FM2012 difficulty.

[ReggaeBwoy]

Just won the German league with Freiburg who were predicted to finish 17th. I didn't even do any transfers. It kinda ruined the game for me... I easily beat teams like Bayern Munich, Dortmund, Leverkusen...

Screenshots?

[Gorando]

Screenshots?

What kind of screenshots do you want?

[Keyzer Soze]

Napoli

Automatic

Too Easy, won the Seria A in 1st season with no effort whatsoever

My biggest objection would probably be the non-existent home ground effect. In previous versions of FM I found that it was much harder for me to win the away matches, and always had to change my tactics and make it more careful if I wanted to get something out of the match, especially if I managed a mediocre team. In FM 2012, I don't feel that effect exists. I feel like it doesn't matter whether you play home or away, whether you change your tactics, shouts etc. I don't know what determines the winner in FM 2012 the most, is it the player's attributes, the team's reputation or what? The factors that determine the winner of a football match should be counted in double digits, and it certainly doesn't feel so in this version.

I really dont understand why people that manage Napoli and won the Italian league complain about the game beeing too easy!

Do you actually stoped for a minute and look at your team? Mediocre Team?

Napoli is probably, at least in FM, one of the top 4 teams in Italy.

Cavani (one of the best strikers in the game)

Cannavaro (one of the best central defenders in the game)

Maggio (one of the best wingbacks in the game)

Lavezzi (one of the best strikers in the game)

Hamsik (one of the best playmakers)

Fernandez Federico (great defender)

De Santics (great gk)

And the list go on!

I know that the media prediction for Napoli is 8th, and i think because of that many people manage them because they think it's a mid table team. BUT IT'S NOT!

In FM, its a top team, so winning the Seria A it's not a overachivement.

[themadsheep2001]

I really dont understand why people that manage Napoli and won the Italian league complain about the game beeing too easy!

Do you actually stoped for a minute and look at your team? Mediocre Team?

Napoli is probably, at least in FM, one of the top 4 teams in Italy.

Cavani (one of the best strikers in the game)

Cannavaro (one of the best central defenders in the game)

Maggio (one of the best wingbacks in the game)

Lavezzi (one of the best strikers in the game)

Hamsik (one of the best playmakers)

Fernandez Federico (great defender)

De Santics (great gk)

And the list go on!

I know that the media prediction for Napoli is 8th, and i think because of that many people manage them because they think it's a mid table team. BUT IT'S NOT!

In FM, its a top team, so winning the Seria A it's not a overachivement.

Pretty much agreed. Lets not forget they finished 3rd last season. They are certainly not a midtable side. Much like real life, keep the front three of Lavezzi, Cavani and Hamsik firing and you will go far.

[Erimus1876]

I really dont understand why people that manage Napoli and won the Italian league complain about the game beeing too easy!

Do you actually stoped for a minute and look at your team? Mediocre Team?

Napoli is probably, at least in FM, one of the top 4 teams in Italy.

Cavani (one of the best strikers in the game)

Cannavaro (one of the best central defenders in the game)

Maggio (one of the best wingbacks in the game)

Lavezzi (one of the best strikers in the game)

Hamsik (one of the best playmakers)

Fernandez Federico (great defender)

De Santics (great gk)

And the list go on!

I know that the media prediction for Napoli is 8th, and i think because of that many people manage them because they think it's a mid table team. BUT IT'S NOT!

In FM, its a top team, so winning the Seria A it's not a overachivement.

Read beyond the name Napoli... like his 2nd paragraph for instance, or the bit that says "...won the Seria A in 1st season with no effort whatsoever"

The easiness he's complaining about isn't so much that its with Napoli, but that he's done very little, manager-wise, to achieve such success. Its the same story with the majority of complaints.

Even if you're Barcelona, you should have to have some input in what you achieve in this game. The fact that its easy to over achieve with very little effort in some saves is the very crux of this whole easiness debate. The team you manage comes secondary to that fact.

[pinuccio]

is available the final version of gpp patch that improve the difficulty.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/288514-Gameplay-Julia

[mightymanager]

Paul,

Not agrre with you soory : it's a real football simulation and I don't think that it's easy to manage a football team and win leagues.

So the difficulty of this game should be realistic.

[mightymanager]

Personally I agree, but there are plenty of people who have paid money for the game who might not agree.

