. However, even the most dedicated fan of FM would find it hard to defend the proposition that the ME is perfect and if they tried to I am confident that it would be very easy to prove them wrong. The ME could obviously be improved in various ways (as you yourself have just stated). How much room for improvement there is is a matter of subjective judgement but it is clearly NOT in perfect health and consequently the cold analogy is apposite enough. Just because the ME is better than the others it does not follow that it is good, it merely shows that it is less bad than they are, which is a very different matter. It really is that simple you know wwfan.

It's nice to have some exchanges with you again. But please don't fall into logical fallacies in your eagerness to defend the game!

[hluraven]

Not perfect does not automatically equal bad though, which is what you seem to be implying. No-one has said it is perfect, everyone has said things can be improved, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Yes, it is not perfect, yes SI are trying to make it better, yes it is by far the best available right now, what else are you trying to say?

[themadsheep2001]

Indeed, the best you can be is in perfect health. However, even the most dedicated fan of FM would find it hard to defend the proposition that the ME is perfect and if they tried to I am confident that it would be very easy to prove them wrong. The ME could obviously be improved in various ways (as you yourself have just stated). How much room for improvement there is is a matter of subjective judgement but it is clearly NOT in perfect health and consequently the cold analogy is apposite enough. Just because the ME is better than the others it does not follow that it is good, it merely shows that it is less bad than they are, which is a very different matter. It really is that simple you know wwfan.

It's nice to have some exchanges with you again. But please don't fall into logical fallacies in your eagerness to defend the game!

Hang on, to be fair you're the one falling into logical fallacies here.

The whole cold analogy is very convoluted and pretty illogical here.

Its not perfect (it never will be), it can always be improved, it's still by far the best out there, and does a pretty good job as a representation of football overall.

Now that is as simple as you can get.

[Jarmel]

wwfan

"Shouts are an advanced strategy, which is why you can load them en bloc before a game starts. A lot of the better tacticians have a number of shout groups pre-made, which they can then load up in a match. You need to think of them as an integral part of match preparation that players are ready to switch to whenever the right situation applies. Thinking of them as panicky, last-minute screams obviously makes them look unrealistic. I recognise that this is not clear enough in the game, but it has been slowly becoming more explicit. "

See this is where its wrong, they should not be an advanced strategy that is part of of your core tactic . For instance if i want my team to exploit the flanks and overlap this is done in the normal tactics by having your wb on run forward often and your wingers set to move into channels or cut inside and forward runs to sometimes and focus passing down both flanks.

The Shout , "exploit the flanks" should only be needed when you are changing tactic mid game along with "look for overlap". They should be used only to change from your tactic on the fly not be part of its base.

A "shout" is out to the players on the pitch in action not something that is pretold to them . Well that is what I think it should be . If not they should be called additional instructions inside the TC. I should not need to rely on shouts to get my base tactic to work as intended but in FM 13 it kinda feels like you do.

[hursty2]

wwfan

"Shouts are an advanced strategy, which is why you can load them en bloc before a game starts. A lot of the better tacticians have a number of shout groups pre-made, which they can then load up in a match. You need to think of them as an integral part of match preparation that players are ready to switch to whenever the right situation applies. Thinking of them as panicky, last-minute screams obviously makes them look unrealistic. I recognise that this is not clear enough in the game, but it has been slowly becoming more explicit. "

See this is where its wrong, they should not be an advanced strategy that is part of of your core tactic . For instance if i want my team to exploit the flanks and overlap this is done in the normal tactics by having your wb on run forward often and your wingers set to move into channels or cut inside and forward runs to sometimes and focus passing down both flanks.

The Shout , "exploit the flanks" should only be needed when you are changing tactic mid game along with "look for overlap". They should be used only to change from your tactic on the fly not be part of its base.

A "shout" is out to the players on the pitch in action not something that is pretold to them . Well that is what I think it should be . If not they should be called additional instructions inside the TC. I should not need to rely on shouts to get my base tactic to work as intended but in FM 13 it kinda feels like you do.

That would involve changing your base tactic every game though. Shouts allow you to change it easily, without changing everything.

