difficulty levels

[skamer]

Hi , I am currently trying the demo of fm2017(I dont now is there the same issue in the full game or not) ,I suggest you to add a difficulty levels option because I think that matches difficulty are very high ,despite all tactical effort it's hard to get a win ,maybe it's my lack of my experience and that's why you should provide different levels of difficulty so that each player can enjoy the game , also  injuries rate are very high ,every week there is at least one or 2 players injured. 

To conclude a difficulty level option must be added for (finances,matches,injuries rate...)

 

[mark1985]

Think this has been raised before. Maybe try raising this in the 'future requests' forum

[Guest]

Difficulty levels that alter the mechanics of the game are something that SI will never introduce.

It's worth visiting the tactics forum to read a selection of threads to learn how to get employ your tactical ideas in FM.

[Tony Wright 747]

22 minutes ago, skamer said:

Hi , I am currently trying the demo of fm2017(I dont now is there the same issue in the full game or not) ,I suggest you to add a difficulty levels option because I think that matches difficulty are very high ,despite all tactical effort it's hard to get a win ,maybe it's my lack of my experience and that's why you should provide different levels of difficulty so that each player can enjoy the game , also  injuries rate are very high ,every week there is at least one or 2 players injured. 

To conclude a difficulty level option must be added for (finances,matches,injuries rate...)

 

FM is a simulation more than a game, to introduce difficulty levels would be extremely complex to introduce.

 

There are a host of much easier football management games around

[HUNT3R]

There are a lot of things you can do to make the game easier or less daunting. You can delegate most of your managerial responsibilities, for one thing. Tactically, you can either better your own knowledge, go on holiday, Instant Result games or download tactics.

[mark1985]

13 minutes ago, Barside said:

Difficulty levels that alter the mechanics of the game are something that SI will never introduce.

It's worth visiting the tactics forum to read a selection of threads to learn how to get employ your tactical ideas in FM.

 

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

FM is a simulation more than a game, to introduce difficulty levels would be extremely complex to introduce.

 

There are a host of much easier football management games around

Agreed with both of these. It will be far too hard to introduce. There are 'easier' saves and 'harder' saves for example it is easier to win the champions league with Barca than with some semi pro team from the conference north. And it gets 'easier' the more you play due to increased tactical knowledge etc but there will likely never been an easy/hard mode

[Svenc]

I'm actually of the opinion the reason that you can be hugely successful on this game without having the foggiest as to why is a huge pitfall of this game, both for players, as well as for the feedback SI can get. If there's no satisfying perceived link between cause and effect it can feel hollow, frustrating or random regardless of any success anyone achieves -- or feel like going through the same same motions regardless of any new release and possibly overhauls. Because as for difficulty, this is really as easy as you want it to be.... unless of course you expect to go fully on international with Burnley first season. There's purely tactical downloads even for that, completely no effort or understanding of the game required even on basic levels. Don't expect those to work when a patch / new release is due though. Completely relies on bugs / exploits, this.

A rather artificial entry barrier is the amount of "info" dumped on you (awesome if you're into that, most of it fully optional, some of it misleading). Plus that despite you holidaying the assistant can do just fine, he would never point out if you made a really basic mistake someplace. As for injuries, they've nerfed the injuries throughout the years, which is admitted to. Miles said on Twitter "most of our players would prefer it that way". None of this makes the game harder/easier, as any opponent will have its key players mostly ready all season too. I liked it more on older iterations, as it added to that random element managers have to go through despite top class medical staff, i.e. oh Robbens out again, but then we're facing Barcelona next week and look they're without Messi, Neymar and Iniesta!

[wearesporting]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

FM is a simulation more than a game, to introduce difficulty levels would be extremely complex to introduce.

 

There are a host of much easier football management games around

I'd disagree. It can be as simple as increasing your managed team's players' mental stats all by 1, 2, 3 and so on. Not change the number on the player's attribute screen but have them play like they've got those extra few points.  Yes it takes away the simulation side. But as an aside for players who just don't want a level playing field for whatever reason don't see why it can't be done.

