The Ask-SI-Anything Thread

[OhHoopedOne]

Why is it possible to train a player's leadership but not a goalkeeper's 1v1's?

[Guest]

The available options for specific attribute in respect of keeper's is something I have  previously rasied & SI are looking into it.

[OhHoopedOne]

3 minutes ago, Barside said:

The available options for specific attribute in respect of keeper's is something I have  previously rasied & SI are looking into it.

Thank you for your reply but I would like to hear what SI have to say about this as, after all, the thread is called ask SI anything

[Guest]

If it helps I'm a former SI employee & have remained hevaily involved in testing for them since I left them.

[vikeologist]

1 hour ago, OhHoopedOne said:

Thank you for your reply but I would like to hear what SI have to say about this as, after all, the thread is called ask SI anything

Ok, enough. I was going to be snarky as say something like 'let's start a ask OhHoopedOne anything thread and ask him pointless questions', but maybe I could try being serious. As pointed out, SI didn't start this thread. They can easily stop responding to it, which would be a pity because I think it could be quite useful. It fills a gap. There's already an offload at SI thread, which I'd say is the feedback thread. There's already a new features thread.

I actually have a few questions that I'd like to ask SI, although I suspect that if they were prepared to answer them, they already would have.

I do have criticism of SI, (well SEGA really for the most part, but you know, guilt by association), but I think the way they've responded to this has been positive.                  

So here's a  (2-part) question that they may not want or be able to answer, but I may as well get it in there before Neil Brock gives up on this thread completely.

a) What possibility is there of getting Brazilian licensing back? Is it something that might happen, or are we saddled with the 3-letter acronyms for years to come? b) Are SI deliberately undoing the fixes for this with their updates, or is it just an unforeseen consequence?

As I say, if you really can't answer this, then ok. Thanks for the questions you do answer, I guess.

[OhHoopedOne]

8 minutes ago, vikeologist said:

Ok, enough. I was going to be snarky as say something like 'let's start a ask OhHoopedOne anything thread and ask him pointless questions', but maybe I could try being serious. As pointed out, SI didn't start this thread. They can easily stop responding to it, which would be a pity because I think it could be quite useful. It fills a gap. There's already an offload at SI thread, which I'd say is the feedback thread. There's already a new features thread.

I actually have a few questions that I'd like to ask SI, although I suspect that if they were prepared to answer them, they already would have.

I do have criticism of SI, (well SEGA really for the most part, but you know, guilt by association), but I think the way they've responded to this has been positive.                  

So here's a  (2-part) question that they may not want or be able to answer, but I may as well get it in there before Neil Brock gives up on this thread completely.

a) What possibility is there of getting Brazilian licensing back? Is it something that might happen, or are we saddled with the 3-letter acronyms for years to come? b) Are SI deliberately undoing the fixes for this with their updates, or is it just an unforeseen consequence?

As I say, if you really can't answer this, then ok. Thanks for the questions you do answer, I guess.

Oh sorry I did not realise that I had to categorise my questions

[HUNT3R]

@OhHoopedOne Stop posting that. It was deleted for a reason.

[OhHoopedOne]

Just now, HUNT3R said:

@OhHoopedOne Stop posting that. It was deleted for a reason.

Which was? 

[HUNT3R]

6 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

Which was? 

I'm surprised it needs explaining tbh. For one thing, there are forum house rules and specifically this: 

In it, SI ask users to remain civil and post constructively, even if it is criticism. Your post wasn't.

---

The previous user was right (and I'll add that I haven't spoken to SI about it, so I don't represent their views on it) but this thread was started by a user, hoping to get answers from SI. Neil has been nice enough to try and answer all the questions where he can. Bringing animosity in here will just discourage the good work he's done in this thread to continue. So cut it out please.

[OhHoopedOne]

1 minute ago, HUNT3R said:

I'm surprised it needs explaining tbh. For one thing, there are forum house rules and specifically this: 

In it, SI ask users to remain civil and post constructively, even if it is criticism. Your post wasn't.

---

The previous user was right (and I'll add that I haven't spoken to SI about it, so I don't represent their views on it) but this thread was started by a user, hoping to get answers from SI. Neil has been nice enough to try and answer all the questions where he can. Bringing animosity in here will just discourage the good work he'd done in this thread. So cut it out please.

