Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 "You're a bum, Rock"

About Paulo191

  • Rank

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. But the one I showed here has turbo boost to 4.6GHz and has an SSD and 16GB of RAM, while this G3 has only an HDD and 8GB of RAM. Is a G3-like laptop really necessary?
  2. Is this one any good for FM20: 8th generation of the processor Intel® Core™ i7-8565U (1.8 GHz to 4.6 GHz, 8MB cache, quad-core) Dedicated video card NVIDIA® GeForce® MX150 with 2GB of GDDR5 RAM Memory of 16GB, DDR4, 2666MHz SSD SATA M.2 of 128GB + HDD SATA of 2,5", 1TB and 5400RPM ? https://www.dell.com/pt-br/shop/notebooks-dell/inspiron-15-7000/spd/inspiron-15-7580-laptop/cai7580w5123brdb?configurationid=98659853-fec1-4348-ac88-e74f279750c9 (link in Brazilian Portuguese)
  3. This idea of having different packages to choose from is great. You could just hire analysts to work on their own devices or you could purchase packages like you suggested, so you could have a better and focused idea in the reports you receive. So contracting these packages would mean an increase in quality in your analysis facilities, while canceling the contract without purchasing another would mean a downgrade. But, and just because this is how it is in real life, the manager shouldn’t have full power to decide about this. In fact, the board’s position about this (like many other decisions in the game should be) would weight more than your opinion as just the manager. So this would be more of a discussion with the board of how you think the team should approach this part of the game than just us clicking a box and voilà! “I chose that package”. I really hope SI at least considers this. Because, you see, this is not a massive change that would disrupt the gameplay. This is not a complete revamp, as Miles likes to say. Instead, this would be one of those minor tweaks that makes the game even better and close to the real thing. I really don’t think this is very hard to implement. Would this make the game a little bit harder than it already is? Yes. But real life is hard.
  4. There should be variations in the clarity, quality and depth of detail in the reports provided by the analysts staff. If you have great analysts and great data analysis facilities, you should have access to great reports, with a very accurate analysis of your next opposition, for example. Very clear, with a huge depth of detail in case you want to dive deeper in the analysis. On the other hand, if you have just a decent data analysis setup, you should get only a limited access to the full picture, because not having the best would mean you wouldn't have top softwares and neither computational power to generate very accurate reports as you'd like. And finally, having a poor setup would mean having almost ****** analysis, more confusing than helpful, and you'd have to struggle to make sense of what you really needed to know about players and oppositions. The way it is today is kind of a binary situation: you either have it (being the same for any team in any situation, either Real Madrid or a 7th tier team from France) or you don't, in case you don't have any analyst in your staff. I know they have attributes to define how good they are in their analysis, but IF those attibutes really have any effect, it's too subtle to be noticed. I'd like to see a visualization of how good my data analysis setup really is. If it is bad, so make the reports view bad, with some inaccurate informations here and there. But if it is good, give me an almost-fortuneteller-like description of what is going to be for us if we get some player or how my opposition is going to play.
  5. Actually, you can still play with bars. You can download this file: https://t.co/cpU1WszbJY?amp=1 and put it here: C:\Users\[name]\AppData\Local\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2019\Preferences\version 3 and then when you load the game you should have the bars again. You no longer have the choice, but you can put them in if you want to use them. I got to know this because I asked how in this site: https://theresonlyoneball.com/2018/10/18/fm19-borussia-dortmund-die-schwarzgelben/ There, the guy has the same preference, as, like me, he thinks it adds a more accurate level of reality. Enjoy!
  6. This is a great idea. Football Manager needs to be more atmospheric. Decent sound variations with involving graphics would be awesome additions, so you could really feel you’re training a lower league team or a big one.
  7. I completely agree. Communication is a key element IRL, not just for football, but for every aspect of our lives. I see people complaining about the level of complexity of the game, with all the medical center infos and the improved interations with the players and the media, saying that it'll take us more time to play the game than before. But this is the way to go, if not, it wouldn't be a better simulation every year. Consider this: with the level of reality of the game increasing every year, why should it take us the same or less time to get things done as in FM11, or FM09 or even CM 01/02? I mean, if more reality is what we want, there's no way it'll be simpler and faster than the previous ones. I'm not saying here that this is the state of the art football simulation. Of course not. For example, I just hope that they have included a lot of different things to say to the players, so it won't get boring fast, specially considering the context (as it's actually said in the video). But again, like it was said, don't want this level of realism? FMT.
