djht

Is it time for an all new version of the game to be released, and not just another data update and a couple of new cosmetic features?

115 posts in this topic

It's been six years since CM4. I'm not saying that there hasn't been any changes to the game in the last few encarnations, but seriously it's been a while since the the last all-new version was released.

The current slider tactical system has reached its development potential. It needs to be replaced by something more flexible and realistic. There should more tactical variables but fewer ordinal options within each variable.

The game can also be vastly improved by introducing a set piece and set play designer. It could do with more options to set up combinations between specific players in a tactical system.

I think SI are focusing too heavily on recreating "realistic" score lines and league tables for the ai; on "tweaking" the current framework to the nth degree of realism. However I think so long as the current tactical module remains unchanged, that nth degree cannot be achieved because the match engine is limited in its potential.

The "winning formula" of the cm/fm series lay in the vast player attribute database, not in the slider tactical module (as I have mentioned before). So SI should not feel reluctant to change that part of the game considering its age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been six years since CM4. I'm not saying that there hasn't been any changes to the game in the last few encarnations, but seriously it's been a while since the the last all-new version was released.

The current slider tactical system has reached its development potential. It needs to be replaced by something more flexible and realistic. There should more tactical variables but fewer ordinal options within each variable.

The game can also be vastly improved by introducing a set piece and set play designer. It could do with more options to set up combinations between specific players in a tactical system.

I think SI are focusing too heavily on recreating "realistic" score lines and league tables for the ai; on "tweaking" the current framework to the nth degree of realism. However I think so long as the current tactical module remains unchanged, that nth degree cannot be achieved because the match engine is limited in its potential.

The "winning formula" of the cm/fm series lay in the vast player attribute database, not in the slider tactical module (as I have mentioned before). So SI should not feel reluctant to change that part of the game considering its age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're going to fanboy can you at least give some constructive reasons to back up a "no". I mean the onus is surely on the game to constantly improve rather than remain static.

Honestly there are so many things that can be improved to make the game more realistic and involving. The training module should be more integrated with matchday tactical module so that a particular tactic or pressing style you worked on in training can be pulled off during the match. These are fundamental aspects necessary for a realistic simulation, not just cosmetic changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Set piece designer I agree with, but I can't agree with anything else.

The tactical system works fine and in no way does it need to be replaced. Extra options fine, but that's all.

Realistic scorelines are not limited by the match engine's potential. If anything, the more complex it becomes the harder this will be to achieve.

Also, while my initial reaction was that FM2008 hadn't made a big leap, I keep spotting new things, much of which has received little publicity. The game makes as much progress as possible given financial and time constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:
If you're going to fanboy can you at least give some constructive reasons to back up a "no". I mean the onus is surely on the game to constantly improve rather than remain static.

Honestly there are so many things that can be improved to make the game more realistic and involving. The training module should be more integrated with matchday tactical module so that a particular tactic or pressing style you worked on in training can be pulled off during the match. These are fundamental aspects necessary for a realistic simulation, not just cosmetic changes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fairness, they answered the question you asked in the thread title. You haven't gone into any depth on your ideas, so there isn't much else to answer.

I do agree with linking tactics with training - that was featured in The Bootroom fanzine last month in some depth, including a set piece designer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont think they'll change sliders and they can't be replaced. player instructions is smth that is quite basic right now and this needs improvment. set pieces especialy. I like realistic score lines, it's suposed to be simulation of football.

I'm all for new stuff but just don't think they got time for some revolutonary changes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:
Set piece designer I agree with, but I can't agree with anything else.

The tactical system works fine and in no way does it need to be replaced. Extra options fine, but that's all.

Realistic scorelines are not limited by the match engine's potential. If anything, the more complex it becomes the harder this will be to achieve.

Also, while my initial reaction was that FM2008 hadn't made a big leap, I keep spotting new things, much of which has received little publicity. The game makes as much progress as possible given financial and time constraints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol, I was thinking about that first [img]http://community.sigames.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:
It's been six years since CM4. I'm not saying that there hasn't been any changes to the game in the last few encarnations, but seriously it's been a while since the the last all-new version was released.