There was no animosity in my post or any other posts in this thread, someone mentioned that they were a tester so I asked that person a perfectly reasonable and relevant question. If you're talking about animosity then I suggest you check out a response I received from vikeologist

[HUNT3R]

Just now, OhHoopedOne said:

There was no animosity in my post or any other posts in this thread, someone mentioned that they were a tester so I asked that person a perfectly reasonable and relevant question. If you're talking about animosity then I suggest you check out a response I received from vikeologist

Enough. It's "Ask SI anything", so please keep to the topic as the others have done.

[vikeologist]

Yes, well I suppose that patting myself on the back for not being snarky in a comment I include is still being snarky. Sorry.

Anyway, another question

When does one's status on the forum change?

I always assumed that one ceased to be an amateur (and became a part-timer?) automatically after 1,000 posts.

Not that I care. I don't care I really don't I mean it's not like it would be important to me I have lots of good things in my life........

Anyway, it made me curious, and I can't see anything on the forum about what our statuses actually mean. I assumed it meant nothing, just an arbitrary post count, but if it's not arbitrary.....

[OhHoopedOne]

6 minutes ago, vikeologist said:

Yes, well I suppose that patting myself on the back for not being snarky in a comment I include is still being snarky. Sorry.

Anyway, another question

When does one's status on the forum change?

I always assumed that one ceased to be an amateur (and became a part-timer?) automatically after 1,000 posts.

Not that I care. I don't care I really don't I mean it's not like it would be important to me I have lots of good things in my life........

Anyway, it made me curious, and I can't see anything on the forum about what our statuses actually mean. I assumed it meant nothing, just an arbitrary post count, but if it's not arbitrary.....

Wouldn't know as I mainly just post when I have something relevant to say or ask which isn't very often as it is only a game after all

[FrazT]

vikeologist- to answer your questions

 "What possibility is there of getting Brazilian licensing back? Is it something that might happen, or are we saddled with the 3-letter acronyms for years to come? b) Are SI deliberately undoing the fixes for this with their updates, or is it just an unforeseen consequence@

SI do not discuss licensing issues, so we cant predict what will happen in the future

The fixes are of course unofficial and updates will normally revert the game code to default, so it is purely unintentional but unlikely to be changed

[OhHoopedOne]

Why did you get rid of the arrows?

[FrazT]

2 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

Why did you get rid of the arrows?

Which arrows are you asking about?

[OhHoopedOne]

1 minute ago, FrazT said:

Which arrows are you asking about?

The ones on the tactics screen

[FrazT]

OK- humour me

which arrows on the tactics screen- when were they got rid of?

[OhHoopedOne]

Just now, FrazT said:

OK- humour me

which arrows on the tactics screen- when were they got rid of?

The arrows that dictated player movement. They pointed in straight or diagonal lines and were very useful when it came to setting up tactics

[FrazT]

2 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

The arrows that dictated player movement. They pointed in straight or diagonal lines and were very useful when it came to setting up tactics

These were removed when the tactics module was overhauled- I dont recall exactly when but it would be maybe 2 or 3 versions ago

[nextqprmanager]

I want to sell a player who played for QPR last season, offer came in - accepted. His prospective new Club Ipswich couldn`t get a WP.

Does this affect me playing him this 2nd season ? or do I have to sell / loan now to a Foreign Club?

thx

[OhHoopedOne]

3 minutes ago, FrazT said:

These were removed when the tactics module was overhauled- I dont recall exactly when but it would be maybe 2 or 3 versions ago

But why were they removed?

[OhHoopedOne]

2 minutes ago, nextqprmanager said:

I want to sell a player who played for QPR last season, offer came in - accepted. His prospective new Club Ipswich couldn`t get a WP.

Does this affect me playing him this 2nd season ? or do I have to sell / loan now to a Foreign Club?

thx

I have had this before and I think the WP is only needed if he signs a new deal with you or signs for somebody else.

[FrazT]

2 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

But why were they removed?

OK- last answer:

Clearly the coders and staff who redesigned the new tactics module with player roles and responsibilities felt that they were not needed.

Lets move on.

[OhHoopedOne]

Just now, FrazT said:

OK- last answer:

Clearly the coders and staff who redesigned the new tactics module with player roles and responsibilities felt that they were not needed.

Lets move on.

Or maybe someone from SI can answer and shed some knowledgeable light on the matter

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, OhHoopedOne said:

Or maybe someone from SI can answer and shed some knowledgeable light on the matter

This is why, it's from the great wwfan who was instrumental in having it removed. IIRC he was the one who suggested that they be removed. I've included the link so that you can read everything around it.

