Why FM is decaying?

[Neil Brock]

35 minutes ago, Garethjohn79 said:

But as SI is the only game of it's type it can get away without paying the fee. If EA took to making an FM game more seriously then I can see the one with the correct logo's & names along with it's  ability to create realistic stadiums and better animations coming out top.

EA Licence every Sports it creates a game for. The NFL & NBA would also require large licence fees it cannot be losing out otherwise it wouldn't do so, they also release a WC edition every four years and FIFA would expect a fair price on that too. Do these league have a one price fits all? Id be surprised if SEGA could not negotiate a fair price with the J League, it being on FM would certainly increase the J Leagues profile in the West, currently we have the A League televised on BT Sport, and the Chinese Super league in the Summer on SKY, i'd rather have the J League for my early morning live football fix  instead of the A League. If it was on FM it would make it even more watchable raising it's profile.

The alternative to licenses is an SI (secretly)approved safe Steam Workshop DLC which is not going to ruin or spoil saves by messing up the game.

No, that is not the case at all. 

[Neil Brock]

29 minutes ago, Mr U Rosler said:

SI are more than welcome to my cash every year, for the amount of hours enjoyment I get out of it I cant think of any other form of entertainment that comes close to this value.

That doesn't mean I don't want a better product (stop forcing rigid player roles on us).

Having said that, I think now would be a good time to take stock, polish the product they have before deciding where they want to go in the future.

In the 'race' to add more and more 'stuff' to bloat the game other areas are not getting the attention they deserve.

I'm not sure any testers do a long term lower league save.

Last year we had the stadium bug, this year Youth Recruitment cannot be upgraded, fundamental errors which are close to rendering certain play styles untenable. (lower league saves, Academy challenges etc).

There are basic things that break immersion, constantly being asked if I think I will avoid relegation and stay up this season....... when i'm top of the league with 70 points, prior to everyone of the last 100 games I've been advised that 3 of my players may soon break the Clubs appearance record, after every single game in which a player is played slightly out of position (accomplished) I get a message telling although they are already accomplished they need more game time...

I could go on and on, these are loops that could easily be closed but no one's looking and are a constant reminder that you are dealing with simple scripts without even the most basic of 'checks' in place to stop them popping up when they are wholly inappropriate.

It break immersion, we are no longer able to suspend disbelief. 

We don't want more 'stuff' every year, the games basically 'finished',  you don't need to add stuff to justify each release.

Polish all the little corners, marginal gains on the ME each year is fine, a few creative touches on UI, that's all we need, we'll all happily hand you our cash every year anyway!      

 

If you read the Steam reviews you'll find we do have to justify it given those negative reviews which aren't Chinese 'boycott' reviews generally argue that FM17 is just FM16 with an updated database. Of course I know that's not the case given the amount that's changed, but it's not always that clear to some. 

[OCD]

2 hours ago, Garethjohn79 said:

Would those asking for a game to be released every two years be happy when March 2017 is the final update of squads and payer abilities and will not see anything new until Nov 2018? At the moment those buying in November get an FM 17 and a free FM 17.5 with updated squads. After that SI are going to go full whack onto FM 18. If you wish for each FM you buy to have a bigger variation than the last  buy them every two or three years. It's how I usually buy them. 

The theory behind my imaginary world of 2 year releases would be paid dlc that provide updates and a handful of features.

So a stream of revenue in-between releases, and less development time and budget  allocated for the teams working on the dlc.

44 minutes ago, Garethjohn79 said:

But as SI is the only game of it's type it can get away without paying the fee.

Where did you get that information from? That has absolutely no effect on being able to acquire a licence or licencing costs.

[Mr U Rosler]

12 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

If you read the Steam reviews you'll find we do have to justify it given those negative reviews which aren't Chinese 'boycott' reviews generally argue that FM17 is just FM16 with an updated database. Of course I know that's not the case given the amount that's changed, but it's not always that clear to some. 

That sounds like your admitting to adding unnecessary stuff every year merely to appease a few steam reviewers who probably don't buy the game every year anyway?

That hasn't come across very well at all.

[OCD]

13 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

If you read the Steam reviews you'll find we do have to justify it given those negative reviews which aren't Chinese 'boycott' reviews generally argue that FM17 is just FM16 with an updated database. Of course I know that's not the case given the amount that's changed, but it's not always that clear to some. 

Unfortunately you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Make superficial changes and people complain, don't make them and only focus on changes under the hood that aren't visible and people complain that nothing has changed visually lol.

But given the type of game Football Manager is, there's not much you can really do to revolutionise it, at least on the surface.

I'm not keen on the focus on the 3d engine, but had the match engine still been in 2d you'd have received complaints aimed at Football Manager still being stuck in the dark ages.

Substantial improvements will really only come in terms of the match engine, a.i, more tactical freedom and options and perhaps even more dynamic interaction in conversations.

I've always wondered whether it would be possible to have procedurally generated text in games as that would certainly freshen up any media and player interaction as opposed to the situation we're in now where interactions of any kind soon become very predictable.

[Neil Brock]

6 minutes ago, Mr U Rosler said:

That sounds like your admitting to adding unnecessary stuff every year merely to appease a few steam reviewers who probably don't buy the game every year anyway?

That hasn't come across very well at all.

You can interpret it like that if you want, but that's certainly not how I intended it. Absolutely nothing we add into the game we'd consider 'unnecessary' as each and every feature (from the simplest string change to the complete overhaul of a feature) undergoes an incredible amount of scrutiny before it gets added into the game. We only add things to improve either the enjoyment of the game, or the realism of the game. However there are definitely a number of people who buy a version of FM then perhaps won't buy another one until they see a big new feature added in a later version. Smaller improvements or under the hood changes don't have much mass appeal and aren't great from a marketing perspective, even if the game overall is improved. 

I don't want to directly point the finger at you, but it's comments like the one you've made which mean SI staff are less likely to engage with the community on these forums. Lots of well meaning comments and discussions are taken and twisted to their most negative and it's not ideal when we're simply trying to communicate with our community directly. 

[Mr U Rosler]

10 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

You can interpret it like that if you want, but that's certainly not how I intended it. Absolutely nothing we add into the game we'd consider 'unnecessary' as each and every feature (from the simplest string change to the complete overhaul of a feature) undergoes an incredible amount of scrutiny before it gets added into the game. We only add things to improve either the enjoyment of the game, or the realism of the game. However there are definitely a number of people who buy a version of FM then perhaps won't buy another one until they see a big new feature added in a later version. Smaller improvements or under the hood changes don't have much mass appeal and aren't great from a marketing perspective, even if the game overall is improved. 