[B]That's because there has only ever been 2 "new" games released. The original game and the first FM after the split. I'm all up for improvement, but not starting from scratch thanks. [/B]

The current slider tactical system has reached its development potential. It needs to be replaced by something more flexible and realistic. There should more tactical variables but fewer ordinal options within each variable.

[B]I would probably agree that there needs to be a change with regards to certain tactical instructions, (set-pieces to name but 1 example). Like I said above though, this is an area of the existing game that I want to see improved. I do not want them to start agains from scratch and encounter a whole host of new problems for no apparrant benefit.[/B]

The game can also be vastly improved by introducing a set piece and set play designer. It could do with more options to set up combinations between specific players in a tactical system.

[B]I've already covered that, (it's tactical instruction but more specific).[/B]

I think SI are focusing too heavily on recreating "realistic" score lines and league tables for the ai; on "tweaking" the current framework to the nth degree of realism. However I think so long as the current tactical module remains unchanged, that nth degree cannot be achieved because the match engine is limited in its potential.

[B]So you want the whole game to be changed because you are unhappy with the way that the tactics module works at present. I would have thought that a far more sensible, cost effective and time effective idea would be to improve the tactics module. [/B]

The "winning formula" of the cm/fm series lay in the vast player attribute database, not in the slider tactical module (as I have mentioned before). [I]So SI should not feel reluctant to change that part of the game considering its age[/I].

[B]I wish you would make up your mind. Do you want an "all new version of the game" as commented in your thread title, (simply for effect), or do you just want them to improve the tactical module, (which is what the guts of your post actually stated?[/B] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why you got the curt reples above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for some constructive responses.

When I say an "all new version" of course I don't mean overhauling everything but rather a version which introduces significant match engine changes. By FM standards that makes it "all new" because we are used to cosmetic changes like media interaction and 'fan days'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a chance.

Can you imagine the amount of problems that an entirely new game would create?

Similarly, look at Fifa or CM, if there was a better way to do FM, EA would surely have the R&D team to figure it out...

All that needs to be done is an evolution of the current version - no drastic overhaul is needed to any one area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tactical sliders - not one person who says they should be replaced has come up with even a remotely good alternative, let alone a better alternative.

Set piece editor - isn't going to happen any time soon bacuse it would give the human managers a massive advantage over the AI. It would need an absolutely massive amount of work to get it working right, and an even larger amount of work to get the AI using it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Set piece designer I agree with, but I can't agree with anything else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For Set Pieces, even just positional view of how our chosen set piece configuration will look like would be enough. It's annoying to have to wait until match day to see how your players are going to arranged.

I'm going to go against the trend so far and say 'Yes' however. The whole game surrounding tactics and matches is feeling rather stale and old and needs an injection of creativity. Six iterations of the current system is a long time in software terms to not have any changes made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:
If you're going to fanboy can you at least give some constructive reasons to back up a "no". I mean the onus is surely on the game to constantly improve rather than remain static.

Honestly there are so many things that can be improved to make the game more realistic and involving. The training module should be more integrated with matchday tactical module so that a particular tactic or pressing style you worked on in training can be pulled off during the match. These are fundamental aspects necessary for a realistic simulation, not just cosmetic changes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ffs all i said was "no" and i am fanboy now? the entry level is getting lower all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad linking training to tactics has been mentioned. I was going to drop the very same idea in the wishlist thread.

Should be able to tell your coach/s who are responsible for tactics in training what your main formation and tactical preferences are, and then secondary ones.
For Example:

Tactic 1 - 4-4-2 - Fast Tempo, Direct Passing. Attacking Style.

Tactic 2 - 4-1-4-1 - slow tempo, high closing down. Defensive style.