There's other games out there to cater for that market but I find it strange an attempt isn't made to get sales from people who otherwise wouldn't buy. 

[Cougar2010]

4 minutes ago, wearesporting said:

I'd disagree. It can be as simple as increasing your managed team's players' mental stats all by 1, 2, 3 and so on. Not change the number on the player's attribute screen but have them play like they've got those extra few points.  Yes it takes away the simulation side. But as an aside for players who just don't want a level playing field for whatever reason don't see why it can't be done.

There's other games out there to cater for that market but I find it strange an attempt isn't made to get sales from people who otherwise wouldn't buy. 

That would totally destroy the core of the game and drive away the fans who have played for years.

[wearesporting]

1 minute ago, Cougar2010 said:

That would totally destroy the core of the game and drive away the fans who have played for years.

It's not compulsory it's optional. Those, me and you included, who want the simulation can safely ignore it. Those who want it can play it. 

[Cougar2010]

Just now, wearesporting said:

It's not compulsory it's optional. Those, me and you included, who want the simulation can safely ignore it. Those who want it can play it. 

Doesn't matter if its optional.

SI have enough problems balancing the ME as it is and there are already attributes which no doubt affect their value during a match.

Simply increasing the attributes also doesn't directly lead to the game being easier or making a match easier.

Thats before you consider that the game is built on the foundation of a level playing field where both AI & human managers have access to the same options & choices. 

 

[wearesporting]

3 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Doesn't matter if its optional.

SI have enough problems balancing the ME as it is and there are already attributes which no doubt affect their value during a match.

Simply increasing the attributes also doesn't directly lead to the game being easier or making a match easier.

Thats before you consider that the game is built on the foundation of a level playing field where both AI & human managers have access to the same options & choices. 

 

I don't understand your first paragraph. ME would still do what it does except treat your team as though the players have certain attributes higher. No change. Or am I missing something?

It wouldn't guarantee success but it would surely increase the players chances of overachieving compared to their knowledge level.

The core principal of the game would be alive and well for those who play the full simulated game. I think it would get them sales from people who otherwise wouldn't bother. For little cost too. 

[Svenc]

Optionally attribute boosts or an option that would make you start with top players is something I would certainly support much more over what SI are currently doing: Encouraging rage quits by supporting the Steam Workshops for tactics etc. Of course it's easy if you simply have great players. If people want an easier experience, they take any option available. Nothing wrong with that, except that half the rage quits can be traced straight back to tactical downloads. Outside a noble few, you can admire the creativity and oft hours of testing, but they oft have logical holes everywhere and as such are caught out at random intervals either for their completely one-dimensional chance creation geared towards exploiting any short-term ME weak area of the pitch. And/or a threadbare defense which means any poor opponent slips through every once in a while for superior shot conversion. Mostly it's a combination of both of those. It's SI's choice naturally.

However, as highlighted by a couple few before, even if such "easy" options would exist, a lot of players wouldn't take it. Same as FM Touch/Classic is oft perceived as like the "kiddy" experience beyond anybody, and that isn't even an easier game as such. Which is quite ironic, as it tends to be the same players who download exploits and still trick themselves they would just be managerial master class. If I'd run certain forums, I'd place a sticky there, stating the obvious. Not because there's right or wrong ways of playing a game as this, but because I have seen all the unfortunate side effects in action, but that's me. So it seems tricky. If it's too obvious, you'd have players who still wouldn't take it as in a sense, this entire thing is about making you feel like Mourinho. If there's a "don't hurt me" button that officially states your opponents would be nerfed to "worst football managers in existence" levels, that would kill the illusion for some, and as such they'd never take it, as all their buddies would do great on "fully FM" via other different, creative means.

