Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Butlee

  • Rank
  1. [Australia] (Official) Data Issues

    Just got around to properly looking at Brisbane Roar, and wanted to make a few (subjective) comments on attributes, specifically comparing players to one another. If there are some folks who do the research on the skill levels for Brisbane, I'd be happy to hear their thoughts and discuss. And no, this isn't just a disgruntled fan whinging about how bad Roar are this year (I mean, I am disgruntled, but I'm trying to be fair in my suggestions, hah!). General Players Massimo Maccarone seems to be over stated. I think I read somewhere that since he's an overseas player he may have been estimated by the Italian researchers? It would be nice the Australia researchers could estimate him comparative to the rest of the his current squad. For example he's listed as 11 pace, 11 acceleration, 11 agility and 13 balance. Compared to (lets say) Peter Skapetis who is 12pc, 12ac, 7agi, 10bal - it's not really the case. Skapetis is pretty mobile and Maccarone is equal or worse. But the issue might be present in all his stats - personally I think his First Touch is too high [13] and his Technique too [13]. Once again it's comparative. You've got Brett Holman who's on 10 for First touch and he's not 'that' much worse than Mac. 13 First Touch puts him up nearly as high as Ben Khalfallah [14] and Bautheac [14] and those to guys are probably 2-4 points higher than Maccarone at receiving with soft touches. So once again, I just think a general review of Massimo would be good. If I'm wrong and an Aussie researcher did put these stats in then ok - but I still tend to think he's rated considerably too well. Peter Skapetis seems to be a fair bit weaker in physical attributes than he should be. I'd say he's more akin to Jack Hingert in terms of general physique, mobility and speed. But I also think he's underdone in general compared to the rest of the team. Once again I just wonder if he was reviewed by someone outside the Australian Research team? If nothing else I think his dribbling, flair and aggression need updating. He has that real swagger of a player trained in Europe that most Aussies don't have and so he has a more natural hunger (say aggression, bravery, determination) than most of the team. Physical Avraam Papadopoulos might have his size and strength just a little understated and his general mobility overstated. The guy is a big unit and he's given 14 str - maybe I misunderstand what 'strength' represents, but my guess is he's stronger than even DeVere [14str], and certainly a LOT stronger than Maccarone [13], D'Agostino [12], Pepper [12] and some others. Matt McKay doesn't seem as immortal & fit as the game suggests. 18 Natural Fitness and 19 Stamina is high praise, but considering he's at least 3 points higher in both those stats than anyone else in the team - I just don't think that's a fair representation of him this season. There's just no way Brett Holman is in the top 2-4 players for general fitness at the club either [16 Nat Fitness and 15 Stamina]. He just isn't greater than Brown [14N/13St] and Kristensen [14N/13St]. I'd almost put him down towards Jade North who's 16 Nat Fitness and 12 Stamina, but maybe the other way around - Holman might be 11 Natural Fitness and 13 Stamina maybe? He's really struggling with the speed of the game over 90 minutes whereas North kind of manages it. I think Dane Ingham is a little bit quicker than we give him credit for here as well. Technical D'Agostino seems a little too good at dribbling. I don't think he's the type to dribble that much and it's not a part of his game. On the flipside, I think Brett Holman is better at dribbling then we give him credit for. His trouble isn't so much technical skill, it's physical skill and fitness. So I feel like his First Touch and Dribbling should be higher - and his general fitness decreased. That would represent him as a player. Joe Caletti might be a bit too good at Long Shots [14]. I'm not saying the little guy can't fire in great shots from range, but he certainly isn't going to hit some thunderous shots like Holman has done in the past 12 months. Actually I think Holman and Kristensen need to go up in Long Shots and Caletti down. Tackling wise I think DeVere and Papadopolous are better than any of the midfielders : Caletti, Pepper & McKay, and I'd argue that Kristensen is better than McKay as well. Mental Now it's really subjective and tough! I don't think DeVere is 3rd-highest anticipation. And Pepper & Oxborrow seem too high in this regard - they're both players who haven't had considerable amounts of A-League football... so it seems off to have them so high. Corey Brown probably needs higher determination [10]. He's come a long way in the past 12 months and he's a fairly adept battler. I can't imagine him being lower than Ben Khalfallah [11], Pepper [12], North [13] and Holman [13]. Can't speak for in the dressing sheds, but McKay seems to be the team leader. But if I'm honest all those good leaders are overrated if we're looking at the 2017 squad. It's tough to be judgemental, but there aren't too many players 'taking charge' right now on the park. Tone everyone down 1 and push McKay up 1 or 2 maybe. I think Corey Brown is at least equal, if not better Positioning-wise than Jack Hingert. Brown is really good off the ball in attack and defence really. One of the better players on the team for that. Brett Holman isn't a 20 Work Rate player. Teamwork at 19? Sure that may well be - he does put in well for his teammates. But Holman does his hard work in batches, and in between he drifts (mostly out of the game completely). I don't think anyone who watches him play for Brisbane is going to applaud him for his work rate. 15 might be an ok number, but comparative to his squad mates that even seem's too generous. Anyhow, if that's useful or anyone has any feedback on that it'd be great. I don't really know how this is all done by researchers and if there are cut-offs for information etc... but I figured this is based on 4-5 weeks of the season so its' just enough to get at least 1 good look at most of these players so we know what they're like. And of course - if there aren't many people doing the A-League stuff I'll put my hand in the ring. But I imagine there would be a few out there already!