I don't want to directly point the finger at you, but it's comments like the one you've made which mean SI staff are less likely to engage with the community on these forums. Lots of well meaning comments and discussions are taken and twisted to their most negative and it's not ideal when we're simply trying to communicate with our community directly. 

I wasn't deliberately seeking the negative, that's just how I read it. Probably more a reflection on me than anything else.

Apologies if I caused any offence.

 

[Neil Brock]

Just now, Mr U Rosler said:

I wasn't deliberately seeking the negative, that's just how I read it. Probably more a reflection on me than anything else.

Apologies if I caused any offence.

 

That's fine and I appreciate the apology - but as you say it was just how you interpreted it. Just please try and give us the benefit of the doubt with stuff like this.  

[lemeuresnew]

@Neil Brock - where is Pro Vercelli?!

It must be hard to try and figure out what is an improvement and what is un necessary. so many people play differently, and anything that adds to the game suggests you would be at a disadvantage to ignore it

for me, i would prefer the simpler things improved and more training options. I feel like I don't do any where as much training wise as I used to when you could make custom training schedules into groups. But other people seem to still talk about training a lot

what other big features are there to put in without becoming more of a chairman than a manager?

[Mons]

 

1 hour ago, Garethjohn79 said:

I wonder how much sales would increase with an image of Messi in Barcelona top in the Nou Camp, or Lewandoski in a Bayern top on the front being instructed by Pochettinio?  The issue I have is the Licensing rights to leagues (Cant a firm as big as Sega be encouraged to look into buying these). I can only see this heading one way with top Players being next. It's is spoiling the look of the game for me. Editor add-ons are an option but far to often they can interfere with the game. It'd be nice If there was a way of SI approving mods that could be vetted first to ensure this doesn't happen.

Stadiums and animation I see as the next big step. Will full FM need to start excluding the lowest end ancient PC's to include this? There has to be a time soon when you have to move on. Its a shame but there is an alternative FM for those who have low spec machines. 

While it'd be nice to see a household football name on the front of the game, I, for one, don't think it would translate into proportional revenue for SI. I have no idea how SI spend their money, but I really don't see this as being beneficial. For all I know, we may see Pep on the front cover in FM18, but it's a cosmetic gimmick and doesn't really do anything for me.

 

With regards to SI-approved mods, licensing restrictions again force SI's hands somewhat. As a long-time modder, I think the current situation where SI enable the addition of graphical content and editor data files by users aids the community immeasurably. There's always a grey area with some of these files, and I can fully understand why SI can't be seen to formally approve of files which may not necessarily be fully compliant with present licensing restrictions. Besides, how can SI vet files which they do not create?  I would't want to take ownership of anything I didn't do myself, and I can't imagine SI being willing to do so. There's often minor issues even in the leagues which they provide out-of-the-box, with anything from prize money to regional organization to future seasons' league structures etc., let alone with anything involving files provided for free made by the community. It's a nice idea, but I don't think it's feasible.

 

1 hour ago, Garethjohn79 said:

But as SI is the only game of it's type it can get away without paying the fee. If EA took to making an FM game more seriously then I can see the one with the correct logo's & names along with it's  ability to create realistic stadiums and better animations coming out top.

EA Licence every Sports it creates a game for. The NFL & NBA would also require large licence fees it cannot be losing out otherwise it wouldn't do so, they also release a WC edition every four years and FIFA would expect a fair price on that too. Do these league have a one price fits all? Id be surprised if SEGA could not negotiate a fair price with the J League, it being on FM would certainly increase the J Leagues profile in the West, currently we have the A League televised on BT Sport, and the Chinese Super league in the Summer on SKY, i'd rather have the J League for my early morning live football fix  instead of the A League. If it was on FM it would make it even more watchable raising it's profile.

The alternative to licenses is an SI (secretly)approved safe Steam Workshop DLC which is not going to ruin or spoil saves by messing up the game.

You may not be aware of it, but there are some licences which other companies already have exclusive rights to, such as the Premier League, Japan, Brazil, Portugal and the German national league, i.e. SI (or anybody else really) cannot do anything at all. SI already straddle a very thin line in including these teams and also in facilitating the community to produce files which revert these changes, having secretly-approved files is not something that will do their legal position any favours. Besides, I think the community already does a very good job in producing files which enhance the FM experience and also wheeding out those which are not as optimized as can be.

 

1 hour ago, Mr U Rosler said:

SI are more than welcome to my cash every year, for the amount of hours enjoyment I get out of it I cant think of any other form of entertainment that comes close to this value.

That doesn't mean I don't want a better product (stop forcing rigid player roles on us).

Having said that, I think now would be a good time to take stock, polish the product they have before deciding where they want to go in the future.

In the 'race' to add more and more 'stuff' to bloat the game other areas are not getting the attention they deserve.

I'm not sure any testers do a long term lower league save.

Last year we had the stadium bug, this year Youth Recruitment cannot be upgraded, fundamental errors which are close to rendering certain play styles untenable. (lower league saves, Academy challenges etc).

There are basic things that break immersion, constantly being asked if I think I will avoid relegation and stay up this season....... when i'm top of the league with 70 points, prior to everyone of the last 100 games I've been advised that 3 of my players may soon break the Clubs appearance record, after every single game in which a player is played slightly out of position (accomplished) I get a message telling although they are already accomplished they need more game time...

I could go on and on, these are loops that could easily be closed but no one's looking and are a constant reminder that you are dealing with simple scripts without even the most basic of 'checks' in place to stop them popping up when they are wholly inappropriate.

It break immersion, we are no longer able to suspend disbelief. 

We don't want more 'stuff' every year, the games basically 'finished',  you don't need to add stuff to justify each release.

Polish all the little corners, marginal gains on the ME each year is fine, a few creative touches on UI, that's all we need, we'll all happily hand you our cash every year anyway!      

 

There's plenty of those annoying little things in the game, true, and they could really do with being trimmed out of the game tbh. I know it's facile, but have you reported these kind of issues in the bugs section. You could well argue that it's not your job to do so, and I can see where you're coming from, 

 

With respect to testers doing long-term lower-league saves, I reckon it's a bit hard to do anything in that regard other than a somewhat superficial analysis. After all, by its very definition, that type of game takes up a lot of time. For testers to notice bugs of that nature, they'd have spend weeks if not months on a save game. And in an environment where code changes all the time, I don't know how that can be accomplished. Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing the presence of game-changing bugs, but in a game as complex as FM, a lot of bugs are "niche" and are only identified if the right (rare) combination of events occurs - which is why it's important that they are reported in the right forum for the testing team to have a look at.

