Message to SI devs! Match engine killing Fm.

[HUNT3R]

Fair points. There is a 'too many cooks' element, as others have pointed out, and for some modules this would be very true so there can only be so many in a team.

Comparing motion capture to translation is, imo, ridiculous. It's a headline feature compared to translation. From a business point of view it's an easy decision. It's not an either or situation necessarily. Money can be spent on both areas?

QA is something that's something that can always be improved on, I guess, in every company. The game selling more every year makes it possible to hire more QA (and other) guys every year, so it's not an issue, imo.

Personally I don't really care, nor is it any of my business, how SI spend their resources. The main parts (ME and AI transfers/contracts) get improved every year (and it's already very good as it is, lets face it) so any extra features, whether graphics or something else, is just a bonus.

[Guest]

YKW, as a former game QA I can comment on part of our post.

There is a limit to optimal staff numbers due to there being a direct link to the number of coders available to fix issues that are found.

The QA team could be made up of 20, 50 or 100 on site members of staff but if coding team only have the resources to address the volume generated by 50 QA staff members hiring another 50 would not be worthwhile & could actually be detrimental.

[forameuss]

Another obvious example is that I doubt how plausible it is that a QA team could be at capacity. There is always the opportunity to increase the level of QA done on the game, and so improving ANY area of the game at any cost directly takes away from this area. The existence of separate teams and/or the sizes of those teams are irrelevant. Their wages could be spent on QA.

I'm not convinced on this. From experience, it's a bit of a curve as to how useful hiring extra testers would be. Of course if they're hiring a tiny number, to the point where they can't get to the level of testing coverage that they want to, then more will obviously help. But, testing is only going to cover a finite number of avenues, and it won't be as simple as throwing more people at it. Or it could just be a case that the benefits of throwing, say, 3 more testers at it would be outweighed by the financial negatives of spending 60-120k a year on those three people (numbers plucked totally out of the air btw). I've worked at both ends of the spectrum - a small company that had 2 testers (1 at times) meaning that the development team had to do a lot of testing (not ideal) and we still pushed out releases that weren't as covered as they should have been, and a huge company with a surplus in testers, that still pushed out releases that had bugs.

Personally, they'd be better served sticking with good beta testing, trying to tempt more good testers in that way. Gets a lot more coverage on diverse systems, and a lot more cost-effective. But I digress.

EDIT: Barside puts it quite well in his post above (made after I started) too.

I'm more interested in what SI view as being a possible pinnacle of this era of FM in terms of the 3D engine, rather than the opportunity cost discussion which only opens SI up to potential criticisms as in the above paragraph.

I would be very interested to hear that too. Although it's very possible they just don't know, or haven't set a long term goal in this regard. They'll have a mid-to-long term plan I imagine for a couple of releases, but I doubt they have a pinnacle idea on 3D. It's probably just a case of improving where they can with the technology they can get their hands on at the time. Would be very interesting to hear their thoughts on it though.

[HUNT3R]

Also, YKW, some features appealed to you, others didn't. You're never going to please everyone.

Some features appeal to me, some I don't care about at all. Others will love additions that mean very little to me. The game has an audience with different 'needs'. Some are more casual, some more hardcore and others are in the middle. Some like scouting, others hate it. I don't use a DoF, but others get a DoF to handle staff contracts or to buy players for them. You need to cater for all your customers and hopefully pick up new ones along the way. All of this, still with the aim of making the game more realistic.

The game is getting easier to navigate with all the 're-skinning', at the very minimum. Items are better arranged and in more logical places, although I'm sure someone will come up with a case where this isn't true

[MBarbaric]

Is that a game video? I thought I was watching a real match!!!!!!!

it is some engine developed for betting on virtual matches

[YKW]

Comparing motion capture to translation is, imo, ridiculous. It's a headline feature compared to translation. From a business point of view it's an easy decision. It's not an either or situation necessarily. Money can be spent on both areas?

I totally agree with you that it is an easy decision. However I'm not comparing the two, I'm just pointing out the fact that resources (whether time or money etc) are finite and will run out. Whether it is a direct choice between the two is nothing to do with it, but the total spending on each is linked. If we are talking about whether improving one area takes away from improving other areas then it is a valid point. You are right that money can be spent on both areas, but SI have a finite amount of money. If the two areas in question were the only two areas in the game, then the total amount of resources allocated to each would have an inverse relationship.

YKW, as a former game QA I can comment on part of our post.

There is a limit to optimal staff numbers due to there being a direct link to the number of coders available to fix issues that are found.

The QA team could be made up of 20, 50 or 100 on site members of staff but if coding team only have the resources to address the volume generated by 50 QA staff members hiring another 50 would not be worthwhile & could actually be detrimental.

That makes sense and I believe you. Of course it still comes down to the issue of allocating resources. I have faith that SI are making the best decisions considering they have information that I don't have, and actually I'm sure that any suggestion I have for what they could have done would be unfeasible for one reason or another. I could counter by saying well then they could make cuts elsewhere and hire more coders as well. Then you may counter may by saying that the ME is a complex beast, and "too many cooks may spoil the broth." I may then counter by saying that there are plenty of other areas with bugs, such as UI issues, and so the extra coders should be hired there. You may then counter by saying that the benefits of doing this wouldn't be enough to justify losing out on other greater benefits elsewhere. You may be correct, but the opportunity cost exists regardless.

Do I believe that SI are taking the best or most profitable course of action? Yes.

Do I believe that SI are taking the ONLY possible course of action? Of course no.