I'd argued with SI's core philosophy the key would always lie in improved assistants. As decent as they can do even if you did nothing yourself (show me any other game where that is even possible), their generally feedback leaves a lot to be desired, which goes for many areas of the game. Perhaps that'd be a more "natural" level of difficulty. If you wanted to, he would spoon feed you everything as much as possible on any area, including, but not limited to, tactics (throughout the history of management, there were certainly managers who had delegated a large chunk of such to dedicated assistants/staff). If you didn't, he wouldn't much. Maybe there could be different types of assistants too and you could pick who to hire. The good thing is that with hopefully further improving AI managers (not merely tactically... also in terms of squad management/improvements), well -- assistants are cut off the same AI cloth at the core...

 

[looping]

2 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

That would totally destroy the core of the game and drive away the fans who have played for years.

As I've stated many times, everybody I know in my life have stopped playing the game because they can't play due to insane difficulty levels introduced. People that have played the game for 15 or more years. And I'm not talking about me because I'm still playing in all my stubbornness and I will while I have some free time.

Perhaps it's just that part of the fans drawn a line and moved on to other games but new fans came. Out of the forums, I don't know anybody who played the game in the early 00 that is still playing (except me). 

Fm was never a game of tactics. You could play the game with a simple tactic and, perhaps and not everybody, making very small changes during matches. All I did for years was mentality changes.

In my humble experience, most of the fans who have played for years are not here anymore.

[Svenc]

The notion that this was "insanely difficult" makes me despair admittedly. Doom on Nightmare mode is insane, battling two artificially "difficulty level" boosted AIs on strategy games can be insane. My yardstick is this: How does an AI manager do with teams, how do I do with the same team, and given that top teams in particular can be a little shaky still in their performance, there you go. Don't think I have done this on FM 2017, but as recent as 2016 for testing something, I'd just flicked something in, never watched a second of play, did no subs, was top of the table with i.e. Leicester half  a season later, and that was with your dreaded 4-4-2. How was that possible? Not to being genius, but because of AI and the game simplifying much in concept already, plus a bit of luck no doubt too. But I don't want to drag this into one of these, looping your tactical stuff was copied by others and they didn't run into your rot, and you know that there's players who don't play this much much tactically either (dafuge who's been around since year zero). Guys like you should be invited to play test though as it might reveal why you can go so wrong despite (or because?) putting some insane hours in others don't and still coast through this. I mean this serious. It's a completely mystery to me.

While I'm all for somewhat adjustable difficulty and hugely advocating better feedback, I personally know very few if any players who aren't successful on this once they are past entry barriers. Which should be the case given that rage makes one far more vocal. However the rage you encounter is more often due to somebody not doing better with mediocre sides than he does, being frustrated that ta good run was stopped against a poor team or the classic announcement to finally quit forever as another 30 shots no goal match was due (patch this, or else... ) . The newcomers that join the German comm I additionally frequent adapt to the basics quickly perhaps as they have no preconceived notions of past iterations. They oft switch over from Fifa/Fussball Manager, and one of them more recent found it easier than Fifa to overachieve, as on the Fifa text simulation results are mostly determined by team strengths (a value calculated by adding up the Fifa'esque overall player strengths ranging from 1-99 ). Whilst it doesn't even hurt much if you field bonkers formations, it's not a really second by second simulation, the "better" sides mostly simply wins...). However, my perception may be clouded as I think FM is overall a fairly simple game (if you let it be anyway), and as such I see the confirmation signs of this being all over the place, whilst a more frustrated outlook may lead to a different perception.

If people stop playing, well life is going on (maybe I should be worried, as even tough I always take a couple months out, eventually I'm back and I've been playing these bloody things since Commodore 64!) It's become more fleshed out for sure, but the core sounds still as two brothers in their bedroom had imagined it 25 years ago if you take peek into the preview of this book and scroll a bit down to that handwritten user guide.

[Tony Wright 747]

3 hours ago, looping said:

As I've stated many times, everybody I know in my life have stopped playing the game because they can't play due to insane difficulty levels introduced. People that have played the game for 15 or more years. And I'm not talking about me because I'm still playing in all my stubbornness and I will while I have some free time.