[Svenc]

13 hours ago, kingrobbo said:

When you see threads with users bragging how great they are by winning everything easily etc but you find they are using a tactic that someone else has developed that the AI can't cope with surely cant be right on so many fronts

 

Shouldn't bother anyone, and it's resources wasted. I don't think that it is even SI's main concern. If there's holes in there, it's fixed because it is always affecting everyone. The holes may not be targeted, but they do exist, and they lead to goals for and against. My stance is, more power to anyone, as long as they enjoy themselves! Naturally SI may view that differently, as there is user frustration connected to this  -- i.e. mass rage quits and "game is broken" mass claims when more common exploits are easily defended. But, in general, it shouldn't bother you -- unless you were to compete in multiplayer (the integrity of that naturally takes a bit of a nosedive). There are also connections to the "just an upgrade" criticisms and that style of playing on occasion, as if you exploit the tactics module, everything else can become redundant to a degree that you would never overly notice the progress hopefully made. Ironically, whilst there is the criticism that the game would have become too tactical, it is those downloads that turn the game into a game of tactics 100%. That aside, not really.
 

4 hours ago, sirgiorgio said:

 

I particularly agree with the bolded part above. Yesterday I watched an AI v AI match: Juventus - Empoli 1-0. A one-sided affair, really: 38 shots, 19 on target vs 4 (3). I don't know what the virtual Allegri was thinking, but if I was in charge of Juventus I would've thought that I was being robbed: a gk makes 19 saves and he's not even considered PoM! He should have been awarded the "GK of the century" award!

Now, If I am (or think I am) managing an unbeatable team, against a bunch of nobodies, and I find myself struggling because they play with passion and intensity, and make clever tactical choices, and/or my players are tired or over-confident or simply not as good as I think, that's ok. But if their "tactic" is "you shoot as many times as you wish, you just won't score! [satanic grin]", well, that's not how it works...

What most of those were easy saves? Keeper ratings have been an issue before, getting bumped purely because of the number of saves. This should never happen. If you go back to older iterations, you had users posting match stats showing 50 shots and 25-40 corners -- which should have been a slightly clue as why so few shots were converted. Space is simulated in FM, but it doesn't always magically open itself. On set pieces there is little of that by definition. What is still contributing to such one sided match stats is that AI very readily sit half their team behind the ball (defend duty) and dropping deep. Sometimes that is done to target a 0-0 draw, sometimes it is switched to during the match. That makes it harder to work for attacking space (and it better should), but it leads to such one sided stats too oftenly, as the AI side will find it hard to keep the ball for long, let alone work play to get attempts. It may be too easy to get "shots" off, statistically. However, the keeper outside of tap-ins and pens should be considered in the advantage. It is rare that behind such shots and no return there is actually tons of decent quality shots missed.

[forameuss]

1 hour ago, OCD said:

Who said that a longer development cycle would result in less bugs? If that was the case day one patches would NOT be a thing on any AAA game with a long development cycle. GTA games are always bug free aren't they? Have you seen how long they develop their games, and the development costs?!

Ever wondered why day one patches exist? A little thing called deadlines, which developers need to hit with a big bad Publisher breathing down their neck. So in the build that goes "gold", which they submit for certification often months before, they're not able to polish everything up, so they use the remaining time to work on the inevitable day one patch. The cure would be a longer development time, and more freedom, which is very rare when you're working to the mercy of a Publisher.

The day development teams find a way to eradicate every single bug will be the greatest day for them.

However I find it absolutely ridiculous that you think a shorter development time is beneficial in any way. The tight deadlines often imposed by Publishers are nothing but detrimental to development, never beneficial. Infact I'd be very interested to hear a few reasons why a shorter development time is beneficial? Perhaps we could just get a new game every transfer window then? Shorten the development time even further to get an even better product.

I'm not an idiot, I don't believe that a longer development time will result in a version of Football Manager that will be absolutely perfect,  but it would allow them more time to add things that they perhaps can't due to the shorter development time, and it would allow more time for testing.

But a longer development cycle is never going to happen, at least no time soon. The Publisher will not be keen to implement that as ultimately all it would do is reduce their revenue, and make the cost of development rise between each iteration. The other option is to expand the development team while keeping development times the same, but again that would increase costs, and arguably not really increase revenue.

Although with some of the logic in this thread I'd imagine more people working on a game is not beneficial either....Perhaps we should go back in time to when it was just two people working on the game.

Plenty of people said it, and think it.  And I absolutely guarantee that if they moved to a longer development cycle, people would expect that would mean less bugs.  Which it wouldn't.  Obviously.  Like HUNT3R has already said, and SI themselves have intimated in the past, they already plan long term.  They'll be working on larger modules that will see light in a few editions time alongside work for the current iteration.  Maybe they have some in mind for FM19.  They'd likely still be in FM19 even if there was no FM18.  

Not really sure why you've chosen to go on that long, rambling "this is how development works" tirade.  I know exactly how it works, as I do it every day.  I also  never described a shorter development tie as beneficial.  Ever.  I just said, as I always do when this comes up, regular as clockwork, that longer development times aren't going to be this magic bullet that solves everything.  It wouldn't be beneficial in SI's case either - as I've said, their budget would likely be cut because you simply have half the amount of money you had before on a two year scale.  There's hardly a guarantee that you would end up recouping that amount with extra sales.  It's a niche product, there's unlikely to be this huge untapped market that either doesn't buy or doesn't know about the game.

Then there's the little fact that a yearly development cycle is the obvious choice for a game like this.  Obviously.

But I'm sure you'll come back with more "let me tell you way development is".  There's really no need, I think they've got it in hand after their decades doing what they do.

[noikeee]

FM isn't "decaying", but there's clearly a few issues with the current tactical instructions and tactical UI - it is both limited for those of us who want extra freedom, and unclear/confusing for those who are starting out and are unfamiliar with the history of the game.

I completely disagree with the idea roles should be scrapped. Roles exist to allow us to assign a bunch of instructions to a player at once, which is hugely convenient. There's too many things hardcoded into the current roles which aren't customizable enough, but I sure as hell don't want to go back to give every single instruction one-by-one to every single of my players. Scrapping roles is not the solution. The UI confusion is rooted in other things.

@MBarbaric raised a much more important issue: there's a disconnect between the idea that the positions are the defensive formation, and how real life football works. In real life, most of the players that play in the AM and ST strata, defend much deeper like they do in FM when the ball is on their half. You can better mimick real defensive structures by fielding attacking midfielders in the midfield strata, and strikers in the AM strata, but then you will lose out on the roles intended for them (ie, having to modify wide midfielder roles to mimick inside forwards or raumdeuters; or having to use things like shadow striker instead of the variety of striker roles). And you will lose out on the position familiarity set for these real life players in the DB. This is just plain wrong and one my key issues with the current system.

