Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Smac

Members
  • Content Count

    2,131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Smac

  • Rank
    Semi Pro

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well it's o.k. that you've apparently never played a heavily modded game, but your arguments seem outlandishly out of touch for anyone who has. All these issues have been addressed 1000 times over by developers and game communities who ultimately both want the same thing. That you think it's so fragile and unrealistic to attempt is just simply belied by the facts. Yes, there are reasons SI doesn't bother, and it's mostly just that economics for FM are different than many games: For a lot of players this is the only thing they play and they're not likely to be into modding. For a lot of players FM is not a strategy game worth any depth but a simulation to live out one's fantasies. Each year SI print money and that's the end of the story. The incentives to start from scratch or innovate are outweighed by keeping the printing press going year after year. So no, the valid arguments against doing it aren't that it would destroy the reputation of the game or ruin the quality assurance system, or are too difficult to do. The only real argument is that there's little incentive to do it for this particular game with it's particular popularity and audience. You can't argue that it's both an ambitious and serious strategy game and that it isn't worth it to make it moddable. You have to pick one.
  2. I do understand why they don't bother with that part: The game has enough options for most players that it's a bit of a waste of resources to develop this in house, which is why I like your other idea (and always have): To make these things open to modding so that we could come up with these things on our own as a community. ... And then some super mod comes along and the parent company hires them and everyone wins.
  3. I don't understand what you're alluding to HUNT3R. Is there some secret topic here we're not supposed to touch upon or are you against an idea you don't seem to be able to fairly restate for some other reason? (confused). The basic idea Matej is alluding to is to make aspects of the AI decision making available to modding/plugins. This would allow ambitious fans to code their own AI decision matrices (or heck, possibly even more robust AI) and then share these with fans of the game. Players could then brag: "Oh hey I won the Champions League on the HUNT3R challenge mode. Man that AI is ruthless and I nearly went bankrupt", as one example. It would definitely burden SI to create the plugins initially but the argument here is that it would make the game far more robust in the long haul. One only needs to look at other games that have done extremely well in large part to their modding community to see this is generally a net positive and could take a game from "Almost a strategy game" to "Taken seriously".
  4. Yes we did talk about that a long time ago and I agree that it's ultimately the right solution. There's no harm in raising it as a suggestion every year though I don't think SI have any intention of going down this route for some time. Eventually though they'll rewrite the game engine from scratch one would think and then there is a decent chance there would be some AI modularity to it as that would help development either way (for testing if nothing else). I think the honest truth of the matter is that the product design philosophy doesn't respect the player as a strategist but is designed for armchair emperors who want to feel courageous from a soft cushy couch. No offense to anyone meant. It's a product to feel like a managerial genius, not to in any way become one (or design AI to become one). Some day...
  5. Add another manager and try to sign the player. AFAIK that's the only way to check something like that.
  6. In regards to "Baby": I laughed. Not sure everyone would get that though , however somebody has to try to put him in the corner.
  7. For me there are two types of clubs at the top: The ones that demand dominance and the ones that accept "being there or thereabouts" to a greater degree than "not at all". For the first type, it's all well and good if there is only one such club in a league, like say in Greece with Olympiakos. If you're the only club with the finances and talent to dominate then it is pretty reasonable to demand dominance. However, there are 3+ such clubs in the Premiership, meaning they are all, if holding such a view, irrational as hell. Given that there are 3+ clubs with the means and/or talent to be the top team then one should expect them to win the prem 1/3 or less of the time (accounting for other challenging teams winning instead). Yet their expectations and demands don't really reflect that (and by 'their' I mean either the club's owners, directors, or majority of fans, etc..). With the second type of top team there is a lot more room to either rationally consider "Should we have done better or worse this season, based on talent?" or make rationalizations for either failures or great successes beyond the expected output. I would suggest Arsenal are one of this latter type. Arsenal are close enough in talent and resources to the other top teams each year to have either won the prem or have won 1 or 2 of the other silverware available, but I doubt anyone would suggest they are far superior. If we would consider the top 6 teams as roughly equal, just for an example, how often could they each expect to win anything in a given year? How much of an anomaly would it be were any of them to win either everything or nothing one year? The chance of winning nothing is actually quite high year on year. The chance of having several such years in a row is also quite high, even if everything were equal and left to chance. The paradox is that it is often the clubs that demand dominance (irrationally) that do outperform more rational expectations. There seems to be inbuilt into the competitive spirit a willingness to accept (unreasonably) your own specialness in the absence of evidence. Such an attitude is easy to understand as a competitive advantage in itself. Which is why ultimately I do agree that Arsenal are unlikely to win much more under Wenger. He is too reasonable. However I would still like to take issue with the idea that "If they don't that will be something like 9 years that they haven't won anything." is anything other than solipsistic madness as a reason to hire or fire a manager. Such arguments completely miss the fact that there are other teams to consider. Were those other teams better or worse than Arsenal (and, separately, how much of that is up to the manager?)? Were they more or less injuries at the time of competitions between them? Etc.. And, it also misses out on the idea that in an environment with many "top" teams, winning frequently is much less likely (all else being equal). Winning infrequently is the statistical norm. Secondly, "Surely there has to be a time when you have to start questioning the manager?". Shouldn't that be every year whether you win or not? Granted it is incredibly difficult to analyze, but isn't it quite possible that a mediocre manager wins a satisfying trophy through no fault of his own? Is it not also possible that a great manager strapped with common limitations no fault of his own comes to nothing and is wrongly impeached for failure? I think part of the allure of Football is that we can safely over-attribute success and failure to charismatic or nefarious characters, based on tribal impulses and neanderthal needs. But if you put that into words and make it an argument it sounds silly because it is so. I mean, don't get me wrong, I still agree with your conclusions. I just don't agree with the arguments. And I don't quote you fuzzrab because you're the one making the arguments. All the posts discussing Arsenal on this page seem to assume that these sorts of arguments are valid. I just quoted yours because it was succinct and clearly stated. I guess what I'm saying is: "Out with Arsene! Lets hope we're right about this because he sure was reasonable, consistent, and almost recently successful, which is more than most managers ever achieve!"..."Oh, and, the sample set of data is too small to arrive at conclusions. We knowingly demand more than is reasonable because...that's football!".