As I said, we need to find a balance. Especially when updating a product people already paid for based on a demo in many cases.

Paul,

Not agrre with you soory : it's a real football simulation and I don't think that it's easy to manage a football team and win leagues.

So the difficulty of this game should be realistic.

[Keyzer Soze]

Read beyond the name Napoli... like his 2nd paragraph for instance, or the bit that says "...won the Seria A in 1st season with no effort whatsoever"

The easiness he's complaining about isn't so much that its with Napoli, but that he's done very little, manager-wise, to achieve such success. Its the same story with the majority of complaints.

Even if you're Barcelona, you should have to have some input in what you achieve in this game. The fact that its easy to over achieve with very little effort in some saves is the very crux of this whole easiness debate. The team you manage comes secondary to that fact.

IRL, when the spanish league starts you have 50% change to guess whos the winner... Barcelona or Real Madrid.

It's not a hard league if you play with Barcelona or Madrid, because there is a huse gap between those 2 teams and the rest.

I always manage in Portugal.

IRL, in Portugal, you have 3 teams that can changelle for the tittle (Porto, Benfica and Sporting). This 3 teams are many steps above all the others. Have much better players, have much more money.

So in FM, if i pick Benfica i can expect to win every league in a row. Some years i may win by 1 point, others years by 10 points.

But i wont be expecting a league where i lose 20 points, because IRL that doesn't happen.

[milnerpoint]

Read beyond the name Napoli... like his 2nd paragraph for instance, or the bit that says "...won the Seria A in 1st season with no effort whatsoever"

The easiness he's complaining about isn't so much that its with Napoli, but that he's done very little, manager-wise, to achieve such success. Its the same story with the majority of complaints.

Even if you're Barcelona, you should have to have some input in what you achieve in this game. The fact that its easy to over achieve with very little effort in some saves is the very crux of this whole easiness debate. The team you manage comes secondary to that fact.

I think his point was more people ARE using the name Napoli as a reason to why it is easy when they do well with that team, he is right, Napoli have a fantastic squad and could win the Italian league this year in real life.

Thats not to distract from the point of this thread btw!!

[KUBI]

Paul,

Not agrre with you soory : it's a real football simulation and I don't think that it's easy to manage a football team and win leagues.

So the difficulty of this game should be realistic.

But it is still a simulation. It should be a challenge but not a real one, as no club would hire you as manager in real football.

It's the same with any kind of simulation. You don't need to pass a test or study 4 years before you can start playing.

[Mitja]

Why would winning trophies with Barca, Inter, Utd...be easy? Barca really struggled 10, 15 years ago untill they changhed the policy, made La Masia to what it is now...the same thing is with Utd, Ajax, Porto.... How long it took Inter to win CL again? As long as they employed the right manager? Winning CL and leagues should be the ultimate joy in this game even with big clubs. Being a world champion with Huddersfield should be close to impossible if this is a simulation game.

The fact is that FM became very sophisticated and AI cannot cope with human players anymore. This game needs a major overhaul in all depertments. And it needs it for a long time now..

[lee_uk]

Why would winning trophies with Barca, Inter, Utd...be easy? Barca really struggled 10, 15 years ago untill they changhed the policy, made La Masia to what it is now...the same thing is with Utd, Ajax, Porto.... How long it took Inter to win CL again? As long as they employed the right manager? Winning CL and leagues should be the ultimate joy in this game even with big clubs. Being a world champion with Huddersfield should be close to impossible if this is a simulation game.

The fact is that FM became very sophisticated and AI cannot cope with human players anymore. This game needs a major overhaul in all depertments. And it needs it for a long time now..

completely agree mate.

[milnerpoint]

Why would winning trophies with Barca, Inter, Utd...be easy? Barca really struggled 10, 15 years ago untill they changhed the policy, made La Masia to what it is now...the same thing is with Utd, Ajax, Porto.... How long it took Inter to win CL again? As long as they employed the right manager? Winning CL and leagues should be the ultimate joy in this game even with big clubs. Being a world champion with Huddersfield should be close to impossible if this is a simulation game.

The fact is that FM became very sophisticated and AI cannot cope with human players anymore. This game needs a major overhaul in all depertments. And it needs it for a long time now..