 

------------------------------------

To summarize, this is what I would want to be changed in tactics:

1. The formation on screen should stop being the defensive formation, and become the "average" formation between both defensive and attacking formations. The defensive formation would then be set through roles/duties and through new specific, defensive instructions such as "defend deeper/stay higher without ball" (for AMs and STs) or "defend wider/narrower" (for wide players).

Two new cosmetical panels would be added in the tactics screen, as a "preview" of both defensive and attacking formations so everything becomes clearer to the user.

2. Team shape should stop affecting creative freedom and be exclusively about the spread of mentality. Perhaps give it a new name other than "shape" and "Fluid/Structured". Scrap the "be more expressive/disciplined" TI and create a new modifier for creative freedom next to team shape.

This would not only give us more freedom to reproduce systems that are difficult at the moment (ex compact defensive systems), also allow us to use compactness and expressiveness as two different things, like they are in real life. It would simplify massively this convoluted setting which is so hard to explain.

3. Roles should be far more changeable. I think SI has gone a bit too paranoid about tactical exploits on this, a lot of hardcoded stuff is simply far too much. Why can't we no longer tell a CM/D to "hold position"? Why can't we create a central winger anymore? Why can't we make a slightly different hybrid of striker roles, by making a complete forward a little less complete by switching off an instruction or two; or making a defensive forward or a target man a bit more adventurous? Why can't I tell a playmaker to shoot from long too if he can also do it? Why must an inverted wingback have EVERY dribbling/passing instruction set up to the max? Etc, etc. 

We've gone from a system in which we had a absurd unrealistic level of freedom (sliders), to the current one in which we are limited to SI's vision and must use convoluted workarounds if we want to reproduce other alternative visions. Surely there's a happier middle ground somewhere?

4. Review all existent TIs and scrap those that are redundant. Some are just plain mistifying. Here's what I'd do:

- Scrap "work ball into box" and replace it by two new ones: "cross less" and "don't shoot from distance". Most users don't know that work ball into box reduces crossing. Taking it away and making it its own TI would clarify it.

- Scrap "retain possession" which nobody knows exactly what it does, other than some mystical combination of effects. Re-add "pass into feet", or rename it "pass sideways" or "don't pass into space" instead - this TI was a hell of a lot clearer. Add "dribble less" too as the opposite of "dribble more".

Essentially TIs would stop being these wacky cummulations of effects, and go back to basics, like we used to have for players:

- shoot more / shoot less
- cross more / cross less
- pass into space more / pass into space less
- dribble more / dribble less

This might be a bit blunt but it is clear and simple and not any harder to use.

5. Introduce extra defensive instructions. This is a field FM severely lacks, although I'm a little afraid adding too many new instructions might make tactics overly complex for beginner users, or those not as interested in tactics. But our current system of defend higher/lower, press more/less, mark tighter/not tighter (zonal/man) is just not good enough.

Ideally I'd want:

- TI and PI for "block passing lanes" (to focus on blocking passing lanes, instead of directly targetting the closest player)
- TI for "press opponents facing backwards" (pressing trigger, make everyone rush forward whenever the opposing player with the ball is looking backwards)
- TI for "press immediately after losing ball" (pressing trigger, make everyone rush for 5 seconds whenever ball is lost, then return to normal)
- TI for "retreat into shape in own half" (when together with things like "close down much more", would allow for hectic pressing in the opponent's half, then retreating into soaking-the-pressure mode in own half)
- TI for "defend narrower" (when together with very wide width settings, would allow for a narrow shape with ball and wide without ball)

I haven't organized these ideas well enough on defensive settings yet, but these are the key things we're missing. I suspect most top level teams would just check most of these TIs, but they could be suicidal against highly technical opponents and/or when deployed by low workrate, low aggression, low stamina players.

------------------------------------

I think this is probably enough ideas for a revamp for now. I would post this on the features request forum, but I need some time to do some drawings, and therefore create a more visual representation of my ideas.

[Kcinnay]

(I raised that issue, but never mind.)

I hope SI will use all of @noikeee's suggestions for FM 2018. Couldn't agree more.

[kosecki99]

 

We need more tactical options. I can do a tactic in a minute because every year is always the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[noikeee]

15 minutes ago, Kcinnay said:

(I raised that issue, but never mind.)

I hope SI will use all of @noikeee's suggestions for FM 2018. Couldn't agree more.

I'm not optimistic. Even if they somehow looked at my post and thought "gee, you're right, let's start on this right away", it'd probably take like 2 or 3 years of development on the AI, UI and ME to get everything ready for release (and one or two more versions of the game to get rid of painful bugs and exploits).

Unless, of course, SI being the clever folks they are , they've thought about all of this in the past already and have started development earlier. I suspect everything's been discussed before, now whether they agree with me on everything I very much doubt it...

[OCD]

42 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Plenty of people said it, and think it.  And I absolutely guarantee that if they moved to a longer development cycle, people would expect that would mean less bugs.  Which it wouldn't.  Obviously.  Like HUNT3R has already said, and SI themselves have intimated in the past, they already plan long term.  They'll be working on larger modules that will see light in a few editions time alongside work for the current iteration.  Maybe they have some in mind for FM19.  They'd likely still be in FM19 even if there was no FM18.  

Not really sure why you've chosen to go on that long, rambling "this is how development works" tirade.  I know exactly how it works, as I do it every day.  I also  never described a shorter development tie as beneficial.  Ever.  I just said, as I always do when this comes up, regular as clockwork, that longer development times aren't going to be this magic bullet that solves everything.  It wouldn't be beneficial in SI's case either - as I've said, their budget would likely be cut because you simply have half the amount of money you had before on a two year scale.  There's hardly a guarantee that you would end up recouping that amount with extra sales.  It's a niche product, there's unlikely to be this huge untapped market that either doesn't buy or doesn't know about the game.

Then there's the little fact that a yearly development cycle is the obvious choice for a game like this.  Obviously.

But I'm sure you'll come back with more "let me tell you way development is".  There's really no need, I think they've got it in hand after their decades doing what they do.

You insinuated in your earlier post that there would be no benefit to a longer development cycle. You actually even gave an example of what we would get in theory if Football Manager adopted a different approach.

Infact you said, and I quote:

"Except, no.  If you hadn't received FM16, and they skipped straight from FM15 to FM17, you would have likely still received the same product you ended up getting anyway"

That means no benefit to a longer development cycle in the case of Football Manager in your opinion, right? As you claim we would receive the same product that we do now with annual releases.

Anyway judging by your tone in your post it's pointless for me to even bother typing this reply. I'll say no more on the subject.

You're entitled to your opinion as am I.