If SI make record profits, which I hope they do, then the second they decide how to spend it there is a cost attached to what they are not spending it on. This represents "taking away from other areas of the game." I'm not sure why it seems to be such a taboo to say this? Do people expect SI to have enough money to do everything they want to do? They are a relatively small company in a piracy ridden industry, which the OP mentions is also very graphics oriented.

Also, YKW, some features appealed to you, others didn't. You're never going to please everyone.

Some features appeal to me, some I don't care about at all. Others will love additions that mean very little to me. The game has an audience with different 'needs'. Some are more casual, some more hardcore and others are in the middle. Some like scouting, others hate it. I don't use a DoF, but others get a DoF to handle staff contracts or to buy players for them. You need to cater for all your customers and hopefully pick up new ones along the way. All of this, still with the aim of making the game more realistic.

The game is getting easier to navigate with all the 're-skinning', at the very minimum. Items are better arranged and in more logical places, although I'm sure someone will come up with a case where this isn't true

I'm totally sympathetic to this. For example I'm not one to complain about FM Classic even though I have no intention of ever playing it. If I wasn't sympathetic to what you are saying then I would be complaining about the points that I made in my previous post in the context of development resources being wasted on FMC.

In terms of the DoF, he is not a DoF. He is a glorified assistant. I really don't think it would have taken much more effort to implement an enforced "DoF takes control of X" by way of a greyed out drop down. How many versions has he been in? I feel that there should have been some progress here by now. Is there even the intention of adding this? Have it as a board requirement in some situations, either when signing the contract or after making some bad transfers. I don't think it deserves to be called a DoF as it stands. Now I would never call SI lazy, but the implementation of the DoF feature is just that, for me. And I find it annoying in terms of being excited about the addition when I first heard of it.

[Kriss]

I'm totally sympathetic to this. For example I'm not one to complain about FM Classic even though I have no intention of ever playing it. If I wasn't sympathetic to what you are saying then I would be complaining about the points that I made in my previous post in the context of development resources being wasted on FMC.

FMC has brought huge numbers of people back to a game which had become too complex and time consuming for them (including my consultant surgeon lol!) thus generating a lot of extra income to spend on such things as Q & A

The DoF role is under developed so far, that's the case with other modules too, not a practise I like but it's often the way SI do things (introduce, judge reaction, improve)

[pheelf]

I totally agree with you that it is an easy decision. However I'm not comparing the two, I'm just pointing out the fact that resources (whether time or money etc) are finite and will run out. Whether it is a direct choice between the two is nothing to do with it, but the total spending on each is linked. If we are talking about whether improving one area takes away from improving other areas then it is a valid point. You are right that money can be spent on both areas, but SI have a finite amount of money. If the two areas in question were the only two areas in the game, then the total amount of resources allocated to each would have an inverse relationship.

That makes sense and I believe you. Of course it still comes down to the issue of allocating resources. I have faith that SI are making the best decisions considering they have information that I don't have, and actually I'm sure that any suggestion I have for what they could have done would be unfeasible for one reason or another. I could counter by saying well then they could make cuts elsewhere and hire more coders as well. Then you may counter may by saying that the ME is a complex beast, and "too many cooks may spoil the broth." I may then counter by saying that there are plenty of other areas with bugs, such as UI issues, and so the extra coders should be hired there. You may then counter by saying that the benefits of doing this wouldn't be enough to justify losing out on other greater benefits elsewhere. You may be correct, but the opportunity cost exists regardless.

Do I believe that SI are taking the best or most profitable course of action? Yes.

Do I believe that SI are taking the ONLY possible course of action? Of course no.

If SI make record profits, which I hope they do, then the second they decide how to spend it there is a cost attached to what they are not spending it on. This represents "taking away from other areas of the game." I'm not sure why it seems to be such a taboo to say this? Do people expect SI to have enough money to do everything they want to do? They are a relatively small company in a piracy ridden industry, which the OP mentions is also very graphics oriented.

I'm not entirely sure why you seem so determined to prove a point which nobody is arguing. Who has said that SI have infinite resources? Clearly paying staff to work on one area means they can't be working on another. My issue is why don't you consider the actual presentation of all the behind the scene calculations to be important?

What's the point of having the most detailed and complex calculations for it to be reduced to watching an action bar swing back and forth as the OP advocates? I always maintain that the match engine is the single most important aspect of the game, it always has been from the very beginning of the series and always will be. Everything else you do within the game feeds into it so I don't understand why it is not seen as fundamental by some and why players of the game wouldn't want it to be the best it can be.

I agree that there are other aspects that need improving too such as squad building but why do you keep insisting that the representation of the match should be neglected as the resources would be better spent elsewhere. Especially since both are interconnected and can theoretically be worked on simultaneously without either suffering.

The thing is, I would wager that the aspects of the game which you argue so vehemently for as being priority to be improved are most probably the most difficult areas to improve hence why they haven't improved them to the level you would like. Improving the graphics within the match engine on the other hand should be less of a challenge.

How to even begin making the AI team managers behave in a manner which is both realistic and balanced when it comes to buying and selling players to me seems a huge undertaking because of the vast number of variables that need to be factored into the calculation where as incrementally adding in some new animations seems an altogether more manageable proposition. In addition to this more calculations means more stress on the processor and slower playing which I'm sure the majority of gamers wouldn't really appreciate. I've noticed that transfer deadline day can become a real crawl if you are someway into a career and have a few leagues loaded.

Either way SI are going to spend their money how they see fit regardless of what is said here. They have more information than anybody here in order to decide what direction the game needs to be going in so however they structure their team, it will be done for maximum benefit from their perspective.