Perhaps it's just that part of the fans drawn a line and moved on to other games but new fans came. Out of the forums, I don't know anybody who played the game in the early 00 that is still playing (except me). 

Fm was never a game of tactics. You could play the game with a simple tactic and, perhaps and not everybody, making very small changes during matches. All I did for years was mentality changes.

In my humble experience, most of the fans who have played for years are not here anymore.

I have played from the start and am still here.  Enjoying it more now than ever

[Viking]

Yeah well, I have played CM/FM for 20 odd years and the game is way too hard for me nowadays. So hard I no longer can play it without cheating if I want to win any matches at all. I'm not sure difficulty levels are the way to go, though. Maybe some kind of Office Helper, or whatever that annoying paper clip was called. Something that pops up and says stuff like "Hey, I notice you're a moron. Let me help you with your tactics".

 

Edit: Right now, for example, I'm trying to win home against Scunthorpe. They are dead last and without a single win this season. Everyone says I should win this game like a breeze.  Some 20 attempts so far with different approaches, and I lose every single one. Great fun.

[Svenc]

2 hours ago, Viking said:

So hard I no longer can play it without cheating if I want to win any matches at all. I'm not sure difficulty levels are the way to go, though. Maybe some kind of Office Helper, or whatever that annoying paper clip was called. Something that pops up and says stuff like "Hey, I notice you're a moron. Let me help you with your tactics".

Yeah, assuming this is tactical, naturally. As said, on the one hand you can just holiday (let the assistant take over) and come out okay. On the other, the assistant would never point out blatantly basic holes which are guaranteed to make a side underperform. The argument can be made that you should be burnt some if there is a basic misunderstanding of how football is getting kicked and you still insist on doing all yourself. But if the assistant never engages in such anyway he could optionally be more explicit on a few things... In the absence of that, have you read any entry level guides. Unless there's really some huge obvious hole in there, better players/teams mostly take a few points off worse ones. Talking having all defenders always on defend, midfielders on support and forwards on attack levels of misunderstandings here -- or, and this isn't really much documented what that means, all the guys on automatic or specific man marking jobs assigned across a few players. I wonder how you coped through the slider years as that can't be something happening just more recent. Whilst AI managers weren't as robust, it was easier to go a bit wrong in those oldies, some of the official tool-tips to a degree even encouraged some of that as far as I remember.

[enigmatic]

On 5/23/2017 at 21:49, Svenc said:

However, as highlighted by a couple few before, even if such "easy" options would exist, a lot of players wouldn't take it. Same as FM Touch/Classic is oft perceived as like the "kiddy" experience beyond anybody, and that isn't even an easier game as such. Which is quite ironic, as it tends to be the same players who download exploits and still trick themselves they would just be managerial master class.

Combining FM Touch (lose most of the time-consuming and mostly horribly damaging player interaction features and the need to "learn" tactics) and downloading a plug-and-play tactic that consistently overperforms with middle ranking clubs on tactic testing websites is "easy mode" 

[Svenc]

4 hours ago, enigmatic said:

Combining FM Touch (lose most of the time-consuming and mostly horribly damaging player interaction features and the need to "learn" tactics) and downloading a plug-and-play tactic that consistently overperforms with middle ranking clubs on tactic testing websites is "easy mode" 

In true fashion to the topic at hand, that had always depended a bit on the individual you asked, as that can be rather quickly dubbed / perceived as "spam the space bar" mode aka "Why the heck do I bother?" mode. Remember that on Touch all the AI managers don't have to deal with gelling etc. too so no real edge/difficulty adjustments as such though. Just a bit less stuff to do so that you can reach for that space bar move from match to match quicker. Ok, technically less areas to worry about means less ways of screwing up, true!