Yes but you have to understand, not everyone wants to play this game if it is as difficult as real life is. It would render most of the stories and challenges useless, it would make doing anything other than maybe win a couple of games a season impossible, we are not tactical guru's, if we were we wouldnt be wasting time discussing this game on here, we would be busy managing real life teams. You get no satisfaction from playing a game with no chance of success in any real form, at least not for me and i would imagine there are a lot of people who think the same. Hence why SI need to find a balance.

[Erimus1876]

Why would winning trophies with Barca, Inter, Utd...be easy? Barca really struggled 10, 15 years ago untill they changhed the policy, made La Masia to what it is now...the same thing is with Utd, Ajax, Porto.... How long it took Inter to win CL again? As long as they employed the right manager? Winning CL and leagues should be the ultimate joy in this game even with big clubs. Being a world champion with Huddersfield should be close to impossible if this is a simulation game.

The fact is that FM became very sophisticated and AI cannot cope with human players anymore. This game needs a major overhaul in all depertments. And it needs it for a long time now..

Agree with this. The old argument about being a good team means its expected for you to do extrememly well just doesn't cut it with me. For one you're theoretically pitting your managerial and tactical wits against the best managers in the game, having to man-manage world class players and their egos, and keep your board and their extreme demands under control. At lower levels, it should be easier. But people have it etched in their minds that being a big team = easy mode, being a little team = hard mode. In reality its the complete opposite. In saying that, its the game mechanics that are at fault, not the people who use that argument.

[lee_uk]

another good point Erimus...i dont see how a "balance" can be found really so which again brings me to the point of having some kind of moddable ini files etc so the user can dictate just how hard/easy the challenge should be.

[Mitja]

Yes but you have to understand, not everyone wants to play this game if it is as difficult as real life is. It would render most of the stories and challenges useless, it would make doing anything other than maybe win a couple of games a season impossible, we are not tactical guru's, if we were we wouldnt be wasting time discussing this game on here, we would be busy managing real life teams. You get no satisfaction from playing a game with no chance of success in any real form, at least not for me and i would imagine there are a lot of people who think the same. Hence why SI need to find a balance.

How can you find a balance between the game being challanging for gamers who want to have challange with Barca and those who want to take lower league clubs to world glory? It's an impossible mission. That sounds even worse idea than difficulty levels for me.

In perfect football simulation game you should start in lower leagues and improving your career by moving to bigger clubs. Or having an option to be Guardiola, Wenger, Steve Bruce...when you want to play top football save. This way you take over that manager's reputation.......here you go - difficulty levels.

[Erocco]

I am a casual player of FM, I never download super tactics, always closed transfer window when I start the game, never save and load before important games and games that I need to win, in other words I never cheat the game.

IMO the game starts somewhat with normal difficulty. For example let's say you pick a mediocre team in any league of 16, 18 or 20 teams that is expected to finish mid table IRL, in FM you'll finish between 4th and 8th place in my experience. Similar goes if you pick a team that is a league winner contender IRL, in FM you'll finish top 3 for sure with basically no real effort.

Now after 2nd season, 3rd season and on... the game becomes easy and by easy I mean the AI can't keep up. With a mediocre team you'll find yourself challenging the league already from 2nd season and with a good team you'll be playing in the CL final and winning everything domestic. SI needs to make the AI smarter so if you pick Seville for example you won't be winning La Liga year after year and making it to the CL semi-finals and finals year after year 2-3 seasons in the game. That is very unrealistic.

From my experiences 99% of the time the team you play with does better every new season than the previous season. I'll never find myself getting promoted one year and relegated the next season or even struggle to stay up. Unless the AI is re-looked at and made smarter we'll always have an easy game after the 2nd season. I also think the majority of the people (not me) that play FM, like the fact that they pick a team from 3rd division and are in the CL final 5-6 seasons later. Otherwise why spend 150hours without winning a major title.

I am a fun of realism and FM is not realistic. But it's the closest football management game to be realistic and that's why we choose to play it. If SI finds a way to improve the AI so we get challenged the same in season 1 and season 20 then we have a better game. Until then let's keep hoping...

[Chrrisy]

Finding this years version very enjoyable.

[x42bn6]

The "balance" issue is a weird argument... FM10 didn't have this problem, where it seemed like most users found a good level of difficulty. So of course it is possible to find a difficulty level that satisfies most of the users.