[Svenc]

Playing a fluid sports involving so much influence of random chance such as football statistically.... not a good idea. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2014/article-2685738/Brazil-beat-Germany-statistically-World-Cup-host-humiliated-7-1-semi-final-defeat.html Even if you're not as misguided as to think that dominating possession+shots=good, some of the other stats that try to quantify rather than add 1+ up at a time in FM are quite flawed too, such as clear cut chances. Watching those you'll immediately put some of it in doubt.. In particular as those aren't merely approximations of what's been calculated as the game tracks positioning of all players on and off the ball and their actions, and neither is the play you get to see some arbitrary sequence to show that a "goal has or hasn't been scored" with a sequence of animations playing for some determined outcome.

The ME's quite good actually, it allows for distinctive styles of football and individual qualities and weaknesses of players to shine through and thus for systematic approaches vs. just buying the best players and fitting them into an eleven likewise, with distinctive results. Though it overly relies on tackles, has limited scope in terms of pressing schemes (in that aspect it's arguably below Fifa, for all its high-octane one-way-simness and the heavily compressed nature). How much it is held back by AI rather than optional 3d animation, or at least how differently the game plays when you're facing a human...... now that's one thing I'd encourage anybody to try. Still 3d anims and player models are nice too. It's funny to being somewhat immediately recognize Adriano you have just picked up on a Bosman for your German lower league side despite the risk being attached to the deal in all his glory not merely by skin tone but also by body features.

[YKW]

I'm not entirely sure why you seem so determined to prove a point which nobody is arguing. Who has said that SI have infinite resources? Clearly paying staff to work on one area means they can't be working on another. My issue is why don't you consider the actual presentation of all the behind the scene calculations to be important?

Without being rude I think that if you read the thread a little closer you will find the answers to your questions.

The initial claims were made as per the 3 posts that I quoted originally. I was saying that the statements can only be correct if SI have infinite resources. The fact that we all know they don't have infinite resources in my opinion demonstrates that the quoted posts are wrong, which was my initial point. RTH and Hunt3r both told me I was wrong, which I'm not, so my follow up posts are an explanation of this.

The rest of your post centers around the issue of what is the correct choice for SI make in terms of prioritising development, which I have repeatedly said is not my focus or my business. I happen to agree with everything you say. The way you present my position tells me that you have missed something in my posts. Do you have me confused with the OP perhaps?

My issue is why don't you consider the actual presentation of all the behind the scene calculations to be important?

The only thing I can see myself having said that may give this impression is when I used the example of SI not buying the motion capture and instead hiring more translators. The reason I said this isn't because that's what I want, but to illustrate opportunity cost to the three people who I originally quoted, plus RTH. I've also said in this thread that a lack of animations can be a problem - to me that implies I do think it is important. Or what about in my first post when I said:

The question is are good graphics central to what this game is? In all honesty I would say yes

What's the point of having the most detailed and complex calculations for it to be reduced to watching an action bar swing back and forth as the OP advocates? I always maintain that the match engine is the single most important aspect of the game, it always has been from the very beginning of the series and always will be. Everything else you do within the game feeds into it so I don't understand why it is not seen as fundamental by some and why players of the game wouldn't want it to be the best it can be.

I've said that I have no interest in playing in anything other than 3D, so I'm not sure how this paragraph applies to me? I'm certainly not advocating the OPs position. He has a point but it isn't that 3D is a waste of time. I want it to be the best it can be, I haven't said otherwise.

I agree that there are other aspects that need improving too such as squad building but why do you keep insisting that the representation of the match should be neglected as the resources would be better spent elsewhere. Especially since both are interconnected and can theoretically be worked on simultaneously without either suffering.

I don't keep insisting that. I don't think the representation of the match should be neglected. I'm not sure how you've got this from my posts.

The thing is, I would wager that the aspects of the game which you argue so vehemently for as being priority to be improved are most probably the most difficult areas to improve hence why they haven't improved them to the level you would like. Improving the graphics within the match engine on the other hand should be less of a challenge.

How to even begin making the AI team managers behave in a manner which is both realistic and balanced when it comes to buying and selling players to me seems a huge undertaking because of the vast number of variables that need to be factored into the calculation where as incrementally adding in some new animations seems an altogether more manageable proposition. In addition to this more calculations means more stress on the processor and slower playing which I'm sure the majority of gamers wouldn't really appreciate. I've noticed that transfer deadline day can become a real crawl if you are someway into a career and have a few leagues loaded.

Either way SI are going to spend their money how they see fit regardless of what is said here. They have more information than anybody here in order to decide what direction the game needs to be going in so however they structure their team, it will be done for maximum benefit from their perspective.

This all relates to what the best use of resources is, not the issue that I was talking about, which is whether or not improving X area of the game has any cost to Y area of the game. I agree with you and your last paragraph only echoes exactly what I have written in this thread already.

Note that I am not making any criticism of how SI chooses to allocate its resources, neither do I think its in any way up for debate. They have all the information as well the talent and ambition that has got them into this position.

[Cougar2010]

Without being rude I think that if you read the thread a little closer you will find the answers to your questions.

The initial claims were made as per the 3 posts that I quoted originally. I was saying that the statements can only be correct if SI have infinite resources. The fact that we all know they don't have infinite resources in my opinion demonstrates that the quoted posts are wrong, which was my initial point. RTH and Hunt3r both told me I was wrong, which I'm not, so my follow up posts are an explanation of this.

You see YKW this is your problem.

You are totally capable of having a constructive discussion and you make some good points (Not really talking about this thread just in general) but then you go and ruin it by acting like an arse.

The OP had his question answered accurately based on SI's current setup you then chose to take it a step further splitting hairs over the answers given twisting them to suit your own agenda.