[Kalme Saki]

On 2017-5-24 at 00:24, looping said:

Out of the forums, I don't know anybody who played the game in the early 00 that is still playing (except me). 

In my humble experience, most of the fans who have played for years are not here anymore.

I am playing this game since 1997 and still going strong, so not all of the long time players have quit. 

I do have to admit that I mostly read on these forums and barely post. 

[Viking]

On 2017-05-24 at 06:38, Svenc said:

Yeah, assuming this is tactical, naturally. As said, on the one hand you can just holiday (let the assistant take over) and come out okay. On the other, the assistant would never point out blatantly basic holes which are guaranteed to make a side underperform. The argument can be made that you should be burnt some if there is a basic misunderstanding of how football is getting kicked and you still insist on doing all yourself. But if the assistant never engages in such anyway he could optionally be more explicit on a few things... In the absence of that, have you read any entry level guides. Unless there's really some huge obvious hole in there, better players/teams mostly take a few points off worse ones. Talking having all defenders always on defend, midfielders on support and forwards on attack levels of misunderstandings here -- or, and this isn't really much documented what that means, all the guys on automatic or specific man marking jobs assigned across a few players. I wonder how you coped through the slider years as that can't be something happening just more recent. Whilst AI managers weren't as robust, it was easier to go a bit wrong in those oldies, some of the official tool-tips to a degree even encouraged some of that as far as I remember.

I have tried to read some guides, but english is my second languange and I rarely have the time or patience to plow thru walls of text. As for the slider years... Well, you could pretty much run-and-gun your way thru a season and still win enough games not to be fired. As I wrote in another thread, CM/FM never was about learning tactics and micro manage details for me, it was a way to relax. Buy some players and let the matches sort themselves out in the background while I watched TV and ate tacos.

Let's take another game series as an example, to try and explain my situation.  Let's say Call of Duty got progressive harder over the last (say) ten years, to the point where it now has an ARMA-level of realism. One bullet and you are incapacitated, an arrow to the knee and you limp until you bleed to death, if you die all progress is gone and you have to start the game all over from the beginning. No saves, no magic healing, no imbecile novice level enemies, no crates of ammo conveniently lying around. Would it be the same game you played ten years ago? That's a undebatable a no. Would the game be harder than it used to be? That's undebatable a yes. Would it be fun? That's subjective. I'd have to say no.

That's FM for me nowadays. Is it the same game I played ten years ago? That's undebatable a no. Is the game harder? Undebatable a yes. Is it fun? Again, that's subjective. Messing around with complex tactis and player roles just to see the AI-teams easily turn a 5-1 score into a 5-5 draw, or a 3-0 score into a 3-4 win within 15 minutes (yes, it has happened), or to lose against crappy teams two tiers below you in some cup game is not fun for me, it's exhausting, enraging and stressful.

But, again, I don't want SI to dumb down the game for people like me. Realistic is good. And if realistic means a hard game, so be it. It's just that the game has outgrown me.

 

 

[Svenc]

3 hours ago, Viking said:

I have tried to read some guides, but english is my second languange and I rarely have the time or patience to plow thru walls of text.

 

 

Arma! (played the heck out of Operation Flashpoint back then ) By entry level guides I meant pieces that take maybe 15-20 minutes to read, apply and then you are set. With the kind of results you argue, that' s only really possible by having a real bad duty setup imo as argued before, defenders on defend, midfielders on support, forwards on attack or similar. Would be like sorted in 1 minute and much less time invested than reloading over and over (sounds a nightmare). It's your choice naturally... but with the stuff you've apparently had for a few versions now (it's not really new is it), fairly confident that would be like a 30 seconds fix and no more nightmares that bad. Alternatively it sounds you're much better off by letting the assistant do that (Arma/OPF doesn't deal in those.... it's buckle down fella or lose die.) But at least the core basics are this simple, I can only see that perceived as hugely complex if your interest in football is limited to begin with tbh or you're being overwhelmed.