  8. Its a question of whether the economics in the database change or not at this point. Your experience seems to indicate that these figures do not change, which would be a bit surprising. On the one hand, it is beyond the scope of FM to simulate general world economics so some variation in wealth is to be expected as static. On the other hand that model of player valuations at various reps as outlined above is quite specific and would be a bit wooden if it never changed alongside league reputation. As a bit of a programmer I'm going to guess that these values do NOT change. The ratios across reps are non-linear to begin with so it would be fairly complex to apply some reputation-change algorithm to them I would imagine. EG, if a player is worth 100k at personal reputation 4000 and league rep 5000, then you'd think that maybe he'd be worth say 200k at league rep 6000 and 500k at league rep 7000, all the way up to say 2m at top reputation. However you can see that as player rep increases player value increases differently for Turkey and Czech players. I assume this is to model the general league economics as they are today. Top Turkish players are part of the larger EU market more generally so their values rise to meet top values around Europe whereas apparently top Czech players are more insulated from that effect. It is highly unlikely that this is modeled anywhere as a living economics and much more likely that it is a cookie-cutter applied to all players in each league statically. I do agree that that would create a problem long term for you as no matter what you do your players will still be valued as if Czech isn't much part of larger economic pressures. I do think this will be problematic as far as buying and selling players. EG: If you buy a 5m CB from France, he'll be worth 700k internally and this I think will be reflected in the sale price you'll eventually be able to get for him.
  9. Yes, and list by date joined. The way to do this is with a "contract" column active in a squad view. You can make a custom view or just use the default contract view. Note that new players do not always go into one squad or the other (depends on league you're looking at, active/inactive, etc..), so it's safer to check every squad until you're certain that league puts them all in one squad.
  10. For FM15 my wish is that SI start over. FMC is a step parallel to the "right direction", but strips out too much in some areas and leaves other stuff in. There is sooooo much glitter on this beautiful but delicate poached egg of a game that it looks like.... I dunno, a WalMart built on the Acropolis built on the Pyramids, built on cave paintings. It's the cave paintings that were the reason we settled here in the first place. IE, it is the massive database and hugely subtle interaction of variables (players, tactics) that makes FM so damn amazing as a game enterprise. And whilst this core has slowly improved over time (newgens, better league structures and research, PPMs, tactical interface, 3D engine to see it all), all the suburbia built up around it has nearly choked it to death. I'm all for Mini-Games, in principle, to have flourishing and vibrant alternatives to "playing a spreadsheet" continuously. Even accountants go to lunch after all. However, most of the modules are not good enough even in concept to do anything but choke the life from the game. If there are going to be mini-games like press conferences they need to be as fun as the core game, just with a different kind of fun. If not, they should be bulldozed. IF you start over SI, maybe you can build up a reverence for the core experience within your development such that you do not issue zoning permits to terrible modules anymore. Yours must be a priesthood of Trappist Kung Fu Shaolin arse-kickingness, not a competition of the pious for the pious about "not going to hell" and "how many angels can fit on a pinhead". But if you don't start over completely, perhaps you can strip out modules and make them fun and re-insert them only when 8 year olds would rather play them than have to go to school. Some modest measure of non-terribleness at the very least. But I do hope you start over at some point. The parasitism of these modules will eventually kill the enterprise. This is a module I'd like to see changed: The development module of "new features and keep existing modules". Even the term "module" screams "We will never innovate again, thanks for calling". Every year I hope I'm wrong about that, but I'm like the wolf pups in Game of Thrones still trying to suck at my dead mother's teat. Don't do that to us, KTHNKSBYE. Also, the idea that there must be "New Features" needs to be challenged. "New Features" is not always the answer. Yes you'll snow in a few more sales that way but c'mon, you can't start reading your own propaganda by the bedstand. "New Features" is the ugly sweater you have to wear to Grandma's house (publishers, media). Find a way to not upset grandma and actually keep some friends. Take off the sweater and get your code party on. Module = Internal Fun Police -- The fun police will entice an 8 year old to test each module. If they'd rather play with a block of wood or a calculator then the module will not be released. The developer of said module will be slapped with wet noodle for 24 hours and made to play "Egor" in the company lounge. Duncecaps will be provided by an anonymous fan. Module = Priesthood of Reverent Kungfu Football Poets -- The Priesthood will