Tactic 3 - 3-3-4 - Fast tempo, long ball, all out attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All that needs to be done is an evolution of the current version - no drastic overhaul is needed to any one area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't see the slider system disappearing anytime soon but what is required is a change to all the other stuff surrounding the tactics, such as more indepth match statistics and graphs for analysis, selectable highlights of specific events (off target shots only, tackles, crosses etc), more input from your assistant manager in assessing your teams or oppisitions performance during a match. Really, enhancements that tie back to tactics better so it's not too difficult to comprehend and made just a little more accessable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah i like FM the way it is. I'd buy FM every year it comes out bugs or no bugs because its the best football manager sim imo.

Why fix something thats not broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just looking at this issue off the top of my head.

New skin.
New best eleven feature.
New tactical feature (opposition instructions).
New Transfer Centre screen.
New coach report system.
New Assistant reports screen.
New player match rating system...

To be honest I could go on and on listing differences between FM07 & FM08. You want changes in the ME and of course there has been HUGE change in that too. Let's be honest, there is an enormous difference in the way the match engine works between FM08 patches never mind about FM07 and FM08.

Call me old fashioned, but I want absolutely nothing new in FM09.

Absoluteabloominflippinnothing.

Instead I want them to look at the existing features that they've already implemented and I want them to "do them to death".

I want Affiliated clubs to be just that, (not feeders).

I want more control over set-piece instructions without having the..... (can't remember what the with/without the ball feature used to be called).

I want national structures to have their reputation linked to Continental coefficients.

I want the Ass Man to do a job that is at least similar to that which he does in real life.

I want my GK being sent off to be a key highlight.

There is sooooo much that SI could improve without adding one single new feature to the game and I for one hope that they get what is already in the game right before introducing something for those customers who are too [text removed to assist with the controlling of Jimbo's blood pressue and to avoid countless tit for tat posts].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:
Just looking at this issue off the top of my head.

New skin.
New best eleven feature.
New tactical feature (opposition instructions).
New Transfer Centre screen.
New coach report system.
New Assistant reports screen.
New player match rating system...

To be honest I could go on and on listing differences between FM07 & FM08. You want changes in the ME and of course there has been HUGE change in that too. Let's be honest, there is an enormous difference in the way the match engine works between FM08 patches never mind about FM07 and FM08.

Call me old fashioned, but I want absolutely nothing new in FM09.

Absoluteabloominflippinnothing.

Instead I want them to look at the existing features that they've already implemented and I want them to "do them to death".

I want Affiliated clubs to be just that, (not feeders).

I want more control over set-piece instructions without having the..... (can't remember what the with/without the ball feature used to be called).

I want national structures to have their reputation linked to Continental coefficients.

I want the Ass Man to do a job that is at least similar to that which he does in real life.

I want my GK being sent off to be a key highlight.

There is sooooo much that SI could improve without adding one single new feature to the game and I for one hope that they get what is already in the game right before introducing something for those customers who are too [text removed to assist with the controlling of Jimbo's blood pressue and to avoid countless tit for tat posts]. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Said something along these lines myself not too long ago, all i want for christmas is a fixed FM08 lol

Stuff the new faetures, it can wait until FM10, just give us a finished game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theres loads of stuff that can me extended or "done to death" in fm08, and still plenty of stuff that needs to be fixed. no need to go trying to be revolutionary when its simply not called for. fix whats out there first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:
Tactical sliders - not one person who says they should be replaced has come up with even a remotely good alternative, let alone a better alternative.

Set piece editor - isn't going to happen any time soon bacuse it would give the human managers a massive advantage over the AI. It would need an absolutely massive amount of work to get it working right, and an even larger amount of work to get the AI using it properly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as 'super-set-pieces' are not possible and SI have programmed enough variations for the AI to use, I can't see why it is not achievable with a year's development.

Not that I am saying it is easy, just that I am more optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the guy who'd have to do it already has his hands full with the match engine as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe splash out and employ another guy then [img]http://community.sigames.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'fix the game' sentiment has been out there since FM 2006. But for some reason SI hasn't done it. Even without significant new improvements, new bugs are introduced (e.g. from 7.0.2 to 8.0.1).