I found my first slider iteration initially certainly harder in retrospect, it's certainly the only version where as I remember at least in one season slumped down to 10th place mid-season with Bayern bloody Munich (actually miss those days as coming off Fifa Manager I enjoyed the added challenge -- this would never of happened on that).  Ever since, it's like 30 seconds, and you have a robust base core, which is why prior to those years hardly anybody uploads tactics anymore in the main tac forums, it's so easy to do, whereas doing that prior even if you knew was quite a bit of jiggling around. However, older match engines didn't "punish" questionable tactics as much (as for your COD comparison, imagine you going multiplayer and even in closed environments, you could just run straight through your buddies into the safety zone when things get messy and you're not that far off ). Which above AI mans is also a slightly factor. But as for the game, considering that assistant would pull that off anyway, why not have him being able to guide you through a few basic things here.

[looping]

I completely agree with @Viking. 

In any game, you can win or lose. You can be good or bad. But, to some extent, you can play. For some reason I don't understand, fm is unplayable for some people (me, for instance). It's not an easy fix, it's not losing here and there, no. It's being completely battered by any opponent. Conceding 4-5 goals against any team. Being sacked in every save.

Perhaps is this realistic? Well, I'm not sure (I don't know). Is this game playable for anyone who puts a bit of interest? No, it is not. 

Is this what SI wants? They know better.

[Preveza]

4 minutes ago, looping said:

I completely agree with @Viking. 

In any game, you can win or lose. You can be good or bad. But, to some extent, you can play. For some reason I don't understand, fm is unplayable for some people (me, for instance). It's not an easy fix, it's not losing here and there, no. It's being completely battered by any opponent. Conceding 4-5 goals against any team. Being sacked in every save.

Perhaps is this realistic? Well, I'm not sure (I don't know). Is this game playable for anyone who puts a bit of interest? No, it is not. 

Is this what SI wants? They know better.

Mate stop sooking in every thread. Read the tactics forum and take your time learning various strategies which will help you win more games. 

[mark1985]

5 minutes ago, looping said:

I completely agree with @Viking. 

In any game, you can win or lose. You can be good or bad. But, to some extent, you can play. For some reason I don't understand, fm is unplayable for some people (me, for instance). It's not an easy fix, it's not losing here and there, no. It's being completely battered by any opponent. Conceding 4-5 goals against any team. Being sacked in every save.

Perhaps is this realistic? Well, I'm not sure (I don't know). Is this game playable for anyone who puts a bit of interest? No, it is not. 

Is this what SI wants? They know better.

Judging by what the majority of people post on here, it is very playable for the majority of people who play it  regardless of how much/little success they have.

 

1 minute ago, Preveza said:

Mate stop sooking in every thread. Read the tactics forum and take your time learning various strategies which will help you win more games. 

Agree 100%

[looping]

@Preveza @mark1985

I'm not saying the game is unplayable for everybody/most of the people. I'm saying the game is almost impossible to play for some (which includes me).

I've put hundreds of hours trying to understand the game so I'm more than entitled to say not everybody can play this game. Check it.

My last words about this.

[Svenc]

SI may contact looping to invite, because none of his threads make any sense to me, it isn't his base tactics either as others have copied them and get out fine. The feeling I get out of that, despite hundreds of hours put in which others don't is that he's doing stuff that would only be really revealed if you were able to watch him playing, e.g. streaming. That said, if it found he's simply bad rather than misunderstanding options, there is naturally no entitlement to being able to play. I know I'd be fairly **** when tossed into competitive Real Time Strategy games, as they require a level of split second micro-control over dozens to hundreds of units that I can't muster anymore. FM requires a certain skill set too, though it's none of the reflex based kind. If it wouldn't, there wouldn't be much of a game in there. You could also gauge from where additionally feedback may be due, or where it ain't. The clue is in making that optional, as else you'd alienate players who would prefer things to be a bit more ambiguous, as actual sports management tends to be. This is no strategy game where you push x and are guaranteed y is to happen. Additionally, for better and worse, football is one of the most "random" sports in the world, which makes it that popular in the first place.