  2. Cheers for your time. And thanks for the heads up on Nation > Transfer Window info. It's exactly what I were after! That one slipped under my radar all these years!! Also re: Passionate about the scouting knowledge - some would say petty and some would probably say mad lol. But seriously I just think this could be a great, interesting page if it got some proper love. And it's doubly frustrating to have (seemingly) receded since last season. Thing is - I think it still needs work right now to get it up to an acceptable standard, and then the rest can be in the future. I can imagine what I think is an acceptable standard for FM18 (basically to make it on par with FM17) and what SI are ready to commit at this stage will be a point of contention. And re: Finances - I still think this is buggy. If you are spending 745k p/w on wages and the chart only goes up to 700k - that's a design/interface issue regardless of how many months it tracks. Just so I'm still looking at the right stuff, I should probably take the following over to other areas (listing just as much for my own benefit for when I start my new post over there): Home [My History] Inbox [Social Feed] Dynamics [Social Groups 1&2&3] Dynamics [Team Meeting] Tactics [Overview] - intensity part Tactics [Opposition Instructions] Tactics [Analysis / Opponenet > Stat Pack] Team Report [Comparison] Staff [Overview] Staff [Job Security] Scouting [Scouting Centre 1&2] Scouting [Assignments] Scouting [Shortlist] Scouting [Knowledge & Improvements] Club [Facilities] Finances [Debts & Loans] Finances [Sponsors] Now I've just got to figure out which is which. eeek.
  3. Got to give them a chance at least! See what kind of feedback we get I suppose.
  4. There are a lot of posts saying the Interface is very weak and in response I hear a lot of comments asking for details and specifics. So I figured I'd go through all the general screens top-to-bottom and comment on any issues & offer ideas. Major or Minor. Hopefully I'm not too apprehensive as well. Ultimately we just want the best game that tailors to everyone's needs. And Ultimately this is beta feedback. So for every time I've said "this is dumb" I've at least attempted to give some proper feedback on why or what to improve. EDIT: At least I started this as mostly an 'interface' kind of thing. But it turn into a 'whatever I think of' kind of thing. Seriously though if anyone wants to dissect it and let me know which pieces should go where, I can do the leg work and make new threads (with the screenshots etc.. attached in other areas. There also seems a general consensus that the match day interface is a bit of a wash, so I'll leave that until it gets some work (there are dozens of threads on bits and pieces to fix there from camera angles or finding player stats, to the horizontal formation when it's vertical everywhere else and how tedious setting opposition instructions are etc..). I'll mention that I'm playing windowed. With mostly max settings. Since a lot of the interface changes appear to be in an attempt to utilise space, I realise that this is mostly practised on fullscreen. So some of my comments may be weak because it's not an issue on fullscreen. You can decide if my claims are valid or not. Also finally, some of this may well be 'not an interface issue', so please point me in the right directions for posting certain things so I can copy/paste them where they belong. Home [My History] - If you click on the option to "Keep History After Retirement" it doesn't immediately indicate the tick showing that it will do this (or that it's turned it off). You have to navigate away from the Home bar and then back to it to see what your setting is there. Inbox [Inbox / Social Feed] I basically don't like that social feed even exists, but I'll try to define my major issues. #1 - Important information is split between your inbox and social media. See, the most common answer you get when you say you dislike the social media element in FM is "well ignore it." But I feel like I'm missing some important information if I don't cast an eye over it every so often or around important events and times. Now what is 'important' is obviously subjective, but here are 2 examples: [INBOX] When a player on your shortlist is bid on by another club. [SOCIAL] When a player on your shortlist is listed in a clubs 'retained' memo. (whether he's retained or not). [INBOX] When your player is selected in the team of the week or wins a player of the month award. [SOCIAL] Generally these awards are in Social Feed. So to me it's either important to get ALL information about your shortlisted players, or it's not. A player being bought versus him being released is equally valuable information. Similarly, pushing the awards stuff to social media just feels less immersive. I mean I should want to know who the key players to look out for in our division are. #2 - Most of the comments about your actions just come in "Plus/Minus/Interesting" format. Once you've seen it once you've seen in a thousand times. And it's boring. I don't even know the improve this. Logistically how do you make fake twitter accounts write in relevant, contextual information? But as it stands you make a decision, you'll get the PMI responses and none of it means anything and none of it is interesting. In the real world you would use social media to try and canvas fan opinions and get some general feedback - but here you can't. And with player signings you get the feedback in your inbox anyway. So now we're back to - why have social media if your inbox gets all the relevant and important stuff? #3 - There's no way to 'use' it as a helpful tool. Obviously the exception is the small (<5%) of relevant important info mentioned in #1. You can only sort to see News Outlets or Social Accounts. There's no categorising based on player movements, your club only or particular media outlets. You can't click the hashtags to get all the recent news surrounding a particular player or club (it'll just take you to their profile pages). There's no way to take the information created there and make it useful. Don't get me wrong - I understand why it's how it is, but in terms of a manager trying to use it as a resource it fails. In terms of it being interesting and relevant it fails. And in terms of 'not' being a confusing jumble of what's important to you personally and not, it fails. That's my social media trifecta. Let me rephrase: 1. I can't ignore it because it does have information I want to see that I can't get shipped to my inbox. 