[wwfan]

wwfan

"Shouts are an advanced strategy, which is why you can load them en bloc before a game starts. A lot of the better tacticians have a number of shout groups pre-made, which they can then load up in a match. You need to think of them as an integral part of match preparation that players are ready to switch to whenever the right situation applies. Thinking of them as panicky, last-minute screams obviously makes them look unrealistic. I recognise that this is not clear enough in the game, but it has been slowly becoming more explicit. "

See this is where its wrong, they should not be an advanced strategy that is part of of your core tactic . For instance if i want my team to exploit the flanks and overlap this is done in the normal tactics by having your wb on run forward often and your wingers set to move into channels or cut inside and forward runs to sometimes and focus passing down both flanks.

The Shout , "exploit the flanks" should only be needed when you are changing tactic mid game along with "look for overlap". They should be used only to change from your tactic on the fly not be part of its base.

A "shout" is out to the players on the pitch in action not something that is pretold to them . Well that is what I think it should be . If not they should be called additional instructions inside the TC. I should not need to rely on shouts to get my base tactic to work as intended but in FM 13 it kinda feels like you do.

They are additional instructions. Think of them as the additions you make prior to or during a match to cope with the opposition's formation, the weather or the pitch, or react to the changing scoreline, or too being under pressure etc, etc. You can pre-tell them to players in exactly the same way you set Opposition Instructions. They create a match strategy specifically for that match. I don't see why they need to be hard-coded into a base tactic. The base tactic is the core way you play. The shouts adjust that way to the situation the team is facing, either pre or during the match. You are just limiting your own options by perceiving them that way.

[Rupal]

Hang on, to be fair you're the one falling into logical fallacies here.

The whole cold analogy is very convoluted and pretty illogical here.

Its not perfect (it never will be), it can always be improved, it's still by far the best out there, and does a pretty good job as a representation of football overall.

Now that is as simple as you can get.

Sorry but there's no illogicality whatsoever in what I am saying. The cold analogy is perfectly correct. Let's assume that the ME is indeed the best. This says nothing other than that it is better than the opposition. It says nothing significant at all about how good it is in absolute terms. You are making the ASSUMPTION that it 'does a pretty good job' and this is a subjective judgement on your part and nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether it is better or worse than the alternatives on offer. The two are not connected.

Look at it this way. Suppose that I managed to bring out a game tomorrow with a perfect match engine. Would that alter how good or bad the FM one was? Obviously not, because the latter would remain exactly the same. My game's ME wouldn't affect the FM one in the slightest.

Is that clear now? Think about it!

[hursty2]

Best is on a scale in comparison to others. Not sure what you're arguing here.

[themadsheep2001]

Sorry but there's no illogicality whatsoever in what I am saying. The cold analogy is perfectly correct. Let's assume that the ME is indeed the best. This says nothing other than that it is better than the opposition. It says nothing significant at all about how good it is in absolute terms. You are making the ASSUMPTION that it 'does a pretty good job' and this is a subjective judgement on your part and nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether it is better or worse than the alternatives on offer. The two are not connected.

Look at it this way. Suppose that I managed to bring out a game tomorrow with a perfect match engine. Would that alter how good or bad the FM one was? Obviously not, because the latter would remain exactly the same. My game's ME wouldn't affect the FM one in the slightest.

Is that clear now? Think about it!

Well no because no one has been calling it perfect at any point. Nor does not being perfect equal a bad thing. A cold is a bad thing. Not being perfect =/= bad. The analogy doesn't hold up.

I'm genuinely lost as to what point you're actually trying to make here.

[wwfan]

Indeed, the best you can be is in perfect health. However, even the most dedicated fan of FM would find it hard to defend the proposition that the ME is perfect and if they tried to I am confident that it would be very easy to prove them wrong. The ME could obviously be improved in various ways (as you yourself have just stated). How much room for improvement there is is a matter of subjective judgement but it is clearly NOT in perfect health and consequently the cold analogy is apposite enough. Just because the ME is better than the others it does not follow that it is good, it merely shows that it is less bad than they are, which is a very different matter. It really is that simple you know wwfan.

It's nice to have some exchanges with you again. But please don't fall into logical fallacies in your eagerness to defend the game!

