Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

leviathan1904

Members+
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 "Houston, we have a problem"

About leviathan1904

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. My understanding of the yellow part is more about a matchplan rework due to "for every occasion". We will see.
  2. However, public opinion (media, pundits and fans) could influence the board's opinion/decisions and thus have an impact on job security. In this respect, it is quite interesting what Miles Jacobson said on YouTube in April: https://youtu.be/qbDQYuGtywI?t=5410
  3. I also think that the much demanded separation "defensive formation" (5-4-1) - "offensive formation" (3-5-2) will not return to FM. This was the case in the past. There have been reasons to give it up. At the same time, I also think that the visualization of role-specific movement profiles is a next step, so that the gamer can see how his own formation shifts in attacking play. The roles with their duty already include the shifting. But it is not obvious how far and where a player with his respective role and duty will run if he does not have the ball in attacking play. This will be a big challenge for SI. Such a visualization and animation must contain enough information to make things directly understandable, but at the same time it must not lead to the AI having more disadvantages. In this example, I have absolut no clue, what the difference between an advanced and roaming playmaker is.
  4. As I have already mentioned here... ... in my point of view, scouting is far too easily exploitable. The judging ability of a scout is linearly related to just one respective value with the consequence of a generated static objectivity, which is actually missing in real life. Experience matters, of course. A scout working for maybe decades in the scouting business will be able to make sound judgments based on his wealth of experience. But none the less, I strongly believe that cognitive bias still plays a role as well. Perhaps it would be possible to make scouting more difficult if such cognitive biases were taken into account more. Every scout has a personality, a preferred tactical style and playing style as you can see above. I suggest that these aspects should have a distorting effect or tendency in their judgement of players. A scout with a fairly sporting personality likes subconsciously players with a similar, comparable personality. So he may overestimate them a little bit and underestimates others. It is his blind spot. The preferred styles should also have an effect in the same manner: Maybe a scout who prefers a specific playing style has also a cognitive bias in respect to "player styles" (see above, general focus). So he may overestimate them a little bit and underestimates others. A consequence would be overall that it would make more sense to have one and the same player watched by several scouts because all opinions are of higher importance due to cognitive biases.
  5. High reputation matters when players ask for an improvement of the coaching staff (promises in transfer/contract negotiations). To put it in a nutshell: star players don't want no-names.
  6. Thanks for your input. Okay, yes, of course, that's right. Adaptability and determination affect the quantity of results. A scout, to stay with this example, who also has high scores in these areas, is of course preferable to someone who doesn't have them (but with the same judging abilites). But isn't it still the case that the quality of the individual assessment depends on only one factor (judging ability)? Or are there other aspects that could cause distortions of perception and errors of judgement even for a scout with 20/20? Does his personality have any influence? Is reputation important (except for the wage)?
  7. Basically I agree and theoretically I would like to see more euphoria around managers as you describe it. However, I have often wondered if such media events could become very annoying at some point. There would have to be a wide range and variation of messages. Otherwise everything would quickly repeat itself. Transfer rumors are an example, which cause immersion, but with time they get on my nerves personally. So it would be a great challenge to find the right balance.
  8. It is the same for scouts. Does anything other than judging abilities really influence their effectiveness? described the problem here:
  9. Besides guaranteed wage and agreed bonuses I would like to see how much performance-based payment a player has already received during the season. In addition to the total amount, a detailed breakdown would be nice (maybe as mouse-over?) Total amount of received bonuses (after 20 matches): €2.545 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance Fee €120 x 15 = €1.800 Clean Sheet Bonus: €85 x 7 = €595 Unused Substitute Fee: €30 x 5 = €150 And then, a collective overview of received bonus-payments would be great. Here I just can see guaranteed wage, but bonuses are missing. Thanks.
  10. You cannot speak for all other players. I do not share your view, for instance.
  11. I would like to see the Director of Football giving us more support in planning the squad by anticipating and listing possible needs for action. For example, he could say in front of a transfer window: Several clubs are currently interested in the following players (rumours). Club Z in particular is said to be very interested in player A. It is possible that a concrete offer can be expected when the market starts to move. If we should sell the player and not replace him internally, we have to be prepared. Since our shortlist currently contains no or hardly any candidates for the position of the player as a possible replacement, I propose to place the following short-term scouting assignments. Or: The candidates on the shortlist have not been observed for a long time. Their reports should be better updated. Or/and: When player contracts expire, something similar could happen and be suggested. So to speak, when the scenario of a transfer occurs or a decision about contracts has been made, one should not be completely unprepared.