[RTHerringbone]

The fact that we all know they don't have infinite resources in my opinion demonstrates that the quoted posts are wrong, which was my initial point. RTH and Hunt3r both told me I was wrong, which I'm not, so my follow up posts are an explanation of this.

To be honest, your initial post was long-winded so I drifted off half way through and lazily assumed you were implying that diverting resource to developing the graphical content deflected directly from the Match Engine development. Of course, it does in real terms, but it does not within the context of the way in which SI operate. They will never scrimp in terms of ME development, but the oft-quoted issue of cooks and broth is the main factor here, not the absolute pot of cash available.

[HUNT3R]

This represents "taking away from other areas of the game." I'm not sure why it seems to be such a taboo to say this?

Because they're not 'taking away' anything. If anything, they're just adding.

The ME made big improvements this year and there was a lot of work done that's not immediately obvious. The transfer AI module also received attention. Manager AI in-match (the tactical side) has also seen quite a bit of work. Scouting was re-worked. The game was... erm... 're-skinned' too. So there was a lot of work done and I haven't even mentioned any graphics yet. Speaking of, we received a new lighting system, the better modeled stadiums and motion capture. Now forgive me if I've forgotten anything, but those are a lot of changes.

[Svenc]

Plus Miles has grown some lovely beard... speaking of which, this is needed for FM 2016 anyways.

(

http://sport360.com/article/european/37590/darmstadt%E2%80%99s-incredible-rise-bundesliga-defies-football-logic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3196426/Bundesliga-2015-16-season-preview-stop-Pep-Guardiola-s-Bayern-Munich.html

[samdiatmh]

Plus Miles has grown some lovely beard... speaking of which, this is needed for FM 2016 anyways.

the kick up the arse? or the majestic beard?

[cerud]

Hi I have been playing since 1999 ( champ man ) and have brought every game you have released. However as a vet of Fm. I am worried that pressure from today's kids to include a graphical representation of the match is sadly killing the game.

I never use the 2d or 3d views, as in my view this isn't Fm. The action bar is what everyone should be using, this along with all the new boxes including the match stats should be all you need.

Please don't give into pressure from kids for graphics, your not graphics programmers and the fact that they are demanding is in my view why the game is starting to lack in other areas. The more the kids demand graphics and moan when it's not so good, the more time you guys spend in the studio working on graphics. This means less time for gameplay features ( your area of expertise ) Please ignore the kids, if they want graphics let them play FIFA. Real football managers want stats, loads and loads of stats. Not FIFA manger.

I have loved this years Fm and look forward to fm 16. Thanks for stealing my life

Kindly please refrain from telling me how I should play my game. Play your way as you able to do and I'll play my way.

No this isn't a thread to offend or say I'm "master race"??? ect. It's just remind the development team that not everyone needs or wants graphics! I guess I was always going to get trolled here but it wasn't my intention to upset anyone. I guess everyone has there own way of playing but please don't insult me for having mine. I'm sure there are many other people who don't use 3d or 2d. I have said my part and won't be replying to anyone's post your welcome to post weather you agree or disagree ect. keep up the good work Si ignore the haters for fm 2015.

I agree and hope you take your own advice.

[MRW]

Focusing on the better part of the post, yes of course it would be great to have FIFA-like graphics. I don't think anyone would argue this. FIFA has a simple ME, but a very good physics/graphics engine. FM is the other way around. The perfect sim would probably have FIFA-like graphics/physics with the FM ME. Combining ME with 2-3 million lines of code to FIFA-like graphics won't and cannot happen overnight. It's a monumental task - one that's taking shape though. Think of the robot-like running/dribbling of FM12 (FM13 too?). We're now seeing mo-capped players for the first time and this will just get better with time.

Does it matter that FM doesn't have FIFA graphics? No. Would it be nice to have? Definitely.

And perhaps you lot should learn to read and also understand basic economics

It has ZERO to do with if they are separate teams

It has EVERYTHING to do with the total cost

SI will have a budget for game development - if they have spent an amount of that on graphics then there is less to spend in other areas

I would have thought that was pretty basic

So quite clearly - the OP is correct in this point - money spent on graphics development is money not spent on other areas

What impact that has is unknown - because throwing twice the money at something doesn't get twice the result (at least not in software development) - and quite possibly SI are sufficiently resourced such they can achieve all they need to in all areas

But your condescending tone is poor - especially as you are moderators

[forameuss]

And perhaps you lot should learn to read and also understand basic economics

It has ZERO to do with if they are separate teams

It has EVERYTHING to do with the total cost

SI will have a budget for game development - if they have spent an amount of that on graphics then there is less to spend in other areas

I would have thought that was pretty basic

So quite clearly - the OP is correct in this point - money spent on graphics development is money not spent on other areas

What impact that has is unknown - because throwing twice the money at something doesn't get twice the result (at least not in software development) - and quite possibly SI are sufficiently resourced such they can achieve all they need to in all areas

But your condescending tone is poor - especially as you are moderators

If you're having a go at someone for being condescending, best not to do the same thing back.

For the record, the OP mentioned nothing about financials. That was YKW. He has a point, but the OP lost whatever point he had in demanding that FM returns to being a poor version of Excel.

[HUNT3R]

And perhaps you lot should learn to read and also understand basic economics

I don't know why you had a go at me for that post, but maybe read the entire thread?

Because they're not 'taking away' anything. If anything, they're just adding.

The ME made big improvements this year and there was a lot of work done that's not immediately obvious. The transfer AI module also received attention. Manager AI in-match (the tactical side) has also seen quite a bit of work. Scouting was re-worked. The game was... erm... 're-skinned' too. So there was a lot of work done and I haven't even mentioned any graphics yet. Speaking of, we received a new lighting system, the better modeled stadiums and motion capture. Now forgive me if I've forgotten anything, but those are a lot of changes.