When we originally had the debate about the removal of arrows in FML testing, the only criteria we used were the integrity of the ME and the look of the football. Prior to the test removal, there were a huge number of disagreements about whether they should stay or go, both within SI and the FML forums. Even the tactical mods didn't at first agree, with Rashidi being openly vocal about the need for them to stay whereas I was equally insistent that they should go. That Rashidi and many others didn't just change their mind but came to recognise the FML ME as a major evolution in the development of the engine and became major proponents and defenders of the change should quash many fears.

The accusations of laziness are also unfounded. FML enabled SI to simultaneously test user feedback from GWs with and without the arrowless ME. The feedback from the arrowless GWs was so good compared to the arrowed ones that it swung the balance of opinion heavily towards the arrowless option. Scorelines came down as people could finally defend and the football looked realistic. PaulC has repeatedly stated his vision for the ME is for it to produce as realistic simulation of real life football as possible. Based on extensive feedback from SI employees, mods and general users, plus his own playing experience, he decided to take the arrows out of the game. At no point was it ever a lazy option.

What will happen when the arrowless ME hits FM09? People are going to have to learn to design tactics that work from the ground up. Tactical success is no longer going to be about drawing a plethora of arrows until you find a system the AI can't cope with. In FM08, a quick look at the tactical forum and the Tactical Cup run by the OP and the team at FMFan.ru, illustrates vividly how the majority of people are playing FM. They design multi-arrowed exploitative tactics that rely on artificial holes in the ME to unfairly outwit the AI. As one previous poster put it, it would be like playing a driving game in which your car had a 7-speed gear box whereas the AI only had a 3-speed one. Yes, you'd win, but only because the AI isn't on a level playing field. No fun in that.

For a lot of users, the learning curve is going to be steep and there will be many, many false steps along the way. However, once they scale its peaks, they will suddenly see the ME for what it is, a brilliant piece of programming capable of producing an exceptional simulation of football reality. You can already see this in FM08, which looks a far better engine without user arrows and is, for me, the biggest argument for their removal.

The final point in the defence of the end of arrows is that FWRs (often to none) have been reworked to take their place. You haven't suddenly lost the ability to have your FB overlap and put in a cross from the byline or have your MC drift between the FCs to score. What you have lost is the ability to have them move into that position no matter what. Players will only make FWRs when they are on, not by default, which adds much dynamism to the football. The better the player, the better his runs. This means that the super AMC of old (farrowed to FC) will only be as effective if the player himself is excellent. A world-class AMC will still be hugely effective. An average one, however, will no longer be able to look great simply because he is moving into a hole the AI can't defend.

[Pompeyboyz]

I do remember a couple of tactics that were killers due to crazy arrows. 

 

Removing the arrows was the best thing ever as far as tactics goes

[OhHoopedOne]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

This is why, it's from the great wwfan who was instrumental in having it removed. IIRC he was the one who suggested that they be removed. I've included the link so that you can read everything around it.

When we originally had the debate about the removal of arrows in FML testing, the only criteria we used were the integrity of the ME and the look of the football. Prior to the test removal, there were a huge number of disagreements about whether they should stay or go, both within SI and the FML forums. Even the tactical mods didn't at first agree, with Rashidi being openly vocal about the need for them to stay whereas I was equally insistent that they should go. That Rashidi and many others didn't just change their mind but came to recognise the FML ME as a major evolution in the development of the engine and became major proponents and defenders of the change should quash many fears.

The accusations of laziness are also unfounded. FML enabled SI to simultaneously test user feedback from GWs with and without the arrowless ME. The feedback from the arrowless GWs was so good compared to the arrowed ones that it swung the balance of opinion heavily towards the arrowless option. Scorelines came down as people could finally defend and the football looked realistic. PaulC has repeatedly stated his vision for the ME is for it to produce as realistic simulation of real life football as possible. Based on extensive feedback from SI employees, mods and general users, plus his own playing experience, he decided to take the arrows out of the game. At no point was it ever a lazy option.

What will happen when the arrowless ME hits FM09? People are going to have to learn to design tactics that work from the ground up. Tactical success is no longer going to be about drawing a plethora of arrows until you find a system the AI can't cope with. In FM08, a quick look at the tactical forum and the Tactical Cup run by the OP and the team at FMFan.ru, illustrates vividly how the majority of people are playing FM. They design multi-arrowed exploitative tactics that rely on artificial holes in the ME to unfairly outwit the AI. As one previous poster put it, it would be like playing a driving game in which your car had a 7-speed gear box whereas the AI only had a 3-speed one. Yes, you'd win, but only because the AI isn't on a level playing field. No fun in that.