You've misunderstood my argument. I was objecting to the logic of your analogy, not suggesting the ME couldn't be improved. I stand by my argument that if you want to use health as an analogy, the FM13 ME is the healthiest ME ever produced, and thus defending it is not like saying it is good to have a cold rather than pneumonia.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'm interested in your opinion about unrealism. I don't ever object to players making occasional stupid errors. They should happen, including goalkeepers making horror mistakes and the odd long range superstrike. As long as they are not repeating patterns, then I have no problem with them. There are plenty of things that could be improved, but random errors or mistakes don't apply. Have you noticed any patterned errors, or is it the random ones that bug you?

[Rupal]

Not perfect does not automatically equal bad though, which is what you seem to be implying. No-one has said it is perfect, everyone has said things can be improved, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Yes, it is not perfect, yes SI are trying to make it better, yes it is by far the best available right now, what else are you trying to say?

I said that it had faults. I stand by that. I didn't at any point say it was bad. I described it earlier as 'mediocre' and gave it 5.5 out of 10. Somebody else gave it 6.5.

Now we can argue till we are blue in the face about exactly how good or bad it is - that's a completely separate issue to the confusion of thought being shown by the people who try to insist that it must be good because it isn't as bad as the alternatives. That's fallacious. OK?

[themadsheep2001]

They are additional instructions. Think of them as the additions you make prior to or during a match to cope with the opposition's formation, the weather or the pitch, or react to the changing scoreline, or too being under pressure etc, etc. You can pre-tell them to players in exactly the same way you set Opposition Instructions. They create a match strategy specifically for that match. I don't see why they need to be hard-coded into a base tactic. The base tactic is the core way you play. The shouts adjust that way to the situation the team is facing, either pre or during the match. You are just limiting your own options by perceiving them that way.

I wonder if its the name "shout" given to them that gets some people hung up on what they are called, rather than what they do.

[themadsheep2001]

You've misunderstood my argument. I was objecting to the logic of your analogy, not suggesting the ME couldn't be improved. I stand by my argument that if you want to use health as an analogy, the FM13 ME is the healthiest ME ever produced, and thus defending it is not like saying it is good to have a cold rather than pneumonia.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'm interested in your opinion about unrealism. I don't ever object to players making occasional stupid errors. They should happen, including goalkeepers making horror mistakes and the odd long range superstrike. As long as they are not repeating patterns, then I have no problem with them. There are plenty of things that could be improved, but random errors or mistakes don't apply. Have you noticed any patterned errors, or is it the random ones that bug you?

On pattern errors, defensive headers. Defenders usually try to avoid giving away corners us much as they can help it(all things being equal) In FM defenders will actively seek to head a ball for a corner, even under no pressure, and even when its easier to take a clearing action.

[Rupal]

You've misunderstood my argument. I was objecting to the logic of your analogy, not suggesting the ME couldn't be improved. I stand by my argument that if you want to use health as an analogy, the FM13 ME is the healthiest ME ever produced, and thus defending it is not like saying it is good to have a cold rather than pneumonia.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'm interested in your opinion about unrealism. I don't ever object to players making occasional stupid errors. They should happen, including goalkeepers making horror mistakes and the odd long range superstrike. As long as they are not repeating patterns, then I have no problem with them. There are plenty of things that could be improved, but random errors or mistakes don't apply. Have you noticed any patterned errors, or is it the random ones that bug you?

It's you who completely fails to grasp a very simple logical point. I have not misunderstood you. Just because the ME is better than the alternatives, it does NOT follow that it is GOOD. It could be very bad indeed and still be a bit better than anything else on offer. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You could argue that Fred West was a bit better than Dr Shipman because he killed fewer people, but I trust that you wouldn't suggest that this proved that he was a good man???

*Edit: Let's try to keep it really simple. I have 4 or 5 strikers on my books and the guy with the best finishing is rated 7. He is a better finisher than all the alternatives. Does this make him a good finisher? No it flippin' well doesn't! He is a pretty lousy finisher but the others are even worse.

[wwfan]

It's you who completely fails to grasp a very simple logical point. I have not misunderstood you. Just because the ME is better than the alternatives, it does NOT follow that it is GOOD. It could be very bad indeed and still be a bit better than anything else on offer. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You could argue that Fred West was a bit better than Dr Shipman because he killed fewer people, but I trust that you wouldn't suggest that this proved that he was a good man???