Between the options of having an unchanged game + new bugs and having an significantly improved game + new bugs I'd easily go with the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fm 08 isnt an unchanged game though, is it?? whatever you do, ther will be bugs, and, logic says, in a completely new game, there will be more bugs than on a newer version of what we have now. imagine the forums then??? its bad enough as it is now, it would be a nightmare...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:
The 'fix the game' sentiment has been out there since FM 2006. But for some reason SI hasn't done it. Even without significant new improvements, new bugs are introduced (e.g. from 7.0.2 to 8.0.1).

Between the options of having an unchanged game + new bugs and having an significantly improved game + new bugs I'd easily go with the latter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You appear to have missed the point.

The purpose of NOT changing the game dramatically is to get rid of new bugs - no new features should mean drastically reduced bugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The purpose of NOT changing the game dramatically is to get rid of new bugs - no new features should mean drastically reduced bugs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not really. The act of fixing one bug can easily create five more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The purpose of NOT changing the game dramatically is to get rid of new bugs - no new features should mean drastically reduced bugs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not really. The act of fixing one bug can easily create five more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but in theory fixing one bug would create fewer bugs than adding a whole new feature.

Whether or not it works in practice is no doubt determined by a number of variables beyond my (our?) comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The purpose of NOT changing the game dramatically is to get rid of new bugs - no new features should mean drastically reduced bugs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not really. The act of fixing one bug can easily create five more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but in theory fixing one bug would create fewer bugs than adding a whole new feature.

Whether or not it works in practice is no doubt determined by a number of variables beyond my (our?) comprehension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

New features can create new bugs but can also fix old bugs. But it's ridiculous to suggest that the game should not be improved merely because there are bugs still to be fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:
Maybe splash out and employ another guy then [img]http://community.sigames.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nah, just clone Paul Collyer. [img]http://community.sigames.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Seriously though, I'd rather make the suggestions than write it off. Let SI work out how to achieve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The purpose of NOT changing the game dramatically is to get rid of new bugs - no new features should mean drastically reduced bugs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not really. The act of fixing one bug can easily create five more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but in theory fixing one bug would create fewer bugs than adding a whole new feature.

Whether or not it works in practice is no doubt determined by a number of variables beyond my (our?) comprehension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on the fix - for example to do what needs to be done to the financial, transfer and contract system would take as much work (if not more) as completely re-writing it.

Out of both of those I have a feeling that fixing the system would be more likely to create bugs than a rewrite would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The purpose of NOT changing the game dramatically is to get rid of new bugs - no new features should mean drastically reduced bugs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not really. The act of fixing one bug can easily create five more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or if you work with the development team I did a few years back, fixing one bug would create 20 more. Fixing one of those would create another 20, and so on. Pretty soon nothing worked at all!

And it was a fraction of the complexity of FM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by djht:-
The current slider tactical system has reached its development potential. It needs to be replaced by something more flexible and realistic. There should more tactical variables but fewer ordinal options within each variable.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always assumed that the increase in sliders and options was partly driven by the desire to eliminate super tactics. The more permutations and combinations there are the less likely it is that someone can figure out a golden combination that exploits the match engine. At the end of the day it is a computer game and those little blobs need to have set instructions that help them to make their decisions.

Admittedly I'm not a big fan of the 20 settings for sliders and the system as a whole. But as it stands I can't think of a viable alternative. Within the current match engine this tactical system allows you to set up your players to do what you want them to do (whether or not they do it depends on the player's mental attributes and Creative Freedom).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by djht:-

The game can also be vastly improved by introducing a set piece and set play designer. It could do with more options to set up combinations between specific players in a tactical system.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why there won't be a set piece designer anytime soon:-

From this thread
[url="http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9482076743/m/6012025363?r=4522061463#4522061463"]http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9482076...522061463#4522061463[/url]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PaulC:-

I have a problem with the concept of set piece editor though.....it would result in ultimate cheat tactics, that the AI manageres could never keep up with....... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The perfect example of what I believe PaulC is referring to was that cheat on FM 06 (I think it was that version) on corners where if you set all of the attacking players to far/near post and assigned your best long shooter to lurk you could score a decent amount of goals.