Spending costs on things like graphics (or FMC, as Kriss mentioned) will make the game more appealing, which results in more sales, which results in a bigger budget - for all the areas. So every module benefits.

[Maw74]

SI have a hard task to please all players 100%, would say it's impossible really, I now play the FMC version and can't see myself going back to full fat version, so from my point of view if they were to stop developing that I would probably just stick with the versions I have.

As for graphics, well I have stopped watching games in 3D and now watch in 2D with goal replays in 3D, I'm not fussed about the graphics being amazing I was/still am happy watching matches in 3D on FM 10 & 12, it's just the actions/animations can look a bit silly IMO and that has put me off watching.

The good thing SI are giving us many options so we can choose to play in a way that suits us, from my personal view I want to see my team in action even if it is just dots, anyway imagine for instance if SI announced that 2D, 3D and FMC were no longer being included, in the long term that would mean less staff because sales would drop.

[samdiatmh]

It has ZERO to do with if they are separate teams

It has EVERYTHING to do with the total cost

SI will have a budget for game development - if they have spent an amount of that on graphics then there is less to spend in other areas

but they'll have a set budget for 'match graphics' and 'engine development'

and don't lie, these people aren't even remotely similar (one specialises in pure coding, and the other would specialise in graphical coding)

I'd be pretty alarmed if I found out the guy that coded my security system also ended up coding the graphics for EA (or something)

yes, fundamentally it's the same language, but the specialisations are COMPLETELY different

it's like comparing yourself to an airplane pilot (you can drive a car? sure, how much different is an airplane) - NO, it's completely different

-----

as I said previously, it's not like anything will be removed, so there's no reason to worry here

and maybe the idea behind commentary is that before it was just that, now we've got to process a highlight and put commentary over it

the lines over the full 90mins are probably more than they were 10 years ago, we've just got a bit more of a focus on actual relevance to important highlights

[Lenzar]

The only version where I feel there was too much focus on the graphical side of the match was CM4. There was a LOT of advertisement on how cool the then brand new 2d view was - and the rest of the game was terrible.

[YKW]

You see YKW this is your problem.

You are totally capable of having a constructive discussion and you make some good points (Not really talking about this thread just in general) but then you go and ruin it by acting like an arse.

The OP had his question answered accurately based on SI's current setup you then chose to take it a step further splitting hairs over the answers given twisting them to suit your own agenda.

I'm not sure I was being an arse in the post you quoted, but I understand what you are saying overall. Now I'm sure this will count as splitting hairs, and perhaps even as being an arse, but I have to point out that the OP didn't ask a single question. Given the tone and level of respect that is endorsed on this forum, I consider the best form of defence to be a strong attack, especially when the usual suspects are dishing out their roll-eyes smileys etc. (Note to mods, is there really any need for this roll eyes smiley on this forum? I would vote to have it removed, personally, its incredibly antagonistic.)

The only thing you say there that I disagree with is that I was twisting words to suit my agenda. If I do have an agenda, which I don't believe I do, then it is truth, reason and logic (and maybe arguing with forearms.) I don't think I've twisted anything that anyone has said, I've even addressed the issues of separate departments or teams, and the issues of the best decisions to make, and explained why those are fallacious or irrelevant arguments, respectively. I think I have demonstrated with my examples that there is an opportunity cost attached to every decision, and that this is why it is totally wrong to say that developing X area of the game doesn't take resources away from area Y. Every post I quoted contained this incorrect statement - which is what I have been saying.

To be honest, your initial post was long-winded so I drifted off half way through and lazily assumed you were implying that diverting resource to developing the graphical content deflected directly from the Match Engine development. Of course, it does in real terms, but it does not within the context of the way in which SI operate. They will never scrimp in terms of ME development, but the oft-quoted issue of cooks and broth is the main factor here, not the absolute pot of cash available.

No problem RT, and I would never accuse SI of cutting corners or 'scrimping,' and I love the 3D engine.

I am content that what you are saying is perhaps true in terms of the ME, and given that that is the original context of the discussion I respect your position. However what I think you need to understand is that if you say that putting more resources into the graphics does not take away from ME development, and that the reason for this is that the ME development team is already at capacity, then what you are saying is that there is no possible way of improving ME development, either through hiring more people, or through restructuring or re-writing large chunks of code.

Now I suspect that one or a combination of these things could in fact lead to improved ME development. The point I have been making in this thread is that this choice would not be financially (or otherwise) viable. A choice not being the best choice does not rule it out as a choice. It remains an available, but bad choice. As long as a choice has been made then there is cost attached.

Is there an external and insurmountable limitation that means faster/better ME development is impossible? Or are the costs attached to doing this too large in comparison to the benefits for the venture to be viable? The answer is the second one. The possibility of faster/better ME development is a possibility, but an unfeasible one.

The example I gave of translation is not a 'cooks and broth' issue. You could e-mail the lines of text to me and I could translate them into at least 4 languages on my own, and have it e-mailed back to you by dinner time. That is if SI want to pay me, which they may not have the resources to do. Which is essentially the entirety of my point. Whatever you do, something somewhere will be missing out. I don't care that this is the case, it's an unavoidable element of business.

I don't know why you had a go at me for that post, but maybe read the entire thread?

Spending costs on things like graphics (or FMC, as Kriss mentioned) will make the game more appealing, which results in more sales, which results in a bigger budget - for all the areas. So every module benefits.