2. 95% of the information is redundant because it's easy to spot the trends in how the info is created. 3. Even if you embrace the social media element, there's no way to use it. Inbox [Transfer Window] - When you're in a transfer window that tab exists, and when you're on the last day it changes to "Transfer Deadline Day". I kind of miss the general Transfer Window tab though. The Deadline Day tab is fine - it's great for what it does - but it's no replacement for the overall transfer window tab. - Basically what I want (especially in smaller, more intimate leagues with less clubs) is the ability to review the transfers made using the Transfer Window screen, AFTER the transfer window has closed. At the moment you can only look prior to the final day, and during the final day. There's no kind of "Transfer Window Summary" page that includes the final days' transfers. And I know that I can still look up individual teams, and I can still look up overall transfers via the (per my screenshots below) "England > Transfer" section. But that 2nd option is not the best for filtering by division and they're also monthly tables, not 'transfer window' tables. I'm not saying there's a void of information - you can still find what you're looking for. What I AM saying is that we could do with the great Transfer Window Interface open ALL the time. Is there any reason this page can't exist always? You can just have it sit there even between transfer windows. So at any given time we have an easy access to look who spent what and how many trades each club made, and have the easy-access clicks to check that out! Squad [Players / All Players] - Is the 'All Players" tab a bit redundant? The filers let you switch on every squad and look at everything. I understand that there's a trade-off here: You want to let people manage and look at their players in multiple ways (so they can find what suits them), but there's also the element of the All Players tab being undercooked and untouched compared to specific pages (ie, for training or fitness there are now comprehensive, dedicated pages that you should steer managers toward). [Players] - One thing I have trouble with (and let me know if it's just me) is when I'm trying to make custom views. The visible column headers don't seem to line up properly per 'clicking'. It becomes really messy when you're trying to replace or remove columns because there's no visual cue which column header you're mousing over. Or the visual cue is wrong. Let me try and illustrate. So I've created a custom page called "Passing and Possession 1". I want to remove composure and put crossing in. I hover over composure with mouse [First bit]. I go to replace the column and find crossing [Second, big middle bit]. Then once selected, it has actually replaced Vision - ie NOT what my mouse pointer was hovering over. It's a small grievance I'm sure, but it's annoying if you make a habit of designing all your own tabs. Dynamics [Social Groups] The Social Groups page looks like it just got updated to have a 'red' section of Influential players, and it's getting difficult to read the names. Can we just have all the names in white? It looks good in the blue section. But the grey and red make it really difficult to read the names. If we need to make a darker yellow/orange blend so all the names can be in white than I'd prefer that to some black names and some white. [Social Groups 2] I'm really disappointed that with the Social Group Naming. There's a "Core" and an "Others" - then it's just "Secondary Social Group A", "Secondary Social Group B", Secondary Social Group C". - Apart from sounding a bit silly, wouldn't the 2nd secondary social group be the tertiary one? I mean, if we're going to rank them like this appears to? - And if we're not ranking them - it's just "Core" and "Secondary", well could secondary be renamed "Alternative" or "Minor" or "Peripheral"? [Social Groups 3] I can't go past this section without sharing my opinions on what would make Social Groups interesting versus what makes them kind of poor right now. Maybe I originally set my expectations too lofty for this, but I had great ideas for what this could be. This seemed like a great way that you could generate a kind of club culture by the way you played, the players you had, and the way players with similar mentalities or play styles/preferences fit in with one another. For example when I'm signing a player I wanted to be thinking "will he be determined enough to fight for every point and every goal? Like the rest of my lads?" And that's not really what we got.... Basically there are two problems; #1 - The Social Groups don't give any indication of what they are. Why do the players in that group stick together? The actual problem here is that you can't properly manage your social groups because they're linked by either a randomised invisible link or trait, or (and I hope this 2nd one is the right answer) an intricate web of features like their experience, personality, mentalities, adaptability etc... that is impractical for common users to figure out. Now you're going to tell me that I can still manage this by the feedback on whom doesn't fit in with the social groups already, AND that I get scouting feedback on any potential new signings about how well they fit in. BUT, the best features in FM - and what splits the best managers apart in my opinion - are the ones that you can get feedback on, but that you