The same could be said of the near post flick on in FM07 yet funnily enough because this element of 'unrealistic behaviour' worked in the gamer's favour there weren't too many people joining the forum just to complain about that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by djht:-

I think SI are focusing too heavily on recreating "realistic" score lines and league tables for the ai; on "tweaking" the current framework to the nth degree of realism. However I think so long as the current tactical module remains unchanged, that nth degree cannot be achieved because the match engine is limited in its potential.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I think the idea of tuning the match engine based on AI stats is crucial to the realism of the FM world. For example just playing in the Premiership there are 19 AI controlled teams involved in 684 matches with no human manager. If the results in these matches deviated significantly from their attempt at simulation then the whole framework within which the gamer's experience exists would collapse.

What will be interesting to see is how the match engine evolves over the next 3 to 5 iterations with the addition of data from FML involving human controlled teams in larger numbers. It is probably the biggest challenge SI face as they will need to get the balance between the 'Human' manager's experience and the 'AI' manager's experience of the FM world just right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:
It depends on the fix - for example to do what needs to be done to the financial, transfer and contract system would take as much work (if not more) as completely re-writing it.

Out of both of those I have a feeling that fixing the system would be more likely to create bugs than a rewrite would. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hasn't the financial part already been rewritten? Or am I just being pedantic? Don;t answer that! [img]http://community.sigames.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by PaulC:-

I have a problem with the concept of set piece editor though.....it would result in ultimate cheat tactics, that the AI manageres could never keep up with....... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, well I guess that rains on my parade then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter:
It depends on the fix - for example to do what needs to be done to the financial, transfer and contract system would take as much work (if not more) as completely re-writing it.

Out of both of those I have a feeling that fixing the system would be more likely to create bugs than a rewrite would. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hasn't the financial part already been rewritten? Or am I just being pedantic? Don;t answer that! [img]http://community.sigames.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah a hell of a lot of work was done on the financial side, I was more talking about the transfers and contracts side of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djht:
If you're going to fanboy can you at least give some constructive reasons to back up a "no". I mean the onus is surely on the game to constantly improve rather than remain static. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right, fair enough.

According to [B]Joel on Software[/B], whom I presume knows more about software development than the average forum poster [img]http://community.sigames.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img], a rewrite is "[url="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html"]The Single Worst Strategic Mistake[/url] that any software company can make."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by PaulC:-

I have a problem with the concept of set piece editor though.....it would result in ultimate cheat tactics, that the AI manageres could never keep up with....... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, well I guess that rains on my parade then! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I don't think we need one anyway- there are other ways to get the effect.

I think the less say we have on set pieces, then the more realistic they can become. Currently the set pieces are incredibly restricted and just aren't realistic. The options just don't make sense as they're not dynamic enough.

If we had a more simple interface, along the lines of:

Marking: Man / Zonal
Men on Post: None/Near/Far/Both
Directness: Direct/Mixed/Creative

Along with this you'd then get specific set piece instructions added to the oppositions instructions screen so that we can effectively mark danger men (which we can't do at the moment).

Linking it in with training would then be essential, as the amount of work done on it in training will have a direct effect on the outcome of the set pieces - at the moment all it does is effect a few attributes.

Makes more sense to me that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Training is definitely an area that needs to be drastically improved considering how important it is in real life.

Ideally I'd like to see an activity based training system similar to the one in cm03/04 but with real effects on team performance on match day, not just with marginal effects on individual attributes. For example, there could be three different 'attacking overload' schedules - patient, normal, direct - and the choice could affect match day performance so that a team could specialise and develop their style of play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is how I would want to approach it (now).