The "good team = easy" argument is annoying because if it is easy to play Real Madrid in-game, it should therefore be easy to manage Real Madrid in reality (realism), therefore Real Madrid should be able to hire Paul Ince and get similar results to Mourinho. Thankfully, it doesn't work that way - it is very hard to manage Real Madrid, which is why they need a Special One.

[fabioke]

The new difficulty level should be, automatic save after a game (or even better every ten minutes during a game), without changing this during your whole career. The referee blows his whistle and the game saves. I bet that these threads would become less populated. People often reload on crucial events (because the game is unfair in their eyes), and boast afterwards that the game is too easy.

Why not create a test, you create a game where everybody can vote their squad formation and tactics. Without buying players offcourse. And a neutral noble respected forum member(not me), does the test on a weekly or daily basis.

On a side note, I do need to admit that winning manager awards is too easy in this version.

@X42BN6: I never had any easier save then in FM 2010.

[x42bn6]

The new difficulty level should be, automatic save after a game (or even better every ten minutes during a game), without changing this during your whole career. The referee blows his whistle and the game saves. I bet that these threads would become less populated.

Given the fact that large games can take minutes to save... I bet it would be replaced with frustrated threads instead!

@X42BN6: I never had any easier save then in FM 2010.

Perhaps, but there were few, if any, difficulty complaints - it was challenging for most users, but not too challenging.

One data point isn't enough, sadly.

[Äktsjon Männ]

The new difficulty level should be, automatic save after a game (or even better every ten minutes during a game), without changing this during your whole career. The referee blows his whistle and the game saves. I bet that these threads would become less populated. People often reload on crucial events (because the game is unfair in their eyes), and boast afterwards that the game is too easy.

And why would anyone demand a harder game when they already need to reload in order to win games? Your argument makes zero sense.

[Thierry Henrhys]

400 people did vote in this thread, just about 30% saying the game is to easy. While there are 60'000 playing online every day and many more offline. We should really put that into relation. About 120 people here thinking the game is to easy. And you are demanding a patch or difficulty levels, while there is a large consensus that the game is still challenging enough, if you don't play it the easiest way.

nail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head

[alexyfoot]

Even SI acknowledged it is a problem so why do you keep spamming posts like this? This was quite an unreasonable statement considered the totally flawed logic, the fact that you support it does not say anything positive about you.

[KUBI]

It's still a fact, that the majority of the people don't think it is to easy to play. There seems to be some flaws that could make the game easier as it should be, but there is no general consensus that that game is to easy at all.

[x42bn6]

It's still a fact, that the majority of the people don't think it is to easy to play. There seems to be some flaws that could make the game easier as it should be, but there is no general consensus that that game is to easy at all.

But it is clear that there is a sizeable minority who think otherwise.

It's not one person's word against another's - it's about getting the perfect game - and as a result, any complaints outweigh any praise.

[KUBI]

But it is clear that there is a sizeable minority who think otherwise.

It's not one person's word against another's - it's about getting the perfect game - and as a result, any complaints outweigh any praise.

No. If 60% are thinking the game is already next to perfect, this has to be taken into consideration when you make any kind of tweaks. There is no perfect game for everyone. If you make adjustments to make 30% more happier you always have to think about the 60%+ who are already happy.

[FM_player]

seems the right one for me

[x42bn6]

No. If 60% are thinking the game is already next to perfect, this has to be taken into consideration when you make any kind of tweaks. There is no perfect game for everyone. If you make adjustments to make 30% more happier you always have to think about the 60%+ who are already happy.

Nobody said they weren't going to be taken into consideration.

The perfect game makes 100% of customers happy. Therefore the objective is to make the remaining 30% happy while not impacting the other 60% (ideally making them happier).

That doesn't make the 60% "more right" than the 30%, nor the 10% sitting on the fence. The customer is always right - all 100% of them.

[wwfan]

That doesn't make the 60% "more right" than the 30%, nor the 10% sitting on the fence. The customer is always right - all 100% of them.

Whereas the first half of that is perfectly sensible, the second half is equally foolish. Customers contradict each other. The contradictions cannot be treated as equally right or all development and creativity stops. You simply cannot choose which direction to follow. The organisation has to trust itself and its vision above its customer feedback or its development will fracture beyond control.