Short- to mid-term anything goes, as matches are decided in few key moments typically, with averages win margins of a goal or two it has to be, and injuries already shaping courses of seasons some. What may be lacking is the long-term feedback some too. It's difficult to code but league tables aren't the be end as far as ranking any team's progress/ability is concerned in FM too. You've got numbers for shot conversion, which is ok, you show how you performed how with which formation used. But where are stats that may hint at how leaky your or any opposition defense is on average (shots conceded on average, counter attacks conceded, which are triggered in the ME anyway), etc. It's a fine balance naturally, as if there's too much of it, that's quickly "overwhelming".

Viking is an altogether different case, similar to the opening poster actually. He'd stated he can't even win games, hinting at a basic misunderstanding of fairly basic things, as unless the tactic is terrible, the team brutally mismanaged elsewhere, better sides mostly win against worse ones. Looping doesn't do that, he has recorded he was top of the tables on some saves and only further in would hit onto a pattern where he "concedes an outrageous amount of goals". Totally different things. Viking may need an assistant that guides him through some of the basics. Considering that the assistant wouldn't run into such bonkers results if he would take over entirelly, that isn't a bad option. If he'd then wouldn't take it, that is his choice. What looping may reveal is how even after hundreds of hours you still wouldn't get consistent enough to stay in the job once, or insufficient clues how to get out of a slump (if that's what is is... I've never experienced "slumps" that meant I just conceded like 5 goals a match all of a sudden).

Different strokes, different folks, and all that.

[YKW]

My personal feeling is in line with the general mood that difficulty levels would be hard to implement and perhaps would undermine the integrity of the game overall. However the issue of how accessible this game is to people is a huge one imo.

Again I feel the most significant talking point in the discussion is the fact that everyone enjoys this game in a different way. From a personal perspective, tactics aren’t my favourite part of football and aren’t my favourite part of the game. The extent to which my experiences playing the game are increasingly determined by my understanding of FM’s tactical interface is causing me dissatisfaction.

My greatest frustration is that I can create basic tactics and use them to meet the expectations of my team, but the more I try and be inventive the more I fail. So I’ve basically ended up playing the same 4-2-3-1 that I always use for the last 3 versions of the game. I have a basic ability to defend a lead and push for a goal, but I definitely wouldn’t describe myself as ‘good.’ And I’m a 20 year veteran of the series who is also very happy to lose and lose while still getting a lot of enjoyment from the game. I’ve also been lucky enough to go to more than a hundred live matches, and I’ve spent a lot of time reading and talking about football in general. I don’t feel able to translate any of this experience into controlling the game.

So my worry is that actually maybe I am one of the people who IS good at the game? Relatively at least. Provided I use my 4-2-3-1 and play my journeyman career game long enough then I WILL win some leagues and cups, but it’s hard to know how much my experience and research is contributing to this when overall I kind of feel like a novice. Sometimes I have runs of play (not necessarily results) which make me question if I ever knew how to play the game, or whether during my previous good run I was actually just the beneficiary of some unknown factor that is now working against me.

And that’s football, so maybe I shouldn’t complain.

On the other hand, where should the line be drawn with realism? Perhaps it’s realistic that pinpointing the problem (or even the reason for success) should sometimes be impossible, but is this something that should be simulated? I’m not sure it’s fun.

Similarly, if you take this issue to an extreme point and consider a perfect football tactics simulator, should I EVER be able to compete with an in-game Conte? A game where Conte is always better than me at tactics is realistic I will admit, however is it too real for me? Part of the reason I enjoy this game is to pretend that I’m good enough to be a football manager, and the bit of reality that demonstrates this as false is the exact part of the role that should not be simulated.

The above is an exaggeration but consider this: the greater the challenge given to the user by the game, the more time the user will spend losing. If more people are losing more often then surely losing should be made more fun within the game?