- Have a series of pre-set routines - the method of getting them doesn't matter, but they could easily be created in your suggested interface or the existing interface, just like the templates for player instructions. Attacking wise we would be talking 'near post flick on', 'short corner', 'best headers run-in', 'vary runs', 'disrupt keepe' and so on.

- In training you can select one or more routines to practice. The amount of time given over to them is set by the set piece slider. The more you train a routine, the more familiarity you build up. Familiarity can be lost over time. In this way, the AI can achieve exactly the same as the human.

Now that should be achievable in one year. At least then it comes down to priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another possibility with training:

Keep the individual training as it is and introduce a new "team training" module. The "team training" module will work as I outlined in the last post.

Individual training will be related to team training. High tactical individual training will increase the effectiveness of tactical team training activities for the individual player; high physical will improve "direct" style team training activities and so on. Vice versa, team training will also have a supplementary effect on individual attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by playmaker:
This is how I would want to approach it (now).

- Have a series of pre-set routines - the method of getting them doesn't matter, but they could easily be created in your suggested interface or the existing interface, just like the templates for player instructions. Attacking wise we would be talking 'near post flick on', 'short corner', 'best headers run-in', 'vary runs', 'disrupt keepe' and so on.

- In training you can select one or more routines to practice. The amount of time given over to them is set by the set piece slider. The more you train a routine, the more familiarity you build up. Familiarity can be lost over time. In this way, the AI can achieve exactly the same as the human.

Now that should be achievable in one year. At least then it comes down to priorities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's definitely a good idea for developing set pieces. My posts were more along the lines of match day performance and team gelling when you set a particular tactic. Basically we should be able to develop on a certain 'style of play' for the team, whether you're Sam Alladyce or Arsene Wenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has to be assumed that each component of the game is developed as a separate “module”. Therefore the tactics and training module, is separate to the financial module, which is again separate module to say scouting.

That being the case, there should be opportunities to “fix” or repair various modules without a total meltdown from bugs occurring.

It then becomes the developers job to see how all the links and interactivity goes when you turn on the finished project.

Having said all that, for me at least the priorities are as follows:

Training
Tactics (including set pieces)
Transfer system.

It should be pointed out of course that players in real life, don’t always engage a training ground routine at deadball situations, sometimes opportunities arise that demand players be inventive.

Additionally, players such as David Beckham need no set piece plan, they just rely on their ability which is honed in training sessions.

As a Manager IRL, I like to rehearse players in dead ball situations, but I also allow a lot of flexibility based on the players intelligence and ability in a match situation.

Truth is, no one has time to plan and execute all the various possibilities that can and do occur in a game situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only issue is now the yearly releases.

I don't care if all that's going to happen is a refinement of the engine. I don't want a new game every year. That's FIFA territory and not one held in high regard.

I think we could all easily manage getting a new FM, atleast, every two years with a roster update to cater for the transfers that happen in the year between.

More time on development and significant steps made that may make me feel a purchase is necessary. I regret buying 2k7 when I played 2k8. I was lucky when I skipped 2k5 for 2k6.

So really it's gonna be Sega releasing FM every two years or me buying once every two years. I think I know which one Sega wants. The one with lots of monies. [img]http://community.sigames.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SI have to release a game each year for it to be financially viable.

No reason why you shouldn't buy every two years if that's what you want and you should be able to find database updates on the in between years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe alternate? I haven't heard about Eastside Hockey anymore. [img]http://community.sigames.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img]

And with FM Live coming with monthly fees(?), financially viable won't be a problem anymore, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FML and FM are different projects, therefor they have different budgets. The money from FML will go to developing FML most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eastside Hockey fell foul of the pirates (the software kind obviously!). A lot of people had it in Sweden, but not a lot of people paid for it.

Which backs up Ackter's point that each project has it's own budget and it's own profit's put back in.

EA's slogan may as well be 'spot the difference', but I don't think it's fair to level that at Sega. They don't really interfere with the process and allow SI to make the game the way they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.