[flauta kicma]

Is it known what is release date of new patch?

And, why this game is 12.0.1, 12.0.2, etc. - does it mean it is only minor changes and that big patch would be 12.1?

Thanks.

[tut]

is available the final version of gpp patch that improve the difficulty.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/288514-Gameplay-Julia

I have tried the patch and i think the job done by pinuccio is significant. The AI shows more fighting spirit and behave more adequately. Yesterday I played only 5 games - 2 wins, 2 lost and 1 draw /kidderminster/, but I enjoyed them. Awaiting SI patch, I will continue playing with Pinuccio improvements.

Thank you mate!

[hugo_rune]

Nobody said they weren't going to be taken into consideration.

The perfect game makes 100% of customers happy. Therefore the objective is to make the remaining 30% happy while not impacting the other 60% (ideally making them happier).

To me a game that makes 100% of customers happy is a game that's worth playing for half an hour, tops, because clearly it hasn't taken any risks in it's design decisions.

On the other hand the games really worth playing, on the other hand, are those which have genuine depth - they include features that not everyone likes, but are there because they combine to make the overall experience more immersive, more complicated, and to give players more options. Now, some people are going to let the features, whichever those might be, that they personally don't like or disagree with, ruin their experience. The majority of other people, on the other hand, will engage it and generally have a blast.

[x42bn6]

Whereas the first half of that is perfectly sensible, the second half is equally foolish. Customers contradict each other. The contradictions cannot be treated as equally right or all development and creativity stops. You simply cannot choose which direction to follow. The organisation has to trust itself and its vision above its customer feedback or its development will fracture beyond control.

Not true - an organisation cannot pick which side is "correct" because then it is assuming it knows what is best for customers.

If two sides want contradictory things, then the solution may be to offer both options, for example.

Nobody said each viewpoint has to be treated equally right.

But every customer is right. If their viewpoint doesn't correspond to what the software does, the software is confusing or misleading.

To me a game that makes 100% of customers happy is a game that's worth playing for half an hour, tops, because clearly it hasn't taken any risks in it's design decisions.

I'm not sure that 100% of customers would be happy if the game was playable for half an hour, tops.

[speedas]

We talk about stupid AI of FM but how about finances ? In previous FM, it was too easy to earn money (and maybe too hard in small clubs because unable to sell), what do you think about ?

[speedas]

I have tried the patch and i think the job done by pinuccio is significant. The AI shows more fighting spirit and behave more adequately. Yesterday I played only 5 games - 2 wins, 2 lost and 1 draw /kidderminster/, but I enjoyed them. Awaiting SI patch, I will continue playing with Pinuccio improvements.

Thank you mate!

Yeah good idea from pinuccio to modify tactical templates, I hope he will answer my questions in his thread about AI.

[wwfan]

Not true - an organisation cannot pick which side is "correct" because then it is assuming it knows what is best for customers.

Of course it can. Under Steve Jobs, Apple never asked its customers what they wanted and kept everything completely secret until the very last moment, choosing all its development paths without customer consultation. Didn't do them much harm. Every organisational project I've ever been involved with or heard about that chased customer-focused design has been a complete and utter failure. And given my job, that's an awful lot of organisations. I'd include FML in that category as well. In my opinion, SI listened too closely to the customer base, which resulted in the game losing its core focus and, ultimately and unfortunately, failing. Had SI stuck to its design guns, I think it would have been a real winner.

If two sides want contradictory things, then the solution may be to offer both options, for example. Nobody said each viewpoint has to be treated equally right.

You stated that all the customers were right. So, some are less right than others? Does that not make them more wrong? There has to be some form of central decision about what is and isn't a good opinion or you end up chasing your own tail. If everybody who posted on these forums was equally right and should be treated equally seriously, FM managers would have virtual wives, virtual houses and virtual kids, players would die, there would be a win button and the AI would never try to hold onto players the user wanted to buy. Others have never posted a positive word about FM in the time I've been on these forums. If these are the people stating that FM is not a good game, then should SI really be listening to them?

But every customer is right. If their viewpoint doesn't correspond to what the software does, the software is confusing or misleading.

Total nonsense. How can the software correspond to the varied opinions of circa 1 million people? Yes, some of the stuff might be better done or better documented, but to expect it to perfectly meet the demands of every customer that buys it is not just a pipe dream, but commercial and creative suicide.