  8. Match Fitness and Match Sharpness of players; Judging Player Ability/Potencial skills of some staff members (scouts, assistant manager etc); The new "Magnifying Glass" that tells you how well judging a player your scout pool is. Do these really need to receive a number of classification? What manager IRL look at one of his players on the field and think "hum, that guy is on 59%, I'd better sub him off..."? Or, before a match, thinks "this player has only 72% of match sharpness, I won't play him in this next fixture."? Also, how can a manager IRL accurately put an exact number on his scout pool ability of judging players? "Oh, I can't really trust them on this one. They're only 39 on my 'magnifying glass'!" I know managers IRL have their opinions about their players' conditions and their staff members' abilities of judging. Like them, we all have our opinions about the people around us as well. If one of our friends gives us some advice, we might not want to follow him, because we think he's not so good at judging the situation we're presenting to him. We might have a boss at work who thinks that project won't be very good, and we agree with her based on our knowledge of her background, formation, past experiences etc. We don't look at other people and see a number on top of their heads telling us who is and who isn't good at something. We can qualify them as good or bad, but not 23% good as romance advisor. So, in order to reflect this real life qualifications, I think we should at least be able to choose a different form of scale about these qualities. For example, match sharpness could be described just as this: Severely lacking match fitness (written in red); Lacking match fitness (written in yellow); Match fit (written in light green); Completely match fit (written in dark green). There's already this kind of option when it comes to those numbers of the attributes of the players, since you can display them as bars instead. So this could be done for these other unrealistic numeric classifications too. "But how could we ever know when to trust a scout judgement about a player or not?", someone might be asking. Well, we're supposed to go through an absurd amount of numbers on the players' attributes trying to find the best fit for our squad needs, so it wouldn't hurt trying to correlate the staff members' qualifications, preffered tactics, past experience as footballers etc, in order to determine ourselves if their insight is good or not. So, for example, there could be a dropdown menu for us ourselves to qualify them. (So we wouldn't forget how we see them) I'm not against the presence of numbers in the game, after all, this is a numbers game. Those numeric classification for players' attributes can stay there. What I'm trying to say is that these kind of classifications I'm talking about here seems unrealistic in terms of level of simulation. I don't see this being implemented in this version. So I hope that SI at least gives us the option to choose a more qualitative classification for certain aspects of the game in the next ones. Would it make the game more difficult? Perhaps it would. But it would so just because it'd be more realistic.
  9. This is not an overhaul feature, but it would be a great addition to help us understant what we might be doing wrong (or right!). It would serve as a guide to a possible problem. Ok, FM18 has proven to be a more in-depth game with fundamental analysis features from what we've seen from the released videos, with that tactical pitch with different colors, for example, showing our faulty positions. But I think it would be more realistic if those match reports and press articles about the games could bring some more in-depth information, instead of just describing some highlights and goals (and mostly, times of the goals). I don't know about you guys, but I personally don't read those - and I think almost nobody does -, as they just state the obvious. To make it clearer what I'm talking about, just give this article a glance: http://www.skysports.com/football/news/15126/10693835/pep-guardiola-might-have-to-compromise-on-his-style-after-man-citys-defeat-to-leicester Nick Wright, the author, outlines some key points about Man City after their 4-2 defeat against Leicester last year. I know it is a long text, but I'm not asking for such a long detailed story like that. What it's really interesting there is the analisys of some possible mistakes Pep was to address, like he states here: The issues were laid bare at the King Power Stadium on Saturday, where John Stones was the only natural central defender in a loosely-organised back three with Bacary Sagna and Aleksandar Kolarov. Further forward, Pablo Zabaleta appeared to be occupying an inverted wing-back position. The result was defensive chaos. Leicester gleefully exploited the giant gaps in City's exposed rearguard, and three goals in 20 minutes had Guardiola's shell-shocked players casting confused looks towards the dugout. They were "all over the place", in the words of Sky Sports pundit Jamie Carragher. "Those defenders are not helped by the tactics of the manager," he added. Saturday saw Guardiola employ his third different formation in the space of a week after City's games against Celtic and Chelsea, and the 45-year-old has made more line-up changes (50) than any other manager over the course of the Premier League season. One of the things we can take from this excerpt is the fact of using three different formations in such a short period of time, for example, doesn't help at all for a team to gain a solid tactical understanding, which may have been one of the reasons why Man City lost that match and were having defensive problems. So, in order to make those match reports and press articles of the game more relevant, reasonable tactical analysis should be taken into consideration. I know this is just a minor addition. And I also know it must not be easy to do. But it could bring a useful insight to the manner we approach our match preparation and, along with the new tactical analysis features that are being implemented in this year version, it would give us a more complete feedback.
  • Create New...