[Mons]

To add to my earlier contribution, I firmly believe that the single most important overhaul/revamp that SI can do is in the match engine. I appreciate that it's a fine balance between having good graphics and allowing those with low-end PC to enjoy the game, and also appreciate (if not necessarily comprehend) the amount of work involved in making the ME a fluid and realistic one. I'm also not one who gets distracted with shiny graphics and I certainly don't expect FM graphics to be of FIFA 17-quality. But I personally think that the match graphics on FM are seriously underwhelming for 2017. While the range and variety of animations is improving with each version, I still think there is a lot of work to be done to adequately represent football on the pitch in FM in a realistic manner. I think dribbling needs a lot of work, defending animations need a lot of work, animations to accurately display technique in action are sorely lacking (passing with the outside of the foot, quick feet to escape out of tight spacing, cushioned headers, miskicks etc.), it's hard to distinguish a playing style

 

For me, these are the small things which break the immersion. When watching an FM match these days, I can't shake off the feeling of "that's not realistic" multiple times every match. Again, I appreciate the work involved in bringing such a complex game to life, and I can only imagine the complexity in having a match engine capable of realistically displaying lower-league matches between poor teams as well as top-level fixtures. But I still yearn for the day when this utopia of FM happens. I'm sure SI are striving towards it, but I sure hope it comes sooner rather than later

[Guest]

7 hours ago, forameuss said:

While that particular feature probably didn't add too much, if they got rid of all the little things they usually add to each edition that are usually in their infancy and not to everyone's taste, then the criticism would probably shift from those to how SI were just releasing the same game.  You already get people who claim that, so if you take away the things that are demonstrably new - regardless of what you think of them - then I don't think they'd get universal praise.  They can't win, essentially.

I absolutely agree & this is a problem for all successful simulations as there comes a point when all the big stuff is in the game & each new aspect is icing.

The social media feature is an example of one that maybe could have been held back & built up internally over a couple of years before, it's probably working exactly as intended but I'd have preferred something a little more interesting than cookie-cutter positive/negative/neutral social media posts for all events & that would probably require a much longer internal development & testing cycle so it's back to the no win scenario of fewer new features but those that do get added having more detail/impact that I suspect many will not appreciate.

[westy8chimp]

2 hours ago, Mr U Rosler said:

That sounds like your admitting to adding unnecessary stuff every year merely to appease a few steam reviewers who probably don't buy the game every year anyway?

That hasn't come across very well at all.

some of us are really into the tactics side and only really want genuine footballing enhancements year on year... so we'd love a better tactic creator (ability to set pressing zonally for instance) and any new roles that fit modern trends. Me personally, I'd also like better logic in the transfer engine ... i.e. conference teams and below should have a more rigid ceiling on a good prospect they don't want to sell than say Barcelona... but at the moment you will get a team like Nuneaton rejecting 1m for a player and asking for 80m. Would never happen.

However, if you look at the feature request topic area ... a quick browse and you will see all sorts of requests for nonsense like the social media and worse ... "please can I change colour of tie" , "please can I spend my wages on a car and a house" ... to me that's useless ... do it once then sick of it because it has no impact ... I already can't stand having to choose what suit I'm wearing and my hair style when I set up a manager profile. I hate the social media.

I think what Neil is getting at ... is they have lots and lots of customers... and unfortunately for us ... this is what a lot of them want. So every year there are some changes that are aesthetic, some are 'distracters', a lot are database... and every now and again we get something tactical.

[lemeuresnew]

1 hour ago, westy8chimp said:

However, if you look at the feature request topic area ... a quick browse and you will see all sorts of requests for nonsense like the social media and worse ... "please can I change colour of tie

im not usually one for all this fashion stuff, but you cant manage a team in the wrong colour tie! it really shouldnt be that hard lol

[Dave1990]

Hello guys, you can't ignore that in these years development of the game has stopped, especially as regards the tactical system. For example why for many years there isn't a difference between corner routines and lateral free kicks routines? Why is it impossible to set the positions of our players on the opposing throw-ins?

There are roles not developed properly as the inverted wing back for example, also because the ME set in this way doesn't allow it. I say this because I noticed that the ME is basically the same for a few years now, with small improvements on animations and on certain concept errors. A proof of this fact are goals on crosses, really exaggerated in last edition. Well, what has been done to reduce them? Simple, was diminished the effectiveness of these crosses, while the total number of crosses is the same as last year, unfortunately this is completely unreal. 1621 total crosses in the first year with Athletic Bilbao in Liga's games, with an average of 42 per game crosses, let's be serious? And the tactic is a 4-3-2-1 "Christmas Tree", what would happen if I had four men to the flanks?

Then the defense phase should be deepened in a much more complete by introducing the concept of "ball covered" and "ball discovered" (the literal translation is from Italian, sorry if it is wrong), because players don't behave the same way in all circumstances, this in a game would make a difference. Unfortunately it is instead going in the opposite direction, simplifying football to make it accessible for all and the lack of competition does the rest. 

[Roy Race 9]

2 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

some of us are really into the tactics side and only really want genuine footballing enhancements year on year... so we'd love a better tactic creator (ability to set pressing zonally for instance) and any new roles that fit modern trends. Me personally, I'd also like better logic in the transfer engine ... i.e. conference teams and below should have a more rigid ceiling on a good prospect they don't want to sell than say Barcelona... but at the moment you will get a team like Nuneaton rejecting 1m for a player and asking for 80m. Would never happen.

However, if you look at the feature request topic area ... a quick browse and you will see all sorts of requests for nonsense like the social media and worse ... "please can I change colour of tie" , "please can I spend my wages on a car and a house" ... to me that's useless ... do it once then sick of it because it has no impact ... I already can't stand having to choose what suit I'm wearing and my hair style when I set up a manager profile. I hate the social media.

I think what Neil is getting at ... is they have lots and lots of customers... and unfortunately for us ... this is what a lot of them want. So every year there are some changes that are aesthetic, some are 'distracters', a lot are database... and every now and again we get something tactical.

couldnt agree more 

 

whoever implemented the fact you cant add a real pic for the only human player in game needs @@@@@@@@ with a rag man's trumpet

[YKW]

4 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

Just to come back to this, as much as I'd like to take credit for it, I haven't logged each and every of those 600 threads - as stated they were all reviewed. A large number would have already been logged in one form or another previously. And yes, I certainly did them in batches hence why some of the replies look a bit rapid fire. 

I can confirm every thread was read though. I had the tired eyes to prove it!  

We are changing how we log feature ideas internally though to make it more streamlined, hence why I'm holding off adding any more at the moment (plus as we work in cycles we only have time to focus on the design and implementation of features for a relatively limited window). Hopefully if the way we change it is successful, we may even be able to provide a template for members of community to use, in order to allow us to take your ideas forward in the best possible way.