protect the delicate glory of the core game from corruption and develop new ways of touching this mystical experience. Suburbanite ideas will be sent packing or fed to the beast until they develop a soul. Nobody is above the authority of the warrior poets. Module = Example of a fun module...maybe Just so that I contribute something palatable to sweater-wearers, I was thinking that an alternative way to do player interaction and/or media interaction would be to have an office. You could meet with people in this office and have discussions (entice trialist to sign, plead with journo not to publish pics of you on the sauce, develop good feeling with team captain over a port). In my mind it's a 3-dimensional office where you're mostly sitting behind the desk and the "other" person sits across from you when you have a visitor. Because there are not close-up models of all the players their face could be in shadow (see X-Com council guy who vid-talks to you for example) or otherwise obscured in some humorous way (is reading a paper you have your feet up blocking a view of his face?). - With players you develop a relationship with them as a mini-game. They can become more loyal to you or to the club or to each other through this. They can become motivated via competition for a place in the squad or helped to settle in the area. There would be several attributes that could be affected here, and subtly (loyalty, willingness to follow tactical instructions, adaptation boost, morale, relationships with other players, dedication to training, interest in coaching, etc..). - The conversations would be non-linear and a bit unpredictable. As you become stronger as a coach there'd be less chance of making things worse, and it should never be the case that it would be easy to screw things up badly. The idea of this module is that if the human player wants to micromanage a bit they will benefit from that. Maybe you get 5-10% more performance from your squad by talking with them regularly. Perhaps you talk to 4 or 5 players every month and the effect is generalized to the whole squad so it isn't boring-as-hell. - Instead of being rote or simply player-driven, have the squad players occasionally bring something up that helps us manage our squad like "Boss, Johnny seems really upset about his divorce. I think you should talk to him because he's distracting us in training with his tirades (penalty to training effectiveness and/or relationships)". or "Boss, I know you like Mr. X but he is really slacking off in our Fitness Training (coaches can become disinterested in work with a penalty to coaching)", etc.. - The other side of having the office is to provide an alternate interface to all the damn tabs in the game. You could "reach" for a roster or scout report, or get up and pace around to make a point to a player, or check the media online to see what they're saying about you and your team. - Speaking of which, "pressure" on you could be simulated with your player's stupidly believing what media say about the team or you or each other. Also you could develop media-handling traits that inhibit you from handling pressure in always the best way. For instance you could slowly become "explosive" and occasionally crumble with expletives under pressure. Your mind-games should "show" to the media who will try to upset you or get the truth despite the party line, etc.. Somehow this "module" needs a bit of fun and vibrance or to be demolished and forgotten. Module = "Hot Coffee" - No, not sexytime. Allow Newgens to fight, Tweet, get in car-wrecks, punch the refs, etc.. and then make it easy to mod this so that you can have real players engaging in this kind of thing. Obviously the game can be fun without this, but I think we secretly wish there were more moments of stupidity from our players. Sort it out with legal and make it so.
  11. You'd need to load something like "Players from Top Teams, Scandinavia" as a custom database option to ensure there are players in at least some teams there. The way FM handles overseas talent by default has two parts: 1. The talent just appears in the youth teams of your local clubs, simulating youth that had been poached early (and expats too of course). 2. Talent appears in any clubs that are loaded in your database conditions, which usually contains "Top Clubs, World" as a condition, so for example Boca Juniors will have players even though very few other clubs in Argentina do, and despite you not loading Argentina specifically. I don't really know how large DB relates to medium DB exactly, but my impression is that "large" just gives you more players from the areas to be loaded, not more players from the world generally. Some people do run many leagues so that there are players everywhere, but IMO this is an outmoded approach. Far better to simply customize the database before you begin. I run: "Player from top clubs: World" (you have to specify each continent, but the result is "world"). "Current international players: World". This way you're sure to find some players almost anywhere you look, keeping scouting a bit more interesting. Hope that helps.
  12. Scouts are illiterate and do it all by memory: "What did they say their asking price was?" "Let me check my notes" (looks at paper busily). "I forget. I think between $34m and $44m". "Didn't you just get their asking price on the phone?". "Yeah, hungover, sorry boss." "Give me the damn paper, Henrique." "It says it right here dimnuts". Jerks.
×
×
  • Create New...