could also have figured out that feedback/advice by looking yourself. For example: If I scout a player and the scout says he's good because he is quick, but he's risky because he's got injury troubles, that information is available for me to go and look and decide for myself. "Quick" might mean he has a great top speed but he isn't agile, or "Injury Prone" might be the scouts impression based on 1 long-term injury last season. So I can take the scouts advice on board, but I also have the appropriate information available to make my own decision. With Social Groups we don't have that. Our ability to manage - even through the long-term manipulation of which players we buy and sell - is purely based on the advice of our staff. We can't look and make our own informed opinions. Which brings me back to the point about "what" are the social groups? "Why" do the players in them stick together? What general or specific trends are prevalent throughout a group? If we knew (for example) that the Core Group bonded because they were all highly ambitious - that's great because I can decide to harness that. If I knew they were brave, I could be careful to temper that. If there's a Professional group and a Determined group I may just be content to let both of them grow separately. These are just examples, but THIS is the kind of thing I thought Social Groups would bring to the game. We're creating a club culture that translates to effort on the pitch. #2 - You can't really do anything to change social groups. Can players change between Secondary and/or Core groups? I honestly have no idea. Can I influence the change? If not, why can't I through having the Captain run a team meeting every once in a while (or just having an influential captain/leader), through tutoring and through my interactions with certain players (ie. telling a youthie he needs to buck up his ideas might propel him towards a more determined Social Group)? If I can, why don't I ever get any feedback from my coaching staff? Does my skipper or vice, or do my other team leaders or social group leaders ever come to me to discuss helping players out? Or helping them move between social groups? As far as I can tell you can't do too much to change social groups. And a final disclaimer: I'm not saying we should be able to man-manage our social groups. You can't force players to like other players. I'm just saying that with a bit of feedback on what each social group values, and some general ideas of what we can do to influence social groups gradually, a good manager can nurture a really well-bonded squad with similar goals and ambitions (like how you would nurture the career of a young star by weighing how and when you play him, loan him, pay him new contracts etc...). What worries me a little is that the dynamics system isn't that deep. And if not, it makes the whole thing kind of annoying and not fun at all imo. It's just another thing to 'know', but not another thing to 'manage'. (I hope this little section gives of some feedback on how to improve the system, not just bashing it. I know my frustration shows through a bit here!) [Team Meeting] - Can we have some function that when you click this button it doesn't automatically start a team meeting? Can we get a popup to confirm if we want to? Or an interface where we tell the players why we want a meeting (with possible reasons showing up). I know it's a silly though, but I feel bad when I invite all the players to a team meeting just because I'm flippantly clicking through all my tabs like a crazy obsessive-compulsive person. Tactics [Overview] I actually really like this page, especially with the tactics expand/retract/pin function. It works equally as well in full screen and windowed modes. It just has a general good feel about using it. Looking at your players and some stats, then expanding the tactics section to tinker and seamlessly going back to the player lists. Two little things though: - When you click in the area on the bottom-ish right assigned to "Team Instructions" it brings up the Team Instructions window. It sounds obvious, but the mouse pointer doesn't read that as a clickable area. When you hover over the actual words "team instructions" it obviously goes to the clicking hand/finger. But hovering in the green-space there (light skin) doesn't look like it's a clickable area. Personally I'd prefer if clicking this expanded/retracted the Tactics window, but at the very least this should show as a clicking area. - Intensity looks like a cool (new?) feature added to the game. Or at least it's more emphasised now. But there's really nothing else mentioned about it beyond that 1 bar and some hover-over info. Ok so higher intensity can cause more injuries - what's a safe level? If I have a naturally fit and strong side can I overcome some of that injury risk? Is the intensity show based on how fit my current squad is (I assume a side with less endurance overall would be higher risk if running the same high-intensity strategy as one with greater fitness)? Can I get a medical opinion on how much stress we're putting on our players - on individuals or the squad as a whole by using a certain level of intensity? Do we get memo's in our inbox from the Boss of Sports Science saying "hey you need to calm you crazy tactics down, it's destroying your players." The whole thing just seems a bit undercooked to me. Intensity seems like a huge part of how you manage and create tactics, but we have barely any kind of feedback on this. [Opposition Instructions] I've seen some people complaining about not being able to set multiple instructions (say "Show onto weaker foot" for 10 players at a time) while in-game, but you can do it here. If it's able to be done in 1 place, it probably needs to be possible in-game as well. [Analysis > Next Opponent > Stat Pack] It honestly just assaulted my senses a bit. Blame the colours of the clubs at hand maybe, but I think it's because everything else (see all my other screenshots) is