For a lot of users, the learning curve is going to be steep and there will be many, many false steps along the way. However, once they scale its peaks, they will suddenly see the ME for what it is, a brilliant piece of programming capable of producing an exceptional simulation of football reality. You can already see this in FM08, which looks a far better engine without user arrows and is, for me, the biggest argument for their removal.

The final point in the defence of the end of arrows is that FWRs (often to none) have been reworked to take their place. You haven't suddenly lost the ability to have your FB overlap and put in a cross from the byline or have your MC drift between the FCs to score. What you have lost is the ability to have them move into that position no matter what. Players will only make FWRs when they are on, not by default, which adds much dynamism to the football. The better the player, the better his runs. This means that the super AMC of old (farrowed to FC) will only be as effective if the player himself is excellent. A world-class AMC will still be hugely effective. An average one, however, will no longer be able to look great simply because he is moving into a hole the AI can't defend.

This is a helpful answer but does it not discourage SI from getting involved and answering when they see that the mods are answering the queries that were intended for SI staff

[OhHoopedOne]

3 minutes ago, Pompeyboyz said:

I do remember a couple of tactics that were killers due to crazy arrows. 

 

Removing the arrows was the best thing ever as far as tactics goes

Tell that to Marcelo Bielsa. What he do without arrows? We have invented wing backs who can drift into centre miffield but lack the ability to make our central drift into wings. The arrows allowed for fluidity and movement

[Preveza]

23 minutes ago, FrazT said:

OK- last answer:

Clearly the coders and staff who redesigned the new tactics module with player roles and responsibilities felt that they were not needed.

Lets move on.

No need to be bitter mate. People can naturally be curious and want answers. I have never come across such an overmoderated of forum in my lifetime. Let people have their opinion, good or bad. People are afraid to express themselves in fear of being banned.

[westy8chimp]

11 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

This is a helpful answer but does it not discourage SI from getting involved and answering when they see that the mods are answering the queries that were intended for SI staff

when Neil did answer you, you were rude to him and not satisfied that only one SI member replied... you are the one discouraging SI from interacting on what was a useful thread.

[Welshace]

24 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

This is a helpful answer but does it not discourage SI from getting involved and answering when they see that the mods are answering the queries that were intended for SI staff

 

 

the point of the thread is surely to get accurate answers, and I can assure you, the mods wouldn't answer unless they were sure of their answers validity...

 

 

 

 

well... unless it's @herne79... he's clueless 

[OhHoopedOne]

6 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

when Neil did answer you, you were rude to him and not satisfied that only one SI member replied... you are the one discouraging SI from interacting on what was a useful thread.

You have your facts all wrong as I was not rude to neil Brock at all.

[FrazT]

1 minute ago, Preveza said:

No need to be bitter mate. People can naturally be curious and want answers. I have never come across such an overmoderated of forum in my lifetime. Let people have their opinion, good or bad. People are afraid to express themselves in fear of being banned.

Nobody has ever been banned for expressing an opinion as long as the forum rules are followed.

The question that was asked was about a game feature that was removed from FM 09 onwards apparently and was answered in full by the post that was linked from wwfan, who was an integral part of the design team at that point. There is therefore no need for any further input from SI on this point.

As I said earlier in the thread, this thread was opened by a user who decided on the thread title, so SI's input is not mandatory. Neil Brock has tried to input to answer questions that he can.

[Neil Brock]

3 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

You have your facts all wrong as I was not rude to neil Brock at all.

No, but you were rude to the entire SI team when you mentioned FM16 and said 'how did it slip past the testers?' so much so the post had to be deleted. I would say you've used up all your questions in this thread and would suggest leaving it to other users from now on.

Thanks. 

[herne79]

3 minutes ago, Welshace said:

well... unless it's @herne79... he's clueless 

That's why I don't answer .

 

@ everybody else this morning, get a grip.  The only thing all this silliness is going to achieve is SI withdrawing from the thread.  If you have a question, ask it.  If you want to discuss something, start a new topic.  If you want to bicker and be pedantic, then /facepalm.

welshy is spot on with his reply.  But that's because he's "ace".

[Cougar2010]

32 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

Tell that to Marcelo Bielsa. What he do without arrows? We have invented wing backs who can drift into centre miffield but lack the ability to make our central drift into wings. The arrows allowed for fluidity and movement

The arrows allowed for unrealistic movement where players would move between different positions with no consideration for anything else that was happening on the pitch.

That clearly doesn't happen IRL therefore it was correct to remove it from FM.

[OhHoopedOne]

2 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

No, but you were rude to the entire SI team when you mentioned FM16 and said 'how did it slip past the testers?' so much so the post had to be deleted. I would say you've used up all your questions in this thread and would suggest leaving it to other users from now on.