I've no idea what management and marketing guru books you might be getting this from, but they aren't very good.

[Cilio]

When patch 12.0.5 is out,without corner bug?

[x42bn6]

Of course it can. Under Steve Jobs, Apple never asked its customers what they wanted and kept everything completely secret until the very last moment, choosing all its development paths without customer consultation. Didn't do them much harm. Every organisational project I've ever been involved with or heard about that chased customer-focused design has been a complete and utter failure. And given my job, that's an awful lot of organisations. I'd include FML in that category as well. In my opinion, SI listened too closely to the customer base, which resulted in the game losing its core focus and, ultimately and unfortunately, failing. Had SI stuck to its design guns, I think it would have been a real winner.

Apple are able to not listen to its consumer-base because they have a set of customers who will buy their products no matter what. In addition, they have a near-monopoly in most of their niches.

For video gaming, however, not even Rockstar and its GTA series can not listen to their users. Video gaming is an industry where it is difficult to have Apple's security.

The reality is that organisations have many constraints that mean that they cannot fulfill all of the customers' requests - one of these, of course, is money. It doesn't stop the customer from being correct, however.

You stated that all the customers were right. So, some are less right than others? Does that not make them more wrong?

What I meant in that statement was that two opposing customer viewpoints do not need equal weight, due to the fact that there is no such thing as a "model customer". Every customer plays the game differently. Developing a product should not (always) disproportionately favour the minority as this runs the risk of upsetting the majority.

For example, a minority of users would like to customise stadium names, but a majority are fine - therefore a stadium rename function should not be made mandatory or in-your-face.

Both sets of customers are therefore equally right, but as a whole, the impact should be relatively proportionate.

There has to be some form of central decision about what is and isn't a good opinion or you end up chasing your own tail. If everybody who posted on these forums was equally right and should be treated equally seriously, FM managers would have virtual wives, virtual houses and virtual kids, players would die, there would be a win button and the AI would never try to hold onto players the user wanted to buy. Others have never posted a positive word about FM in the time I've been on these forums. If these are the people stating that FM is not a good game, then should SI really be listening to them?

Yes. Contrary to popular belief, your viewpoint is just one of the many viewpoints a customer has, and therefore is not "the" right way to go.

There is clearly a market for more "arcade-like" functions - one day, SI might go down this route if it makes money.

If you think more "arcade" functions are wrong, then understand that someone who thinks they are "right" also thinks that your notion of a more "traditional" or "non-EA" approach is ridiculous.

The reality is that SI will not want to reinvent the wheel and will have their own strategic goals and direction, and that "arcade" functions are probably not on that agenda unless it will make them lots of money. If that was the case, the ideal game would mask these features if they are not warranted, satisfying both "sets" of customers.

For example, one of the strategic goals of FM will clearly to be able to produce a "game" - therefore a "win" button is out of the picture as that would defeat this goal rather easily.

Therefore: Yes, everyone who wants things like a "buy a house" feature is correct - however, it would require a ton of effort and it is obvious that it would be difficult to do this without upsetting the rest of the userbase, so this will probably be a very low-priority goal. Nicking the entire FIFA Manager base, however, would give huge returns - high-risk, high-return.

Personally, I'm not a fan of these things, but then again, I'm not representative of all FM fans. I'm just a single data point.

Total nonsense. How can the software correspond to the varied opinions of circa 1 million people? Yes, some of the stuff might be better done or better documented, but to expect it to perfectly meet the demands of every customer that buys it is not just a pipe dream, but commercial and creative suicide.

It should be an aim. In reality, someone will complain. In reality, some demands are simply not feasible. But the more customers you make happy, the more money you make.

I've no idea what management and marketing guru books you might be getting this from, but they aren't very good.

My aim is to satisfy every customer, taking into account my limited resources and skills. My strategic goal is to grow my consumer-base, which is a further constraint, but I can only grow my consumer-base if I listen to those who are unhappy with my software or do not use my software for whatever reason.

Every customer is right, but it may not be in my power to satisfy them all. Nevertheless, if I had that power, I would use it to write a perfect piece of software.

I write software for users, and I take complaints seriously. It's not management, nor rocket science.