these softer colours and in here it's bold red and blue and it really doesn't fit the rest of the colour pallet. I find this issue still holds no matter the skin I put on (images are all FM Light). Team Report [Comparison] The yellow, denoting highest average is tough to read, and the light blue for lowest average gets lost if you in fact have some of the lowest averages. (see image below) I'm aware that this is just a problem with the FM Light skin. But I think if you want all 3 skins to look the same, any changes for the Light should be made for all 3. Maybe have this is bigger font with a black outline on the text? Or make a legend up the top right where it currently just says "average" and mention up there what the yellow and blue lines mean, instead of trying to write the line descriptions over the top of the graph. And no this isn't really solved on Fullscreen either. Wherever blue overlaps blue (or yellow overlaps yellow for that matter) you're obviously not going to be able to read the text. Staff [Overview] I just find that red-on-black difficult to read on both the FM Light and FM Dark skins. This also seems a bit nit-picky, but the "lowest average" in the Player Skills comparison (screenshot 2 above) is below the line and here (this screenshot) it's above the line. I see both screens as kind of the same information [qualify of your players/staff versus the rest of the division] so they should be nearly identical in design/colour imo. [Job Security] The "form" buttons don't work. On other screens (Team Report > Overview // Tactics > Opposition Instructions) when you click the form button (it's made to look like a clickable button now) it takes you to the relevant schedule page. In Job Security it doesn't do that - even for active leagues. Scouting [Scouting Centre] What's odd for me here is that the colours used (in all skins, though once against the FM Light always looks worse overall) in the Scouting Inbox window don't match the club colours for when you actually go and look at a player. Why not? See how they are different colours? Maybe purple isn't so bad, but when you get different shades of club or green (that are more common) it can seem a bit odd - as if you're looking at entirely different clubs. It's not a big deal, but why not just make them the same colour?! Speaking of, there's a little issue with the name of these players (in the Scouting Inbox) changing colours. In my game Roger Martinez showed up in white, then I clicked him and hit 'back' and it was this blue, Then I changed skin to FM Dark and he was in white again. Changed back to FM Light, he was a black name and once again when I clicked the name and then 'back' it reverted to blue. So there's some kind of bug in there somewhere. [Scouting Centre 2] I also tend to get a lot of feedback and suggestions from outside my scouting range, despite having not requested anything like that. How am I getting feedback on players in the ACL when I clearly toned down my packages to just look inside Europe? More feedback is obviously welcome, but if my packages don't reflect what's being worked on by my staff, then what's the purpose of the packages? I'm sure there's a proper answer to that, but you have to understand that this seems illogical to the manager. Manager - "Staff team, lets focus on finding players in the UK & Ireland ok?" Analyst - "ok sure! here's my first report, from Asia!!" Now I understand that the packages compared to the "General Focus" are not the same thing. But at the very least there needs to be some more feedback/definition on what each does. The scouting packages are poorly described in the game in my opinion. [Assignments] When you click on 'Scouting Responsibility' or "Scouting Focus' - if you play with any of the options and navigate off these pages, it instantly resets all your scouting assignments. There needs to be a confirmation button that starts this, or a pop-up confirmation asking if you want to make the changes or not. Thing is, you might want to just look at what filters short term or general have. Or look at what alternatives you have from your Chief Scout to manage scouting. Just looking at these things should be harmless, but right now it instantly resets all the scouting assignments. All the scouts reports are set to 0 (you don't instantly lose their work as they're in the 'previous assignment section') and they all have 'no matches watched' set. At the end of the day it probably doesn't matter - ie, you won't lose scouting efforts due to this. But it should be fixed to have some kind of confirmation - if for no other reason than to notify managers that they did in fact make changes while playing around in those screens. [Shortlist] Right now (18.0.3) when you mouse over the "New Search" it brings up the window for setting search parameters. Obviously this should only come up when you click on it. Little bug, but a nuisance all the same. Especially if you want to use the 'shortlists' function just above the button and you get into a dumb cycle of opening the parameters window, moving the mouse down to 'cancel' and then the direct route back to your shortlists open goes over the "New Search" button - once again bringing up the parameters menu, lol. [Knowledge] I've always found Scouting Knowledge to be one of the more interesting kind of 'side projects' you can engage in as a manager. You can focus certain areas - strategically picking out untapped regions or heavily focusing on competitive areas to make sure you're getting the best chance at securing talent from there, or just randomly picking areas because it's fun. For example as an Aussie I take pride in getting my Australian scouting knowledge up as high as I can as soon as I can. Or maybe you just want your knowledge decent in as broad an area as possible, just want your world knowledge percentage as high as you can, or just want to paint the visual graph nicely. And then we get this: The overall issues are that the visuals are poor and don't match