Thanks. 

Oh sorry Mr Brock are you not allowed to make a one off comment in jest now? I was only responding to someone saying that they were a tester. I have to say that I am very disappointed at the levels of freedom here and how low they are when it comes to free speech. It seems to me that you are free to go off topic when eulogising the game but the second you criticize it in the slightest you get muted and deleted. Just for the record I think FM17 is a fantastic game and is a great improvement

[OhHoopedOne]

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

The arrows allowed for unrealistic movement where players would move between different positions with no consideration for anything else that was happening on the pitch.

That clearly doesn't happen IRL therefore it was correct to remove it from FM.

It could have been replaced by proper, detailed and very much separate instructions for on and off the ball movement

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, OhHoopedOne said:

It could have been replaced by proper, detailed and very much separate instructions for on and off the ball movement

and it was in the form of roles, duties, TIs, PIs & OIs as has been explained many times over the years.

Dragging up old stuff like this just smacks of trolling TBH and I'm surprised you've been given as much rope as you have.  You've taken a thread which was useful for many users to the brink of being closed for your own selfish reasons.

 

[FrazT]

OK- this thread has been useful but has deteriorated.  This thread is not for discussion it is for Q and A

Everybody please move on or the thread will be closed

[Neil Brock]

13 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

Oh sorry Mr Brock are you not allowed to make a one off comment in jest now? I was only responding to someone saying that they were a tester. I have to say that I am very disappointed at the levels of freedom here and how low they are when it comes to free speech. It seems to me that you are free to go off topic when eulogising the game but the second you criticize it in the slightest you get muted and deleted. Just for the record I think FM17 is a fantastic game and is a great improvement

It didn't read in jest and was quite offensive to anyone from SI who worked on the game. Had nothing to do with being on or off topic, just came across as insulting. 

[BoxToBox]

34 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

The arrows allowed for unrealistic movement where players would move between different positions with no consideration for anything else that was happening on the pitch.

That clearly doesn't happen IRL

Except for Wayne Rooney, but I don't think we want FM to recreate that...

[OhHoopedOne]

Why do roles have built in instructions?

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

I would say you've used up all your questions in this thread and would suggest leaving it to other users from now on.

Thanks. 

 

8 minutes ago, OhHoopedOne said:

Why do roles have built in instructions?

Stop posting in this thread or we'll just make the choice for you.  Enough.

[santy001]

The important matches attribute, even as a researcher, this attribute makes me wonder about its affects. Is it just in the same scope as consistency (I know consistency uses it as part of its sphere of influence) but does it also operate on its own separately? If it does operate to an extent on its own, does it also have any influence over physical attributes, or even hidden attributes during matches? 

[Alfie103]

Is there any other way of improving the work rate attribute than just the individual focus training for certain positions?

[herne79]

3 minutes ago, Alfie103 said:

Is there any other way of improving the work rate attribute than just the individual focus training for certain positions?

If you select General Training > Fitness, that will work on player physical attributes and Work Rate.  General Training > Balanced will also work on Work Rate, but will influence all other attributes as well.  Bear in mind that setting General Training will impact all of your players.

Work Rate may also improve naturally over time.

Other than setting specific role training that includes Work Rate for a player, that's all you can do in Training.

[Cougar2010]

12 minutes ago, Alfie103 said:

Is there any other way of improving the work rate attribute than just the individual focus training for certain positions?

I'll add to what Herne has said above that warning/fining players for underperformance in matches has the chance to improve their determination & work rate if they accept they were at fault.

[Neil Brock]

4 hours ago, santy001 said:

The important matches attribute, even as a researcher, this attribute makes me wonder about its affects. Is it just in the same scope as consistency (I know consistency uses it as part of its sphere of influence) but does it also operate on its own separately? If it does operate to an extent on its own, does it also have any influence over physical attributes, or even hidden attributes during matches? 

Spoke to a member of the match team about this and to summarise what they said, broadly speaking there's a couple of functions under the hood which impact and affect how nervous they are, and what internally under the hood is "on the day ability offsets".

It works as you'd expect, in the sense those with a high rating will get a slight boost to hidden ratings such as consistency and abilities whilst those with a low score will potentially take a knock. As with all other attributes a number of variables come into account so it won't always be as clear cut as it seems, but by rating the players as you see fit (for instance Sun Ji-Park always played in the big matches for Man Utd during his career due to his ability to raise his game and Sir Alex's trust in the player) this will be reflected slightly by their performances in-game.