ctfm2012 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Greetings, Wouldn't it be nice to be able choose which options/functions of the game you would want to run in your FM games, this would eliminate the Full & Classic modes. There were some things in the full version i liked and some in the classic mode i liked as well. Pity I couldn't get the best of both worlds. It would be nice before starting a career to allow you to choose what parts "addons" you would want to run in the game like e.g. "training" yes/no, coaches yes/no. Give us a turnkey system, makes life easy. I can't understand why we can't be given a list of functions we can enable disable for our game. Probably will make life easy for the devs instead of working on 2 different packages all the time. Imagine the support frustration behind it. If you enable a turnkey system and people wanted "training" in their fm games and there was a problem with it. People would be reporting it as "training problem" and not e.g "fm full mode training problem" or "fm classic mode training problem". Anyways just my thoughts. Hope you guys can post your thoughts as well. enjoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 How easy is it to just turn features on and off, especially ones that are integrated into others? Since its so easy, i would imagine you could answer that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameuss Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I can't understand why we can't be given a list of functions we can enable disable for our game. Probably will make life easy for the devs instead of working on 2 different packages all the time. Imagine the support frustration behind it. No. Just...no. It absolutely does not work that way. Certain things may be modular, but that doesn't mean that you can just turn them off and carry on with the game. Funny you should mention support frustration. Tell me, how frustrating would support be when you have to determine which combination of modules a player has activated before you can work out what they've done? Plus considering devs will either work on FMC OR FM, and not both, your other point is moot too. This is never going to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmious7 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 milnerpoint asks a good question. Actually ctfm2012, having 2 separate game modes might seem harder to you to develop and maintain properly, but in reality it's much much better for the testing part in comparison with having several parts that could be combined in any given way. Imagine if we have like 30 options to turn on and off how many possible combinations are there? And a good development team will have to test all of them, at least to a point. Much more time consuming that having 2 separate and clear options which can be better designed and tested. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki679 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 How easy is it to just turn features on and off, especially ones that are integrated into others? Since its so easy, i would imagine you could answer that? He didn't say it would be easy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameuss Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 You need to think things through properly before posting things like this, because you will generally just get slated for not doing so. Not necessarily of course, and a lot of the time it can bring good discussion. It's just the "This will make things so much easier" line of argument, when it's clearly not going to that really annoys me. In these cases, yes, think things through. He didn't say it would be easy. Not directly, but he did say "easy" twice, and then didn't understand why it wasn't an option already. If that's not saying that it's non-trivial, I don't know what is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roykela Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Not necessarily of course, and a lot of the time it can bring good discussion. It's just the "This will make things so much easier" line of argument, when it's clearly not going to that really annoys me. In these cases, yes, think things through.Not directly, but he did say "easy" twice, and then didn't understand why it wasn't an option already. If that's not saying that it's non-trivial, I don't know what is. So, from the OP, that's what the focus will be on? Saying "easy" twice? A good discussion doesn't necessarily start with the OP. It begins with the replies. The very first reply slated the OP and needlessly so. Sets the tone for the rest of thread. In reply to the OP. The idea is something i wouldn't mind, as i love customisation. I don't, however, think that it would be a good idea for FM. As has been mentioned, it could possibly make it a lot more difficult for the developers to iron out bugs and mistakes. Adding a whole new layer of combinations (and possibly a bunch of them) could complicate things more. So from me i, unfortunately, will have to say no. Although i do like the general idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctfm2012 Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share Posted May 28, 2014 I was mainly talking about whats under the hood. Obviously all full FM features are not in the classic mode, doesn't that mean you have to choose one or the other ? now do you see my point. The turn key system i was referring to is before you start your career. Settings from the start and not during matches or weeks or season. Pre season settings setup thats all. As for the support features no i don't think it would be a nightmare under the hood. because for e.g. if you had the problem in classic mode you would need to figure out the problem in that area and on top of that which other areas affect that or causing it. Which again is different from a full FM features mode which could have something different as we have seen. So again you could be working on different problems for both versions chewing up resource time. If you had the problem in one app then you would only need to work on it as a whole and not worry about cross modified versions or platforms of the game. Again when you go to a restaurant don't you look at the menu to see what you want to order ? or are you faced on buying the steak & mushroom sauce that you like with the unwanted asparagus that comes with it weather you like it or not? In the end wouldn't it be nice to have a choice rather than being forced to eat it when you don't ? welcome to the 2014 where choices are limited because obama has taken them from us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameuss Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 As for the support features no i don't think it would be a nightmare under the hood. because for e.g. if you had the problem in classic mode you would need to figure out the problem in that area and on top of that which other areas affect that or causing it. Which again is different from a full FM features mode which could have something different as we have seen. So again you could be working on different problems for both versions chewing up resource time. If you had the problem in one app then you would only need to work on it as a whole and not worry about cross modified versions or platforms of the game. But this just isn't true. Someone reports a bug in FMC, the devs go and look in FMC. They report one in FM, thye look in FM. If they report one in your turnkey system, then they'll have to know which modules are active and which aren't, and then have to work through the complexity of which modules work with which others and so on. You're hugely oversimplifying it, and your main argument seems to be that if you don't have both FM and FMC as separate apps (worked on by completely separate teams remember) then everything will be rosy. Replacing two distinct, fixed modules, with one module that could have hundreds of different combinations of modules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roykela Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 But this just isn't true.Someone reports a bug in FMC, the devs go and look in FMC. They report one in FM, thye look in FM. If they report one in your turnkey system, then they'll have to know which modules are active and which aren't, and then have to work through the complexity of which modules work with which others and so on. You're hugely oversimplifying it, and your main argument seems to be that if you don't have both FM and FMC as separate apps (worked on by completely separate teams remember) then everything will be rosy. Replacing two distinct, fixed modules, with one module that could have hundreds of different combinations of modules. This was exactly what i was thinking. The complexity of which modules work with others. Which ones are active and not. What knock-on effects will it have on those areas and other, seemingly, unrelated areas and so on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Yeah thats the issue, so many of the modules work in combination with others, which is why FMC was made, to take out the modules that could be taken out to speed the game up, its just not as easy as flicking a switch on and off with any of the modules you want. You then, as pointed out above, create a huge amount of work for the devs as they try and figure out if every single combination of modules works, and when a bug comes up they would have to investigate so many more levels of coding. A fine idea, but not useful in practise im afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctfm2012 Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share Posted May 28, 2014 fine no problem, just had some thoughts thats all. cheers and ty for the info Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overmars Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Some options seem like a nightmare to implement, but would it really be too difficult to offer the option of fixing tactical familiarity at 100% for any human manager tactic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I believe that is the case in FMC is it not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Lucas Posted May 28, 2014 Administrators Share Posted May 28, 2014 Some options seem like a nightmare to implement, but would it really be too difficult to offer the option of fixing tactical familiarity at 100% for any human manager tactic? Have you tried FMC? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overmars Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Yes, I am aware of FMC. I was, however, working off of the OP's suggestion of having optional components in the main game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagenham_Dave Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I believe that is the case in FMC is it not? I just got the achievement the other day whilst playing FMC (five seasons in) about having all three tactics maxed at 100%. Even though you only use one tactic at a time, and there's no tactical familiarity. Thought that was a bit weird. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aderow Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I just got the achievement the other day whilst playing FMC (five seasons in) about having all three tactics maxed at 100%. Even though you only use one tactic at a time, and there's no tactical familiarity. Thought that was a bit weird. Basically what happens is that tactical familiarity starts at 100%. That's how it is essentially eliminated from FMC. Steam sees 100% and gives the achievement. At least that's what I've been told. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.