the data in a predictable fashion. - It's also a step back from the FM17 version - which was smaller and minimalist in general, but had far better information. Above I hovered over "Spain" on both maps. FM17 is on the left, FM18 on the right. Sure scouting has changed a bit since then, but there's nothing stopping FM18's hover-over saying the country, what region it falls under, scouting knowledge of that region and country etc... - The top right 'legend' doesn't make sense. For starters it's 11 blocks.. is that 1-to-10 covering 0%-99% and the final 1 being 100%? Seems really odd. Second there are only 2 shades of green. So why do we even have 11 blocks? I can understand why half the spectrum is green, but why not just have red/yellow/grey/green/green and a 5-bar legend? This doesn't change no matter what skin we have. - There's an argument to be had about said 'green' as a positive colour being used for as little as 25% scouting knowledge of any country/region as well. - This another example where the game uses quite 'soft' colours in every section, except a few. And when you see these boldened reds, yellows and greens it sticks out. Having the bold colours in the chart also doesn't match the soft/faded colours in the legend. - World Scouting Knowledge looks as if it were tagged on like an afterthought. In FM17 it was in the top left of the knowledge window as if it were the most important information and now it's tiny text hidden under a capitalised SCOUTING header (which looks wrong being all caps by the way). It just gets lost up there. - The Map itself has the curvature on the edges which means it's supposed to look like a flattened out globe. That's an interesting idea as an art style, but it's not really appealing, appropriate, not even practical here. There's just no need to curve North American and Australia/Oceania. If anything, a normal, flat chart would utilise more of the horizontal space because the top half of this page actually looks pretty empty as it stands. I did this map to show where the Great Australian Bight and TAS(mania) line up with their northern coast landmarks. It highlights why the curved Scouting Knowledge map (above) is actually fairly annoying visually. It also dis-apportions how close/far the nothern and southern islands of New Zealand are to the East coast of Australia. It just looks so weird, further enhanced because the north-eastern parts of Russia & Asian are NOT curved in, nor is South America. So lets talk Data, and Data vs Maps and Nation Data vs Regional Data.... - In our Knowledge Screenshot above, Brazil is shown on the map as yellow and 'nominal' knowledge. On the Nations tab we have 0 knowledge of Brazil (because if we did have yellow knowledge of Brazil, it would show up above France which is only red knowledge). So what this is must be doing is reflecting our Regional Knowledge - 9% nominal for South America (East). Ok then, so that logic dictates that since Central Europe is 39% very good, all of Central Europe should be green on the map. But no, in this case France being at 1% Minimal on the Nations list means the map shows us the French Nation-specific scouting knowledge. You can't go both ways. Either the map has the Regional Knowledge shaded in OR it has the specific country knowledge shaded. You can't pick and choose because obviously that's conflicting information. - As my Manager persona has a 2nd nationality from Australia, we gain 32% Aussie knowledge on the Nations section. In the regions section there isn't even a bar for South-East Asia where Australia falls into. Even if 32% of Australia counts as a fraction of a percentage of SE-Asia's knowledge, it should show up. Even as 0% it should show up. - Club is responsible for all this Polish knowledge for no reason (this is a known issue, but I'm trying to cover everything here). - Supposedly we know something about Oceania (keep in mind Australia itself is the SE Asia Region now), but we don't seem to have any links to any Oceania nations. Certainly not enough to give us a 15% decent knowledge of there. Certainly not better knowledge than we'd have of South Europe or Scandinavia (being an English club). [Knowledge - Improvements] There's a lot of potential for this feature to be more interactive, fun and logical. I'm only critical on it because it could be great. The map is a big issue though. For any of this to be relevant the map needs to be more than just a dropped-in screenshot looking thing. - Add some toggle options so you can highlight on the map the different regions. As best I can tell there is no visual representation of the Region cut-offs. Most people know, but it would be really nice if we could click "South Europe" and it shades out all the other regions and purely highlights the countries in South Europe on the graphic. For newer players, or just those who've never put much thought into it, this would be fantastic. "oh so my East Africa is poor? Which countries exactly make up East Africa?" - When you hover over a country you get more feedback on that country & your relevant scouting details. Basically start with as much of the FM17 stuff you can still put on there and bulk it up with information about the country; National Team ranking, Top Division (and it's ranking), Best Teams, Current champions etc... - Countries need to be click-able. And it then takes you to that nation's home page. As a compromise, if you do make hover-over tooltips, those need to be able to be clicked upon to get to the home page. The map obviously can still read which country you're mousing over, so this should be doable. - More colours. I know simplicity is best, but right now having multiple shades of green isn't really useful or visible on that map. Try telling me at a glance of my map screenshot if Italy, Poland, Spain or Norway are good green or great green? I guess you can default to more blue. But I don't know, throw in a pastel purple or something. Replace the Grey with Lilac. - Correlation between