This is a cost - benefit analysis which leads to a choice. The analysis is irrelevant to the cost of making the choice. If I have to choose between eating a banana or a packet of crisps, the fact that the banana is healthy doesn't change the fact that the cost to me of the banana is the crisps. If the potassium in the banana gives me the quick boost of energy that I need in order to steal a six-pack of crisps and successfully escape, the fact that in long run I have way more crisps doesn't change the fact that the cost to me of the banana is the original packet of crisps. You are arguing for what is the most beneficial decision, which is totally different to the cost of the decision. This is what you are missing when you say that they aren't taking anything away, only adding, because adding less is the same as taking away, in terms of the opportunity. I don't think anybody believes that if times get rough then SI will have to remove elements of the game. It's about the rate of additions - less = taking away.

Anyway, I will take Cougar's advice about my splitting hairs, especially as I can see how this discussion is almost entirely pointless, and I may be in danger of using it as a soapbox for my own opinion, or something.

[HUNT3R]

I also drifted off during that banana/crisps comparison. You seem to have a gift.

I know what cost benefit analysis is and I know SI do that because Miles mentioned it on Twitter in reference to questions about adding the pointless U21/U18 coach 'feature'.

[YKW]

I also drifted off during that banana/crisps comparison. You seem to have a gift.

I know what cost benefit analysis is and I know SI do that because Miles mentioned it on Twitter in reference to questions about adding the pointless U21/U18 coach 'feature'.

You cheeky cuiter.

[tyro]

I came over from Fifa Manager and I played some other older football manager games before.

I really enjoy 3D. This is what makes this game fun and not some statistics and numbers - for me. It is like watching an actual football match but you can affect the outcome. My first FM was, I think FM11. And I was overwhelmed by all this complexity at first. The players don't have a strength indicator? (100 being the best). What do these stars mean? How do I know who is better? Etc. Etc. Etc. But when I came to the match, I was astonished by how the players moved. Yes, the graphics paled in comparison to Fifa Manager but wow the players moved realistically. They did what I told them to. It felt like I actually was managing them and telling them how to play.

Since then, the graphics have improved much much more and I am grateful for that. In addition to that, they introduced FMC, which does away with some of the complexities and let's you enjoy the game in a smoother, faster mode.

I keep seeing people here posting and ranting and complaining. And so you should - in a constructive manner - keep them on their toes to provide a better experience each year - especially now that all competitiion is gone. But, take a step back sometimes and realize that you are so spoiled and are nit-picking on things that are not essential. Realize that there are people with different playstyles and different time allowances for this game. Some people prefer the 2D - old style - and they are having fun with that. Others, like to see the representation in 3D and enjoy it that way. Others still, use the instant result (from FMC), as they enjoy setting things up (tactics, transfers, etc.). It is great that SI provides for different types of players. They are moving in the right direction in providing a great enjoyable game each year.

I look at my steam library and I have usually around 400 hours for FM each year. Other games barely reach 100 or 50 hours played. And I am sure I am a moderate gamer. Somehow this game drags you back and let's you try new things in different ways.

We are in 2015. One can expect a game to have some 3D representation and not just numbers - and many people do. Maybe you don't. The beauty is, you can always watch in commentary.

[Jimmious7]

Haha what the heck is this topic about? I disagree with the OP so much that I would actually say that the progress bar is obsolete and not really necessary any more. I like the 3d engine, it can get better for sure, but wouldn't go back in any way!

[BoxToBox]

Not enough bananas in FM, or something....

Down with burger vans.

[Cougar2010]

I don't think I've twisted anything that anyone has said, I've even addressed the issues of separate departments or teams, and the issues of the best decisions to make, and explained why those are fallacious or irrelevant arguments, respectively. I think I have demonstrated with my examples that there is an opportunity cost attached to every decision, and that this is why it is totally wrong to say that developing X area of the game doesn't take resources away from area Y. Every post I quoted contained this incorrect statement - which is what I have been saying.

The OP posted his opinion which was based on incorrect facts.

This was explained to him and a generic explanation on resources.

There isn't any issue with having an in depth constructive discussion on how SI allocates resources and what we would like to see as users I just don't believe this was the thread for it. The way it came about was also quite negative which makes it less likely that it would end up being constructive.

[Cougar2010]

forget fifa graphics, this is what FM should look up to.

[video=youtube;gdmO5V_NeYc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdmO5V_NeYc

Dear SI, please add minnie me on the bench once you get to this level.

Jeez I thought that was a real match as well until I looked at the video.

Whilst graphics are a bonus of sorts on FM can you imagine what it would be like if it looked like this with a good ME under it.

[HUNT3R]

It's about the rate of additions - less = taking away.

FM13 - Football Manager Classic, Inclusion of Elite Player Performance Plan, Challenges, Network Mode, hugely Re-written ME, DoFs

FM14 - Improved Match Engine, Tactical overhaul (sliders gone, for one), More realistic transfers and contracts with 'live' negotiating, More sophisticated board interaction, Improved interaction with players, staff and media, News system, Enhanced user interface, Football Manager Classic evolved, Job interviews.

FM15 - New Lighting system/engine, re-worked ball physics, Improved ME (much better decision-making, for one), Managers in-match AI improvements/additions, Mo-capped animations, modeled stadiums, AI contract and transfer negotiation improvements, Promise system, Scouting re-vamp, FFP rules, FMC expanded even more, management styles, UI sidebar etc re-vamp, Job interviews expanded, tunnel interviews, touchline team talks.

We're getting more of everything, including graphics.

[YKW]

The OP posted his opinion which was based on incorrect facts.

This was explained to him and a generic incorrect explanation on resources.

There isn't any issue with having an in depth constructive discussion on how SI allocates resources and what we would like to see as users I just don't believe this was the thread for it. The way it came about was also quite negative which makes it less likely that it would end up being constructive.