Thanks Neil, well you should know that your efforts didn't go unnoticed. Obviously like you said SI are already aware of a lot of the stuff, but taking the time out to give some tangible sign to the community that we are still connected with things is brilliant imo, and I appreciate it. The rest of your post sounds great as well.

[Deisler26]

The set piece creator is something that needs an overhaul tbh. 

[Garethjohn79]

Yes too true but those who cannot be bothered to set-up a tactic will then moan about needing to create separate Set Pieces for each area of the pitch.

[Powermonger]

11 hours ago, noikeee said:

I think this is probably enough ideas for a revamp for now. I would post this on the features request forum, but I need some time to do some drawings, and therefore create a more visual representation of my ideas.

Make sure you do or else they'll be lost and forgotten.

Some good ideas there and just some of my own comments:

11 hours ago, noikeee said:

1. The formation on screen should stop being the defensive formation, and become the "average" formation between both defensive and attacking formations.

I happy for it to remain as starting formation, however I think the tactic formation should re-introduce non-adjustable arrows that indicate player movement.

i.e. 

 

I also think there should be a toggle to switch between Defensive phase and Attacking phase, with 4 views for each phase: Overall, defensive third, middle third and offensive third. This way we get a general idea of team shape in the different thirds.

11 hours ago, noikeee said:

2. Team shape should stop affecting creative freedom and be exclusively about the spread of mentality.

Not sure how I feel about this, I am fine how team shape is at present, it feels logical to me.

 

11 hours ago, noikeee said:

5. Introduce extra defensive instructions.

Agree with all of these, however I will add that I wish to see a [Line of Confrontation] added which allows us to dictate where on the field pressing should begin and works in conjunction with the defensive line. This way we can 'draw' our defensive block and define better what type of pressing we wish: Defensive, Offensive or Ultra-Offensive, as well as controlling depth of our team shape. Closing Down would be replaced with a Pressing intensity setting which defines how much pressure the team exerts.

[upthetoon]

On ‎27‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 09:14, RBKalle said:

Didn't some of the devs sort of confirm that some of the most "disputed" areas in FM can't really be altered that much without rewriting the whole module from scratch (also screwing many other modules that are linked to that one)?

There's the main reason the core of the game (transfers, scouting, likely even the core of the ME itself?) can "just" get tweaked year after year but plenty of most-wanted features are still nowhere to be seen or some of the long-lasting issues are still more or less there.

I don't think it's complacency or greed or anything like that... Understandably, rewriting like half of the game from scratch is a huge undertake, and an equally huge risk...

However, how far can the current "generation" hold its own? There's just so much cosmetic stuff SI can to a core game which is getting quite stale and a tad bloated.

which is the whole point isn't it? why on earth do you need to release FM year after year? releasing a game, with things like updated goalkeeper physics, more realistic player movements, new UI and skins? LOL. The much drummed about Social media addition has already gone stale. FM does not needs to be released atleast for another 3 years why they 'rework' it from 'scratch' implementing much needed changes to enhance immersion.

[forameuss]

22 minutes ago, upthetoon said:

which is the whole point isn't it? why on earth do you need to release FM year after year? releasing a game, with things like updated goalkeeper physics, more realistic player movements, new UI and skins? LOL. The much drummed about Social media addition has already gone stale. FM does not needs to be released atleast for another 3 years why they 'rework' it from 'scratch' implementing much needed changes to enhance immersion.

So now we're depriving them of three years of profits?  Assume we're just cutting the team back to a couple of people then?  Not really sure what you're going to pay the current team with.

[sirgiorgio]

20 hours ago, Svenc said:

 

 

What most of those were easy saves? Keeper ratings have been an issue before, getting bumped purely because of the number of saves. This should never happen. If you go back to older iterations, you had users posting match stats showing 50 shots and 25-40 corners -- which should have been a slightly clue as why so few shots were converted. Space is simulated in FM, but it doesn't always magically open itself. On set pieces there is little of that by definition. What is still contributing to such one sided match stats is that AI very readily sit half their team behind the ball (defend duty) and dropping deep. Sometimes that is done to target a 0-0 draw, sometimes it is switched to during the match. That makes it harder to work for attacking space (and it better should), but it leads to such one sided stats too oftenly, as the AI side will find it hard to keep the ball for long, let alone work play to get attempts. It may be too easy to get "shots" off, statistically. However, the keeper outside of tap-ins and pens should be considered in the advantage. It is rare that behind such shots and no return there is actually tons of decent quality shots missed.

One of them was a penalty... At least 4 or 5 were shots from inside the penalty area. 4 or 5 were from just outside the penalty area, a place where you certainly don't want the likes of Dybala, Marchisio, Pjanic and Higuain to shoot.

Obviously, the problem is not the GK and his rating, The problem is that, as you described, the idea of defending in the game is to allow shots, as long as they are "difficult" and the keeper is "in the advantage", while my idea of defending (and everybody else's, I suppose) is to limit the number of shots period (of course, I'm talking about the shots taken by the opponents... ).

This totally breaks the immersion for me. It doesn't matter if I win, draw or lose or am a neutral spectator. I just don't know what to make of that match: were Empoli lucky? Did they do a good job limiting the damage? Were Juventus unlucky? Did they do a bad job converting their chances? All of the above? None of the above?

[noikeee]

3 minutes ago, sirgiorgio said:

One of them was a penalty... At least 4 or 5 were shots from inside the penalty area. 4 or 5 were from just outside the penalty area, a place where you certainly don't want the likes of Dybala, Marchisio, Pjanic and Higuain to shoot.

Obviously, the problem is not the GK and his rating, The problem is that, as you described, the idea of defending in the game is to allow shots, as long as they are "difficult" and the keeper is "in the advantage", while my idea of defending (and everybody else's, I suppose) is to limit the number of shots period (of course, I'm talking about the shots taken by the opponents... ).

This totally breaks the immersion for me. It doesn't matter if I win, draw or lose or am a neutral spectator. I just don't know what to make of that match: were Empoli lucky? Did they do a good job limiting the damage? Were Juventus unlucky? Did they do a bad job converting their chances? All of the above? None of the above?

It's not that different from real life. Maybe in FM shots from the space just outside the area are too easily blocked, but imagine you're a real life manager and your team is doing a good job of covering your area AND the space in front of it, but the opponents are stubborn idiots and will just insist on shooting from 30 yards with crap body positioning. Would you change anything? I wouldn't. Let them waste possession and do these silly shots.

[Garethjohn79]

12 minutes ago, upthetoon said:

which is the whole point isn't it? why on earth do you need to release FM year after year? releasing a game, with things like updated goalkeeper physics, more realistic player movements, new UI and skins? LOL. The much drummed about Social media addition has already gone stale. FM does not needs to be released atleast for another 3 years why they 'rework' it from 'scratch' implementing much needed changes to enhance immersion.