the data at the bottom and the map. Basically a bunch of the stuff I said above the 'improvements' section can be worked upon to give a better outcome. Thing is, people will adapt to whatever you choose. If you want the Nations knowledge to ratio you out a Regions knowledge and the map to just show the regions knowledge that's fine. And when you hover over a particular country it can say "hey France is red, but it shows Green because Central Europe is green" - that's fine. It makes sense. OR, if you make the map highlight every country point-for-point that's ok as well. OR, make a toggle where people can choose to see the Regional colours highlighted or the Nations colours highlighted. Is all this a lot of work? Sure, but clearly a lot of work was done to move from the FM Scouting Knowledge page to get to this point. So if we must change, let's at least do it right and make this page an improvement! Club [General] Club value seems to have slipped away while nobody was looking. Personally I don't mind if it's there or not - Turnover is a better measure of a clubs value than 'value' ever was imo. But that Finances section looks quite bare now. Especially on full screen. Add highest paying sponsor in there or something new? [Facilities] I've always thought the Stadium name was really understated here. It's generally your most significant Facility and is a header for this page, but it's always been written in small text. It should be bigger and bolder. Board [Overview] Just a little gripe of mine - is there any way we can manipulate these sections to get the 'full' look at them. Without the need to scroll down. Ie, the buttons they give you don't link you to the exact portrayal of information there. Finances is kind of fine, and the Scouting piece is just text so it's not as big of a deal. But the Staffing is a neat little tick-and-flick table of what you're allowed to hire. I know the staff pages cover this in detail too - but this is the best simple review of such things. It's a shame we can't choose to expand it, have options to take the Finances out to extend it, or just pull it out as a page or popup on it's own. Heck if you're really inventive, let us click on the roles in that window and it automatically takes you to a "Staff Search" page with the parameter/filter of the staff role already applied! Finances [Wages] Mine at Huddersfield just seems a bit broken. I guess something something scaling on the Y axis. I'll let you guys figure this one out! [Debts & Loans] I really like the work done to the Debt & Loans and the Sponsorship pages over the past few years of FM. It's the simple things like the pie wheels and being able to mouse over them to see which deal is which. But I have to say, trying to understand some of the information is an absolute chore. I can't tell you where our Net Debt of 86,970,787 pounds comes from? It looks remotely close to the Original Debt, but that doesn't make sense because our remaining debt is 81M. And I can't rationalise our 437k per month to our expenses page either: We paid 451,498 last month. I could understand if the expenses were lower meaning this month there are still debts payments to be incurred. But if it's higher - where is the extra debt repayments coming from? And if there's something in the line "Loan Repayments and Interest" that ISNT on the Debts and Loans page... well shouldn't these two go hand in hand? This isn't a new issue - other versions have had similar inconsistencies. I'd guess the math for figuring out the distribution of repayments is done in quite detailed fashion in the Income/Expenses pages, and the Debt & Loans page along with Sponsorship page are really just there as a summary. They're not supposed to hold under scrutiny. And if that's the case it's fine. But it's worth making a mention, just in case any perfectionists over at SI want to (a) make it all line up nicely, or (b) want to explain the differences to us. [Sponsors] - Can we have a 'total' please? It's funny because the Debt & Loans is a lot more messy and yet that has a total debt calculation even though total debt isn't as vital as the monthly repayments. Sponsorship on the other hand - total annual sponsorship IS a big deal and since it's often just paid up front once, a Total of your sponsorship would be nice. As soon as you get 3-4 sponsors it gets a bit out of hand for just doing the math in your head!
  5. Match Tactical Information

    I think a lot of the match day interfaces are poor and don't give easy access to the higher priority information. This is definitely an example of that
  6. Got to agree that this is fairly annoying. Hope it's something that can be fixed.
  7. [Asia] (Official) Specific Issues

    That's a fairly significant issue for anyone wanting to play a good career in Australia. I won't go on about it, but just say once that that's very disappointing to hear.
  8. Opposition instructions

    Personally I like using this method to check my opponents players - so even if you add the little "i" function back to hover a players stats, I'd still like to be able to click a player and then hit 'back' to go to the OI screen. Sometimes it's worth seeing the stats, form and traits of a player - not just his attributes (which is what the "i" gave iirc?).
  9. Match Engine Split View

    This is my main issue too. I mean personally I love the 3D stuff this season - the motion capture is seems a lot more smooth and the colour jumps out a lot better this year - but without the radar widget you can't really afford to zoom in that close. It's a major feature upgrade (3D models updated) but if you want to see the fruits of that upgrade/effort you have to give up on really gaining anything tactical out of the match (because you can't see team shape, who is making runs, who's in or out of position etc...). And if that's the choice, I choose to find a view that lets me see the game tactically over the prettiest picture - this season it seems only the 2D view gives that.