I wouldn't, but that's because I have better men to compare him against. I have no better ME than the FM13 ME to compare it against, therefore, it is the healthiest and best ME ever produced. Defending it as such is not akin to saying that having a cold is good because at least it is not pneumonia.

I'm not going to continue with this argument because it is patently ridiculous.

[Jarmel]

They are additional instructions. Think of them as the additions you make prior to or during a match to cope with the opposition's formation, the weather or the pitch, or react to the changing scoreline, or too being under pressure etc, etc. You can pre-tell them to players in exactly the same way you set Opposition Instructions. They create a match strategy specifically for that match. I don't see why they need to be hard-coded into a base tactic. The base tactic is the core way you play. The shouts adjust that way to the situation the team is facing, either pre or during the match. You are just limiting your own options by perceiving them that way.

Then they need to be called Additional instructions in the next version and not shouts .

So now I am assuming we need set up a fairly generic framework in which we use the shouts to fine tune to how we want to play. Then does the use of differing shouts change how familiar the team is in the tactic . ie Say i have a stock standard 442 everything set to auto or default . I use a set off shouts that will produce a possession based game and another set that produces a dour defensive based game. When i change between these shouts will that effect how familiar my team is with the tactic ? Its a question i dont know the answer. It should change it dramatically apart from the formation it will play totally different (well hopefully) . What im getting at here is if it doesnt then its a cheat , as if had made these two different tactics in the TC then it would take time for the team to learn them. If using shouts on a generic basic framework will allow you have allmost any tactic be very familiar for the team as long as you stay in the same formation. Considering my team can only learn three tactics , if using shouts by passes this and allows my team to know 18+ different tactics It kinda defeats the purpose.

[themadsheep2001]

Then they need to be called Additional instructions in the next version and not shouts .

So now we need set up a fairly genric framework in which to use the shouts to fine tune to how we want to play. Then does the use of differing shouts change how familiar the team is in the tactic . ie Say i have a stock standard 442 everything set to auto or default . I use a set off shouts that will produce a possession based game and another set that produces a dour defensive based game. When i change between these shouts will that effect how familiar my team is with the tactic ? Its a question i dont know the answer. It should change it dramatically apart from the formation it will play totally different (well hopefully) . What im getting at here is if it doesnt then its a cheat , as if had made these two different tactics in the TC then it would take time for the team to learn them. If using shouts on a generic basic framework will allow you have allmost any tactic be very familiar for the team as long as you stay in the same formation. Considering my team can only learn three tactics , if using shouts by passes this and allows my team to know 18+ different tactics It kinda defeats the purpose.

But the name is irrelevant? It doesn't actually matter what they are called, but what they do surely.

[Rupal]

I wouldn't, but that's because I have better men to compare him against. I have no better ME than the FM13 ME to compare it against, therefore, it is the healthiest and best ME ever produced. Defending it as such is not akin to saying that having a cold is good because at least it is not pneumonia.

I'm not going to continue with this argument because it is patently ridiculous.

Your failure to grasp the most elementary logic is the only ridiculous thing here. Just because the ME is the best ever produced it doesn't follow that it is good. At one time, the Spitfire was the fastest British fighter aircraft, faster than the Hurricane. Does that make it, in absolute terms, a FAST aircraft in 2013??

The fact that there are other, worse, alternatives makes NO difference WHATSOEVER to the question of whether the FM ME is good, bad or indifferent in absolute terms. The only thing which is proved is that the FM version is better than the alternatives, like the Spitfire was faster than the Hurricane.

If you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the blindingly obvious elementary logical principle involved in this then there is, indeed, no point whatsoever in continuing the discussion.

[Guest]

Is it time to expand the infraction for car analogies to all other forms of analogies? Some of the stuff in this thread has left ludicrous far behind.

[Jarmel]

themadsheep2001

"But the name is irrelevant? It doesn't actually matter what they are called, but what they do surely. "

Disagree completely , a shout is the manager on the sidelines barking out instuctions to his players in game and that is how shouts were promoted when they were implemented to the game.

Like in life attention to detail on the little things allows the big things to work.