[KUBI]

Games are not like other software, they are more like books or music. If there are people who don't like it, the publishers won't ask the author to make major changes or a band to change their music style. It's similar with such a game, the developers have a product and a customer base in mind. They listen to customers when they are reporting flaws and bugs, but they don't leave their strategy just because some of the customers wish another game.

[Daffius]

Apple are able to not listen to its consumer-base because they have a set of customers who will buy their products no matter what. In addition, they have a near-monopoly in most of their niches.

Sounds pretty much like SI and FM series in computer gaming to me...

About the difficulty, I find it ok personally. TBH it should be fun and making it near impossible to achieve anything with a small team - as many suggest - albeit realistic would take out the fun part, for which I bought the game. There is challenge and there is frustration = different.

And to add to the arguement, lets not forget that the people on these forums are mainly the hardcore fans/players and not the casuals. Most people on here have played with several versions of the game and know the tactics, AI habit, moral in and out. As a result the fact that it is "only" difficult for 30% of these mainly hardcore gamers suggests to me (perhaps incorrectly) that it is not too difficult on a whole. I don't believe the casual 1m out there are as good as you guys in this game... But they are a bigger market.

You might argue that you are the bigger fans why not cater to YOUR interest rather than a casual gamer that plays 3-4hrs a week tops. Well, there are more of them and SI - like any other company - creates game for money. And also because you'll buy the game next year anyway, they might not... and you know you will, as it's still the best out there.

[alexyfoot]

Games are not like other software, they are more like books or music. If there are people who don't like it, the publishers won't ask the author to make major changes or a band to change their music style. It's similar with such a game, the developers have a product and a customer base in mind. They listen to customers when they are reporting flaws and bugs, but they don't leave their strategy just because some of the customers wish another game.

Would you please stop referring 31% of people playing the game (if we say the forum's opinion is close to all people buying the game) as "some people". Please convert 31% of all sales of the game (whatever that is, probably in the millions range) to an actual number and see if this is appropriately described as "some people". The fact that you like the game DOES NOT matter to me. I want I to enjoy the game not some other 60% of people who've bought it. The only way for that to happen is SI to issue some fixes. As far as I understand, they are taking the matter seriously, so I am sort of satisfied.

...so to the point, can you please stop spamming that we must all accept what is offered to us without any objections? We are not sheep, we have opinions and this thread is the place to express them.

Daffius, if something is not done to improve the hardness of the game, many people will not buy it next year, trust me.

[KUBI]

The poll says that 30% are thinking the game is to easy, it does not say that all of those 30% do not enjoy the game. This are two different things.

[Daffius]

...if we say the forum's opinion is close to all people buying the game...

That's the point, I don't think it is. This community hardly represents the casual playing majority.

As for sales figures, I guess only time will tell.

However I am not against making it better for the 31% of people. They bought the game and deserve to have fun as well. As long as it can be done without degrading the fun for the rest of the 69%, I'm all for it. Difficulty level? Some sort of 'optional' patch? etc...

[KUBI]

The only way for that to happen is SI to issue some fixes.

To fix some issues without any not wanted side effects. That's what makes tweaking difficult. To find the right balance for those who want more challenge and those who like the game play as it is.

[alexyfoot]

With the same logic you can say some of those 60% that have said it is OK can not like the game. Pointless argument I believe.

Daffius, I have seen similar arguments in my country's forum. Many other have reported the same about their countries. I believe it is close to the actual figure (there are plenty of newbies around here, it is not only hardcore gamers).

[KUBI]

What kind of stuff could be added to the editor in the future to add some kind of difficulty or easiness for those who want a different challenge?

Range of manager reputation for human managers? Like "starting reputation" and "max reputation" as figures and not just as past experience?

This would make long term saves more challenging, but you would never gain a top reputation within the game.

[grep]

What kind of stuff could be added to the editor in the future to add some kind of difficulty or easiness for those who want a different challenge?

3 difficulty settings.

Why should we have to fiddle with cryptic data when SI could set in the editor 3 or more pre-defined difficulty levels ?

[KUBI]

3 difficulty settings.

Why should we have to fiddle with cryptic data when SI could set in the editor 3 or more pre-defined difficulty levels ?

There are no plans for such kind of difficulty levels as part of the game, as stated by SI many, many times. Therefore this is complete unrealistic as it would expand the developing and testing time just for a editor feature.