  12. It has been discussed from time to time in the community whether FM still contains enough challenges for more experienced gamers. Difficulty levels were repeatedly mentioned. At the same time there are good reasons why SI will not offer any kind of arcade mode. Nevertheless, I believe that - besides AI - scouts are one of the decisive factors why FM is too easily exploitable. By using numerical values for their attributes, the distances between two different scouts are too obvious. A scout with a Judging Player Potential of 17 will always be better than the scout with a score of 16. The latter will always be better than 15. The first problem here is above all that the ability of a scout is linearly related to the respective number (players, instead, create a complex interrelation with several numerical values, such as how dangerous they are for goals). The second problem is that very good scouts, whose ability can be determined exactly, are in my experience far too easily and cheaply available. So when I intentionally do without these very good scouts with exact abilities to keep the assessment and development of players more incomprehensible, it unfortunately feels artificial. My suggestion is that the abilities of the scouts are only shown with categorical values, for example letters: It can still be assessed whether a scout is very good, good or just decent. But the ranking within a category is obscured. So if I have or hire a category A scout, it is not clear how capable he actually is. He might be a 20 or even just a 16, a category B scout might be a 14, but also just an 11. You know what I mean. One consequence would be that it would make more sense to have one and the same player watched by several scouts within the same category because all opinions are of higher importance. The basic mechanics remain unaffected. It's just a different way of presentation, which more experienced gamers could optionally choose.
  13. As much as I like the Team Report, unfortunately it has one major disadvantage in my point of view: Although it contains a lot of information, there is no way to make it a direct basis for subsequent actions. Let's take Borussia Dortmund's Team Report at the beginning of the season as an example: On the weaknesses side, the following information is of particular relevance to me: bravery and aggression are areas of concern. How can I handle such weaknesses? On the one hand I could use training (and mentoring) to work on it collectively, on the other hand I could specifically improve these areas through new signings by paying attention to them already during scouting. But I have to keep these areas of concern in my mind by my own to take them into account. Therefore it would be very useful and user friendly if I could already influence scouting (or training) focus at this point. Clicking on "Scouting Focus", here as an example, could open the General Scouting Focus: Here it would need a new option, something like "consider team report", where you can adjust areas of concern. More in detail, I could start an assignment directly. Here it would need a new drop down menu aspect, maybe below "fits tactic", like "consider team report", where the areas of concern are automatically activated. Overall, the Team Report should and could form the basis for further action. I think it would increase the relevance even more if the information could be used directly - even and especially when the human brain does not need to be used as a buffer. Thanks.
  14. At the moment we have two options handling potential issues with players: Discussing it by ourself or asking teammates. I think it would be great If we could have another option: using a staff member. Depending on the issue, there could be an automatically suggested staff member (here it is the DoF because of a transfer policy issue) for asking to resolve the problem. Maybe we should not ask, but delegate our staff. So there would be a better distinction between teammates and staff members; or the staff member is not mentioned by name, instead of teammates, but just by his position (2nd picture). Depending on his relevant attributes (level of discipline, man management, language (?) ) and his reputation, the likelihood for resolving the issue differs, of course. Discussing transfer police issues could be delegated to our DoF (if we have one), playing time issues to our Assistant Manager. If the issue is not resolved in the first run by a teammate or by a staff member, we can use one of the two remaining options. There should be advantages and disadvantages using all options one after another. Sometimes, depending on the player's personality and issue, it could be more convincing or, instead, more annoying. Overall, I think this little feature could add more possibilities for using our staff reasonably. The strengths and weaknesses of our staff members would become even more noticeable through different usage contexts. Thanks.
  15. A warning would be great and helpful if I accidentally substitute a goalkeeper for a player. Unfortunately, it has often happened to me that I was not paying attention, was too fast. That's why my backup keeper had to play for my striker several times. Very annoying. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...