  10. In Match Tactics change

    To be fair, a lot of the in-game information is difficult to navigate. For example, if you want to look at Player Stats, you have to pause, go to Analysis, click Match Stats, use the Team X Stats and then look. And if you just so happen to click on a player's name to check something, the 'back' function takes you back to the pitch - so you need to do it all again just to look at your Player Stats page. Which seems crazy, because (at least to me) the Team X Stats page has always been my primary 'go to' page to figure out whats working/isn't working, and once I have a rough idea THEN I go to the other analysis tools and start thinking about fixes. Correct me if I'm wrong there? What I'm struggling to understand is - a lot of the interface changes seem to be for the sake of change, NOT because 'oh we can make it better if we change it like this'. What are the advantages to all the match day interface changes? The horiztonal tactics pitch, the stats page being harder to get to, where do I find the live league table these days, why is the 'confirm tactics/substitutions' button so small (in game) to the point where you might miss it and not even realise while watching the Pitch that it hasn't gone through and isn't going to? The list goes on... Because I'm just failing to see the reasons for doing this.
  11. I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to say all this. If someone would direct me to the right area, I can back up all I'm saying with screenshots and some positive feedback on how to improve this feature (assuming of course that FM wants to improve this? I understand full release is a tight schedule of course). This whole page (not just yours posted above; I mean in general) is a bit odd. The info on the bottom half and top half don't seem to match. The scale is rather perturbing because all the shades of green are similar and anything >30% is green so it's all much of a muchness. There can be countries listed on the right side with x knowledge and the region they're in won't even be in the left Regions menu. The map graphic can show countries with solid scouting knowledge, but they won't even show up in the Nations List. To be honest this whole page is a considerable step backwards from FM17. The colours are rather ugly for starters. They're almost too bold - even the lower shades of green are too bold. While you can tell them apart, it still doesn't look good. The map itself has the curvature of a 'flattened-out-globe', which really looks out of place here and personally I feel like it makes Europe the centre of the world and makes the fringe continents (the Americas and Australia for example) look warped. I mean a flat map would take up a tiny bit more space (which is currently just an empty void) and would look much better. I mean, there's just no reason to use the globish style except for style-points, and it doesn't really win those.. so why not just be flat? Nothing lost, and it looks better and uses up more blank space! The tooltips on where you scouts were or what your knowledge level was when you hover over a region is gone. When you hover over a country it doesn't tell you what region they're in anymore either. This could be a really impressive feature in FM. In a perfect world the map would have all of the above, a better colour palette, the ability to either select or hover over 'regions' to see them highlighted in the map - unless you've looked into it, it can be hard to figure out the distinctions between "South Europe" or "Central Europe" or "South Asia" and "South East Asia" for example. It would be nice to have them represented visually in some form - and you would be able to click on a country on the map and it would take you to their home page. Or hover, get the tool tip up for that country, and click on it that from there. Right now it's just an eyesore, and actually gives LESS information than what we already had in FM17. I understand why the format was changed and the little green bars do look a bit nicer (than the blocky blues in FM17), but the map doesn't and it came at the cost of information and usefulness - which honestly are more important in FM.
  12. [Australia] (Official) League Specific Issues

    I haven't got far enough in to check myself. I'm curious to see how it goes also! The problem last season was with Loan signings and Marquee signings. Clubs would (think they can) loan a player as both, but the game saw both "Loan" and "Marquee" as mutually exclusive conditions. So players would be signed as a Designated/Marquee, but come on a Loan deal, eat up all the club's salary cap budget, and then they'd offload (sack) all there other highly paid seniors to try and stay under budget. Ross McCormack is on 65k per week at City, but he's a loan-in deal on a Designated Contract. So it looks like FM HAS created a way to fix this issue. The question remains if the AI is smart enough to make these 'Designated Loan' deals in future seasons.
  13. [Australia] (Official) League Specific Issues

    A minor point, and more of a suggestion or general housekeeping suggestion. I feel like this news item (shown in screenshot) re: A-League contract and registration information, should have a line about the salary cap at the start. If this is supposed to be a message to help introduce managers to the concepts unique to the A-League, that manager may also not realise that there is a salary cap. So I propose an extra paragraph (just a couple of lines) is added after the first paragraph. Something like: "Each club must register between 15 and 23 player above the age of 20. The combined wages of these players must not exceed $50,000 per week, due to salary cap rules in the A-League." "Players on Designated contracts....[and so on via the screenshot]" Just because people who know the salary cap likely understand the designated players rules. If they don't understand that there are designated players, they won't understand that there's a salary cap. The two go rather hand-in-hand in Australia.