The yearly release allows the game to keep Squads and player abilities up to date, When a potential Customer with £50 to spend is looking at the shelves for a Football Game in January 2019 who on earth will be tempted by a full priced FM 2017 when FIFA 2019 is on the shelf next to it? How long do you want to spread the income of one edition over? The game would progress at a slower rate. You don't see as many changes as they are less noticeable if you buy each year.  The next big change might be ready in FM 2019 it doesn't stop smaller ones being added in 2018. 2017 & 2018's sales will be paying the staff to develop 2019. 

Releasing yearly caters for every type of FM purchaser. New Buyers will get the latest edition with current players, yearly purchasers get a new edition, those who buy every other might have last bought 2016, 2018 will be their next do you think they would want to wait to 2020 four years for the next one? The development budget will be reliant on the income of a ever decreasing sales income which would be very small come 2019. Do you think if released every four years they would sell Four years worth of games in the first Xmas to cover the development and staff costs for the next 3.5 years?

[noikeee]

And this whole talk of "let's release FM every 2 or 3 years instead!" is absurd nonsense that is completely disconnected from reality, and is just clouding the talk about the real issues here. SI would go bankrupt if they did that and we wouldn't really win anything neither. The only benefit would be less pressure on SI to constantly put out cosmetic "new" features like social media. Still, not worth it at all.

You can already pretty much emulate that by buying FM only every 2 or 3 years. There you go, 2 or 3 years worth of new features and development.

[noikeee]

9 hours ago, Powermonger said:

Make sure you do or else they'll be lost and forgotten.

Some good ideas there and just some of my own comments:

I happy for it to remain as starting formation, however I think the tactic formation should re-introduce non-adjustable arrows that indicate player movement.

i.e. 

 

I also think there should be a toggle to switch between Defensive phase and Attacking phase, with 4 views for each phase: Overall, defensive third, middle third and offensive third. This way we get a general idea of team shape in the different thirds.

But that doesn't really work to fix the problem of players being perceived in real life as AML/AMR but defending as ML/MR, or players being perceived as ST and defending as AMC. You'd still need to give them roles like wide midfielder or shadow striker, instead of the AML/AMR/ST roles that fit them best in real life. I want to be able to use those roles, just with the added option of tracking back more.

Or the problem of the wide midfielders - do we want them to defend narrow to emulate a nice narrow flat 4-4-2 with 2 proper banks of 4 (like in FM16), or do we want them to defend wide to prevent unmarked opposing fullbacks (like in FM17). I want to be able to choose between both behaviors through a new option.

On the subject of having extra "transitional" shapes, that's interesting and ideal but I think SI will want to draw a line somewhere on how complicated tactics are. Although from what I understand you want these screens to be purely cosmetic.

Quote

Not sure how I feel about this, I am fine how team shape is at present, it feels logical to me.

Just the other day I was having a conversation in the tactics forum on how we use team shape changes mid-match. I use team shape exclusively to increase space between lines. By contrast @herne79 was saying he uses it to give it a slight creative freedom boost. These are two completely different things. Why not just separate it? If you want both effects you can still press both buttons.

My main concern is with the current system it's rather hard to emulate teams that play super compact vertically, but very disciplined to their positioning and roles. Like Simeone's Atlético.

It would be also more realistic as real life players would understand "get your lines closer together!" or "be more expressive!", but certainly not "be more fluid". What...? It would simply be closer to real life football language, which has already been a big SI concern in recent years.

Quote

Agree with all of these, however I will add that I wish to see a [Line of Confrontation] added which allows us to dictate where on the field pressing should begin and works in conjunction with the defensive line. This way we can 'draw' our defensive block and define better what type of pressing we wish: Defensive, Offensive or Ultra-Offensive, as well as controlling depth of our team shape. Closing Down would be replaced with a Pressing intensity setting which defines how much pressure the team exerts.

This is a good idea, might be better than my "retreat into shape" TI idea. If you want high pressing in the opponents half but more cautious defending in your half, then set your "line of confrontation" high, and watch your team press high when the ball is beyond that line. When below... watch them retreat.

[Craigus89]

I think a lot of users of this forum should try to recognise that they are in the minority with their views on what would improve the game. As somebody said further up the thread, and as @Neil Brock alluded to, there is a huge fanbase (that probably outnumbers this community) that would rather see more animations in the ME, Social Media and other features that we feel are pointless. That doesn't make us correct though, nor do we hold any kind of moral high ground, nor should we feel that our suggestions require any more attention than someone asking to be able to spend their managerial wage on a car. Clearly any game developer will lean towards improving aspects of a game that will mean more sales on the whole, whilst at the same time trying to appease a hardcore fan base. Their intentions are clearly in the right place, they don't have an easy task though.

I wholeheartedly agree that I would enjoy the game much more if 90% of the development time put in by SI was spent on improving the ME and tactical side of things and ignored what I view as pointless additions. I do, however, recognise that I am probably in the minority, not necessarily on this forum, but out of everyone who purchases this game.

[Garethjohn79]

What do players want an FM that is as close to reality as possible or one that is understandable to play? If it's reality the game will inevitably get much harder and you would either have a massive list of instructions or none at all so that Player has to type in each instruction and draw it on the tactic board. How a game would replicate the AI and players reaction who knows? We may have to wait for computers that can imitate a real world exactly with all the billions of outcome each instruction can have.

But there is an option for those who wish for complete reality and that's take up coaching for real there are numerous Clubs looking for volunteers!

[noikeee]

1 minute ago, Garethjohn79 said:

What do players want an FM that is as close to reality as possible or one that is understandable to play?

What about both? Because currently the problem is we kinda have neither. It's confusing, and also limited. (speaking exclusively about tactics). We can make it both clearer for beginner players, and less restricted for advanced players.

 

Note: this isn't meant to be a harsh criticism of the developers because I know the enormous amount of work it's been done to it along the years! We have a really good ME at the moment actually, but it can always be improved. 

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, noikeee said:

But that doesn't really work to fix the problem of players being perceived in real life as AML/AMR but defending as ML/MR, or players being perceived as ST and defending as AMC. You'd still need to give them roles like wide midfielder or shadow striker, instead of the AML/AMR/ST roles that fit them best in real life. I want to be able to use those roles, just with the added option of tracking back more.

this is one of my biggest gripes. .... Why do so many players have preferred role and position that are attacking i.e. AML Inside forward ... if when we put them in the tactics we are supposed to think about their defensive position? 

i.e. Sanchez rather than putting him AML IF (which is his preferred role [this also links to promises etc so is layered in the game]) I'm more likely to want him as a WM (or if you are mourinho... Left back [reference to Rashford vs Liverpool]) because defensively I'd want 541 or 451 or 640 etc.

the lucky few of us that can come on this forum while we are at work are informed ... but what about the guy who buys it for the first time today, goes home sets up his tactic with players in their best roles? how is he to know it's wrong? Let's say he takes over Arsenal; IIRC Position/role

Monreal LB - WB

Koscielny CB - CB

Mustafi CB - BPD

Bellerin RB - FB

Xhaka CM - DLP

Coquelin CM - BWM

Sanchez AML - IF

Ozil AMC - AP

Walcott AMR - WG

Giroud ST - TM

no different to how you might see our lineup displayed by Sky sports for instance. It really isn't fun or intuitive to have to actually line that up with everyone pulled back a strata and have roles they are less familiar with.