This isn't a discussion about how SI allocates resources, how they should allocate resources, or how we want them to allocate resources. I've repeatedly said those things aren't my business. I have opinions on what I would like to see improved, but I've deliberately avoided bringing those up here because I agree it isn't the thread for it. I don't think it's fair to say to what SI SHOULD use their resources for. I'm only happy talking about what I want outside of this context.

The explanation given to the OP by yourself, forearms and hunt3r was wrong - that's what I was pointing out. When I pointed this out, RTH told me I was wrong which I'm not. He's since said that he misread my post, and said that I am correct in real terms, but not in terms of the way SI operates. I don't think that's right either but I'm happy to leave this angle alone as it is pointless, like I said.

I can argue all day if I think I'm right. If someone I don't like says something that is wrong then it goes double. It's a weakness of mine but I'll take your comments on board. I do like the irony that you have had to insult me in order for me to finally agree with something you say.

FM13 - Football Manager Classic, Inclusion of Elite Player Performance Plan, Challenges, Network Mode, hugely Re-written ME, DoFs

FM14 - Improved Match Engine, Tactical overhaul (sliders gone, for one), More realistic transfers and contracts with 'live' negotiating, More sophisticated board interaction, Improved interaction with players, staff and media, News system, Enhanced user interface, Football Manager Classic evolved, Job interviews.

FM15 - New Lighting system/engine, re-worked ball physics, Improved ME (much better decision-making, for one), Managers in-match AI improvements/additions, Mo-capped animations, modeled stadiums, AI contract and transfer negotiation improvements, Promise system, Scouting re-vamp, FFP rules, FMC expanded even more, management styles, UI sidebar etc re-vamp, Job interviews expanded, tunnel interviews, touchline team talks.

We're getting more of everything, including graphics.

A great list, well done SI, and thanks.

Of course it doesn't change that there is an equal if not longer list of things that SI decided against including, in favour of the above. I think your missing something major in my posts that means we aren't going to be talking about the same thing here. If you believe that the inclusion of any one of those things in the list above did not have a cost attached to it in some other part of the game then I don't know what to say.

[Ackter]

The way to improve QA is about retention and training. Unfortunately, very few people see QA as a career - it's always a first step to somewhere else. It would be possible to set up an experienced QA team of people who want to be QA, but it would be a hell of a lot harder than you think.

The other problem is that there's a very set QA hierarchy in the games industry, and at a company like SI the higher positions are pretty much permanently filled so you'd get the good QA guys you trained leaving to join other companies for a better title and more responsibility. It's very, very hard to keep to a top class QA guy (or gal) just doing basic QA.

Hah, just realised FM itself is a very good analogy for the situation. You have one first team goalkeeper, two backups and 5 youth. All of those eventually want to be first team so will eventually join another club so they can be.

[HUNT3R]

Of course it doesn't change that there is an equal if not longer list of things that SI decided against including, in favour of the above. I think your missing something major in my posts that means we aren't going to be talking about the same thing here. If you believe that the inclusion of any one of those things in the list above did not have a cost attached to it in some other part of the game then I don't know what to say.

I addressed your point about rate of addition, which is why I cleverly quoted that part of your post. Don't make things up. I didn't say that and you know very well I didn't shoot down your point about cost benefit. You're looking for points to argue, it seems. For what reason, I have no idea. It's senseless.

[Kriss]

You're correct to an extent Ackter but SI does attract (and largely keeps) quite a large team of very expert QA people who cost next to nothing but are almost irreplaceable because of their dedication and expertise.

I feel they could expand the dream team considerably, though it would need more vetting and supervision I think that route would be worth some investment.

[YKW]

I addressed your point about rate of addition, which is why I cleverly quoted that part of your post. Don't make things up. I didn't say that and you know very well I didn't shoot down your point about cost benefit. You're looking for points to argue, it seems. For what reason, I have no idea. It's senseless.

I am honestly not.

What do you mean by "We're getting more of everything, including graphics," in terms of me saying that a lower rate of addition = taking away.

One of us is criminally confused, and it's usually not me.

[HUNT3R]

More additions/'big' features =/= taking away.

[Ackter]

You're correct to an extent Ackter but SI does attract (and largely keeps) quite a large team of very expert QA people who cost next to nothing but are almost irreplaceable because of their dedication and expertise.

I feel they could expand the dream team considerably, though it would need more vetting and supervision I think that route would be worth some investment.

Most of SI's staff started out doing QA - eventually you have to get promoted, and in QA there's very few places to get promoted into, so they become Producers, Designers, whatever Miles is etc

There's a small handful of dedicated QA there, but the nature of the business means the majority of QA will be there for about 6 months before needing to work somewhere else.

[YKW]

More additions/'big' features =/= taking away.

Ok well at least it wasn't me that was confused.

Any addition = taking away.

It's that simple. I think everyone has grasped this by now.

Your problem, I think, is that you are struggling to reconcile the term "taking away" and the negative connotations that it has, and your knowledge about the intentions and dedication of SI.

There is nothing wrong with choosing to develop one thing rather than another. I'm not being critical of SI at all. If allocating resources to X means that Y has less development than it could have done, SI have done nothing wrong. It's just an inescapable fact.

[Cougar2010]

The explanation given to the OP by yourself, forearms and hunt3r was wrong - that's what I was pointing out. When I pointed this out, RTH told me I was wrong which I'm not. He's since said that he misread my post, and said that I am correct in real terms, but not in terms of the way SI operates. I don't think that's right either but I'm happy to leave this angle alone as it is pointless, like I said.

