Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

forameuss

Members
  • Content Count

    11,444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

1 Follower

About forameuss

  • Rank
    Reserves

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Partick Thistle

Recent Profile Visitors

8,398 profile views
  1. Presumably the processor. Or RAM. You likely won't get a specific answer to that anyway. But you're talking like it's some kind of limitation your system has. It likely isn't. You're using a huge dataset and trying to load it into a system that's probably designed for something far smaller. That's just going to be slow. I'm not really sure what your issue is.
  2. Seems fairly logical where a potential bottleneck would be. You're adding a huge amount of data, and you're saying it slows down as it adds more. So it's adding values to a list. Which gets bigger. Which takes longer to process. Doesn't seem rocket science. And I very much doubt you're going to get the official answer you're looking for on something so niche, particularly when it's using input generated on a third party app.
  3. They don't put "zero money" back in. Certainly not the majority of their profits, but let's not get hyperbolic. I'm well aware of what you need to do, but you're missing the overarching point. EA probably put the most effort into commentary in this kind of game. That isn't to say they're particularly good at it, because they're not. Commentary is pretty much universally terrible in any kind of game that has it. Because at the end of the day, all it is - like I said earlier - is a limited set of lines that can be used in certain situations. You can add more lines, but you're still limited, and on a long enough time-scale, you're going to see it be repetitive. FIFA becomes repetitive after a handful of games - how many games does the average FM player play? Obviously nothing is beyond the limits of technology, but it very well could be beyond the limits of a small team working on a niche product. They're not equivalent. It's a sizeable piece of work, so the only way they don't impact other modules in some way is by bringing people in to work solely on it, which has financial impacts rather than resource impacts.
  4. Which brings me to the second point I mentioned. The market leader in this area has a quite frankly terrible implementation. Not exactly their fault, you can only code so many phrases in, and there's only so far some creative butchering of said phrases can give the impression of intelligence. Play the game enough, and there's nothing original there. And that's with massive financial backing available to actually improve it. If you think you're going to get a system that doesn't become repetitive on a fairly short timeline, then you're thinking about something that simply doesn't exist. And what are you basing the nebulous "technology has improved" on? You're still reacting to events with a fixed script, and I don't imagine they're going to go away and build this incredible artificial intelligence that can do it better, while neglecting to do the same for AI elements that would bring benefit to everyone.
  5. The biggest plot-hole being that every time sound is ever brought up, a lot of people confirm they play with the sound off. I'm sure SI have echoed that too (and they have the stats to back it up). Seems an incredible amount of work for something that'll please a handful of people. The biggest argument against commentary is that you can be the most successful football game out there, one that makes millions upon millions in sales and microtransactions, and you put out the laughably limited Martin Tyler/Alan Smith/Cheers Geoff system that FIFA has. It's repetitive, it's boring, and it gets muted immediately. What's the point?
  6. I'd agree with that. It would be very unlikely for there to be a way to properly hide CA/PA values from users. It has to be available in some form to be used by the modules that need it, so they'd essentially just be hiding it. They could obfuscate it, or have it in some other format, but when you're going to those lengths, what's the point? You'd still get people coming on complaining that Johnny Goals PA was 4 wobbly eggs when it should be 7. Plus it'd be a shame if those that understand the values and workings of it perfectly fine, but wanted to edit be disallowed because SI are doing their best to hide it for pointless reasons. Slightly different tack, but I'm curious. You're probably one of the more "visible" researchers on these forums, and you always give really good insights into how you rate players (not that some people listen). You talk above about the discussions you have to have around researchers, but has there ever been an occasion where someone has come to you with a well-reasoned argument and fundamentally changed your mind? It always seems like the threads go the same way - someone looks at a player who once scored a good free-kick and uses that as the basis for why they should have 20 free-kicks. In other words, very little substance.
  7. Don't believe it does. I created a large number of fresh clubs, and they only had home and away tops. I think you need to physically specify one for them to be there, unless there's a flag somewhere.
  8. "decent" speed is subjective. You've bought it now, and said you're not cancelling it, so you're about to see what it's like. It'll probably be fine.
  9. Yes you can do that, although it will be truly manual and involve you having to go into every team and do it as far as I know. Maybe be able to do it in bulk, but not sure. And the editor's free, no harm in finding out for yourself.
  10. It's heavily both to be fair. International Football is pretty sparsed in-game compared to the club side. If there's a function there to be used, it should probably just work, rather than be just a bit rubbish because they haven't prioritised making it work better in an international setting.
  11. eh? How does putting it in a web app make it easier to use? Presumably it's the same app, just hosted elsewhere. So...where's the ease? But calling it more reliable...jesus. You want to put all the weight of processing onto a server, which is hardly reliable, and then put a further reliance on your own setup to stream it down. So let's put this as a comparison - the current app relies on your system working, and the app itself working. Your proposed "more reliable system", relies on your system working, the app itself working, the internet being available, the internet being quick enough, SI servers being reliable and SI servers being quick enough. So what exactly makes it more reliable? ...again, eh? Who is this "we"? Go show me a major company that prefers such programs And one final point aside from all this. If they were to implement this, presumably there would be no loss of functionality, and selling essentially the same product, but hosted elsewhere. So now SI have to pay for development, plus the not insignificant server costs. So it would be no surprise if it pushed FM from the fairly reasonable price point its at now towards the more ridiculous £60 AAA point. All to make a worse product.
  12. It might sound flippant, but...why? What makes this better than what we have right now?
  13. Can't remember having too many issues with that, but when I was in Gibraltar, any complaints would be met with a swift kick in the stones. I rushed through domestic matches so much that there probably were some, but they didn't amount to much. Either rotate, or rule with an iron fist I guess.
  14. I ended up regularly submitting 17 man CL squads since I couldn't fulfill the home-grown rules. Domestically you shouldn't have a problem - enough facilities investment and you'll be producing players that can blitz any team in Gibraltar.
×
×
  • Create New...