[Garethjohn79]

4 minutes ago, noikeee said:

What about both? Because currently the problem is we kinda have neither. It's confusing, and also limited. (speaking exclusively about tactics). We can make it both clearer for beginner players, and less restricted for advanced players.

 

Note: this isn't meant to be a harsh criticism of the developers because I know the enormous amount of work it's been done to it along the years! We have a really good ME at the moment actually, but it can always be improved. 

There are limits in terms of technology SI has to strike a balance between being too nerdy and Fun . There are only so many things you can say on a game i would love to have free range on what I could say in a Press Conference or to a player but there are a Billion responses to every interaction until FM ditches low end Computers it has to consider all. 

The game needs to more like Football itself, simple. I play FM by watching the Match and deciding upon what I see I rarely analyze it. My game also tends to follow a natural route.

Since when did tactics have to become so complicated? Footballs simple and straight forward, I don't want it to become the NFL where every play is planned and analyzed.  I think some watch too much Monday Night Football where Jamie Carragher has Two Hours to talk bolloks and want this in FM.  One of the major benefits of going to a game is that  I don't have to endure the hours of talking about it. Sit, watch, go home. I may discuss that we need a better defender or he should do this or that better, mark their No 9. If I bring out a Lap-top in the Pub to analyze the stat I'd be rightly considered a twat.

[luka_zg]

On 24. 02. 2017. at 16:02, KUBI said:

What kind of fundamental changes you are expecting in a football management simulation?

I say a fundamental change would be a completely different TC. The one in which if you play "counter" actually does that. If it wasn't for this forum and people like rashidi,cleon,ozil and some others, I would be totally lost and would do things that are completely illogical in the ME due to the wrong descriptions in TC which led you to believe you are doing one thing but in reality play out completely different.

Making TC absolutely clear and not confusing as it is now would be a nice start.

[Tony Wright 747]

On 27/02/2017 at 13:04, Barside said:

Official licenses for the top leagues are incredibly expensive, iirc EA essentially sell each unit of FIFA at a loss due to how much they spend on locking in exclusive license deals & use the income from FUT to make the overall FIFA product profitable. 

Barside, back in the days of champ manager and before 2D, there was a release which had photos of the real stadiums as background to the text commentary, is there a big difference in the licenses for a photograph to be used compared to a 3D replica of the stadium

[Garethjohn79]

6 minutes ago, luka_ said:

I say a fundamental change would be a completely different TC. The one in which if you play "counter" actually does that. If it wasn't for this forum and people like rashidi,cleon,ozil and some others, I would be totally lost and would do things that are completely illogical in the ME due to the wrong descriptions in TC which led you to believe you are doing one thing but in reality play out completely different.

Making TC absolutely clear and not confusing as it is now would be a nice start.

I agree with making tactics easy to understand. But I wouldn't want players to instantly adapt and play to them on the pitch.

[Garethjohn79]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

Barside, back in the days of champ manager and before 2D, there was a release which had photos of the real stadiums as background to the text commentary, is there a big difference in the licenses for a photograph to be used compared to a 3D replica of the stadium

We also have Everton & Watford badges officially in the game, (I haven't looked  if they have) the next stage could be replicating their stadiums .

[luka_zg]

2 minutes ago, Garethjohn79 said:

I agree with making tactics easy to understand. But I wouldn't want players to instantly adapt and play to them on the pitch.

What I wanted to say is whay is the mentality called counter when it is not made for counter attacking football. Therefore it is confusing the user who thinks that playing counter will produce counter attacking football which is simply not the case. Rashidi did great when he changed the mentality to risk. But you shouldn't have to search for people on the internet to do that accurate description. It should have been done by SI in the first place.

[noikeee]

Okay, this is my ideal Team Instructions screen. Once I've got the PI screen figured out I'll add it as a feature request thread.

 

 

It's got more options than at the moment, but I don't believe it would be horribly overcomplicated.

[pedrosantos]

7 minutes ago, noikeee said:

Okay, this is my ideal Team Instructions screen. Once I've got the PI screen figured out I'll add it as a feature request thread.

 

 

It's got more options than at the moment, but I don't believe it would be horribly overcomplicated.

Not bad at all  I would also change mentality labels.

The tricky thing there would be players behaviour to address all those added instructions

[Neil Brock]

Just to reiterate any suggestions of how to change the game please do also take the time to create a specific thread in the feature request forums. Thanks. 

[Bigpapa42]

Definitely put that in the suggestion forum, noikee! That would be some nice additions to the Tactics screen. Would be great!

[Craigus89]

I agree that simply renaming the mentality settings would go a long way to avoiding the confusion many players face. "Counter" in-particular is a serial offender. I'm not sure what a solution could be, maybe something along the lines of:

Very Safe - Safe - Standard - Aggressive - Very Aggressive.

Also, although I agree that separating creative freedom and compactness would be a good thing as they are very much separate aspects of football philosophy, they may be very linked in terms of the code used in the ME. Basically, it may be simple to make a UI change, but not so easy to replicate in the ME.

[noikeee]

13 minutes ago, Craigus89 said:

I agree that simply renaming the mentality settings would go a long way to avoiding the confusion many players face. "Counter" in-particular is a serial offender. I'm not sure what a solution could be, maybe something along the lines of:

Very Safe - Safe - Standard - Aggressive - Very Aggressive.

Also, although I agree that separating creative freedom and compactness would be a good thing as they are very much separate aspects of football philosophy, they may be very linked in terms of the code used in the ME. Basically, it may be simple to make a UI change, but not so easy to replicate in the ME.

You know what, I think I agree with that. Maybe "cautious" rather than "safe" but yeah. "Counter" doesn't really mean counter-attacking necessarily as many people perceive it, and "control" isn't really all that controlled. Quite misleading. Maybe even bring back the old "counter-attack" checkbox instead of it being attached to that mentality.

Definitely agree that implementing all that I'm suggesting would take a huge amount of time and work. No illusions there.

Sorry for kinda hijacking this thread, we're now a bit away from the initial opening rant...