This is the part of my post you quoted:

Finally SI have different staff working on different areas of the game so those working on the graphics do just that and don't take time away from other staff working on the gameplay.

There is nothing factually incorrect with that at all but it was deemed worthy of this response from you:

Seriously, do you guys genuinely believe this? How about exercising even the smallest iota of critical thought before you post? SI do not have an infinite pool of money with which to pay wages, neither do programmers work for free. Therefore money spent improving the graphics does 100% take away from other areas of the game being improved. That's an indisputable fact, so cut out the illogical, apologist nonsense.

Do you really think your reply was constructive or needed?

It did nothing to help the thread and was dowright rude tbh but then thats what I've come to expect from you

[HUNT3R]

Ok well at least it wasn't me that was confused.

Any addition = taking away.

It's that simple. I think everyone has grasped this by now.

Your problem, I think, is that you are struggling to reconcile the term "taking away" and the negative connotations that it has, and your knowledge about the intentions and dedication of SI.

There is nothing wrong with choosing to develop one thing rather than another. I'm not being critical of SI at all. If allocating resources to X means that Y has less development than it could have done, SI have done nothing wrong. It's just an inescapable fact.

If the budget is bigger and the staff team is bigger, which it is, it can be done. Stop trying to be clever.

My list shows that we're getting more. It's pretty obvious that if you're doing one thing, you can't do another. We're still getting more big 'normal' features outside of graphics for your point to be invalid. My list showed that.

Put me on your list.

[Ackter]

Any addition = taking away.

It's that simple. I think everyone has grasped this by now.

It's also wrong. Any addition to the graphics does not take away from the match engine, which seems to be the main statement in this thread. Those graphic programmers would not be doing match engine work if they weren't doing graphics, and SI would not have hired more match engine programmers if they didn't hire the graphics guys. That's not how it works.

Their match engine team has been expanded recently and it's the size they feel is optimal for it. They also needed to expand the graphical team, so they did that as well. There's no either/or in this situation as you seem to be insistent on.

[YKW]

Cougar I respect your position but your statement was wrong for very fundamental reasons.

If the budget is bigger and the staff team is bigger, which it is, it can be done. Stop trying to be clever.

I'm honestly not trying to be clever, there is something very specific that you don't understand.

If I have an extra £100 in my budget this week I still have to decide what to spend it on. Even if I can get more of everything, I wont be getting as much as I can of anything that I don't spend the ENTIRE extra budget on. Please google Opportunity Cost, I'm not trying to be clever. You just don't understand.

It's also wrong. Any addition to the graphics does not take away from the match engine, which seems to be the main statement in this thread. Those graphic programmers would not be doing match engine work if they weren't doing graphics, and SI would not have hired more match engine programmers if they didn't hire the graphics guys. That's not how it works.

Their match engine team has been expanded recently and it's the size they feel is optimal for it. They also needed to expand the graphical team, so they did that as well. There's no either/or in this situation as you seem to be insistent on.

Sorry Ackter you are wrong as well. If SI did not buy any motion captured animations this year then what would have happened to the money? Judging from what you are saying it would have been just thrown away.

[Ackter]

Or, and maybe this is crazy talk, you keep that £100 for when you actually need it, instead of spending it somewhere "just because"...

Sorry Ackter you are wrong as well. If SI did not buy any motion captured animations this year then what would have happened to the money? Judging from what you are saying it would have been just thrown away.

See above. You sound like an university student that's read a couple of books and are regurgitating it without any real-world context.

[HUNT3R]

Cougar I respect your position but your statement was wrong for very fundamental reasons.

I'm honestly not trying to be clever, there is something very specific that you don't understand.

If I have an extra £100 in my budget this week I still have to decide what to spend it on. Even if I can get more of everything, I wont be getting as much as I can of anything that I don't spend the ENTIRE extra budget on. Please google Opportunity Cost, I'm not trying to be clever. You just don't understand.

An extra. As in there's already an existing amount? You know, like the existing people/teams you seem to forget? The ones who did pretty well as it is up to now? The additional budget gets spent on either new areas or areas that need the addition. There's still a limit to how many can actually work on a module, so hiring more people to stand around won't get anything done, except for maybe a cup of coffee.

[YKW]

Or, and maybe this is crazy talk, you keep that £100 for when you actually need it, instead of spending it somewhere "just because"...

See above. You sound like an university student that's read a couple of books and are regurgitating it without any real-world context.

An extra. As in there's already an existing amount? You know, like the existing people/teams you seem to forget? The ones who did pretty well as it is up to now? The additional budget gets spent on either new areas or areas that need the addition. There's still a limit to how many can actually work on a module, so hiring more people to stand around won't get anything done, except for maybe a cup of coffee.

Sorry guys you are both wrong.

Ackter - Saving the money is an alternative choice. One that has value. Firstly you can gain interest on the money. Secondly the money can still be used to improve something else. Something which couldn't be improved if you had already spent the money.

Hunt3r - the fact that the money is extra has nothing to do with it. It will still be spent on some things, and not spent on others.

[RTHerringbone]

I bet you're a right barrel of laughs on a night out at the pub.

[HUNT3R]

OP's point was addressed, so I'm satisfied.

[adry]

forget fifa graphics, this is what FM should look up to.

[video=youtube;gdmO5V_NeYc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdmO5V_NeYc

Dear SI, please add minnie me on the bench once you get to this level.

Wow, The ME and animation looks amazing!

I think it beats FIFA ME and animation!

Can SI replicate the match engine and its animation like above?

The best soccer game I ever seen.

[Kriss]

OP's point was addressed, so I'm satisfied.

It was, and for that reason I feel it's time to close this thread.