For example, if I am on the verge of getting the sack, what if there were experiences in the game that were unique to this and that were interesting/fun/compelling/absorbing in their own right? This could be things like fans holding a “Manager Out” banner in the 3D crowd. It would be a bad sign, but it would anchor and reinforce my story as reality. Compare your feelings, and subsequent attachment to your club, if the fans had actually brought a “In Manager we Trust” banner? What if your player scored a last minute winner to keep you up and he came over and HUGGED you?! Couldn’t that keep you loading up the game, if only for that one player? What if the sounds were improved and you could hear a chant from the opposition fans of “You’re getting sacked in the morning, etc.”

If there were things like the above then I may play the game actually WANTING to lose. Isn’t that a crazy idea?

Imagine someone came on here and said something like: “I just can’t win at FM. I’ve lost my last ten games and the fans are chanting for me to get sacked every match, and my captain just applauded them. I need serious help. Oh god now it’s even worse, the fans are outside the stadium demonstrating against my management, and they’ve kicked over the burger van.” Firstly, despite not having fun it’s at least hilarious. Secondly, I actually think people would be JEALOUS that they hadn’t experienced that, I know I would be.

If the game can’t be made easier, and difficulty levels are out of the question, then I think making losing more fun would be a decent short term solution.

(and an unsackable option in full fat mode)

There are a couple of other issues in terms of the difficulty. Firstly, the game isn’t very helpful when it comes to constructing good tactics and there is a distinct lack of any kind of “principles of FM tactics” in-game guide. Secondly there are occasions where the game flat out contradicts either itself or the extensive tactical advice that exists on the game. For example ‘Set to formation’ includes some three defender formations which I don’t think are any team’s “Defensive Shape.”

The last issue is one of too much freedom. If you go to the tactics screen you’ll find there is nothing stopping you from choosing totally absurd  formations, such as a 2-2-2-2-2 with four players on each flank and two strikers, or a 0-1-3-3 with no-one out wide and no defending positions at all. This is what makes me think that the tactical interface still needs another revamp, because there are way too many bad choices easily available. For example, if playing with a ‘Winger – Attack’ on both flanks is inadvisable, what does that make playing with TWO ‘Winger – Attacks’ on EACH SIDE? Using a ‘Half Back’ in front of a 3-man defence is something that seems inadvisable, but what about using THREE ‘Half-Backs’ as a back three with NO players in the defensive strata?

A little tidy up could solve this problem and it might contribute to making tactic creation and maintenance a less daunting task.

Alternatively, perhaps we all just need a little bit of convincing to realise that while we may believe that we want fun, in actual fact what our lives are missing is the opportunity to spend more time reading. This post is obviously in the spirit of that message. Some people may say that football fans struggle to retain any information that doesn’t have the last word separated from the rest of the sentence by a single clap, but it could also be a profitable idea to further obfuscate the tactical controls and branch out into a range of footballing self-help books? For example, “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Poachers,” “How to Win the Ball and Influence Play,” and “Sun Tzu’s Art of a £50million War Chest,” could all be big hits.

We play FM and we play FM,

We play FM and we play FM,

We play FM and we play FM,

We are the FM (*clap* ) PLAYERS!

[lemeuresnew]

8 minutes ago, YKW said:

And that’s football, so maybe I shouldn’t complain

this suggests to me you have a good idea of what youre doing

like the idea of more meaningful pointers to things happening. i often think it is hard on certain players that they dont get recognition for the big moments. i remember my first save on fm16, i thought i had lost the league over christmas in typical liverpool fashion. last game of season, im 1 down to saints at home, and arsenal are leading tottenham of all teams to win league. i bring on Luan, and he scores 2, the last goal a belter i still think Berger would of been proud of back in the day in the last minute to pip a 10 man arsenal by 1 point. should definitely earn Luan a chant, or favored personnel for the next season, but nothing for him at all

could at least add it to his profile history, or add something in his report that makes him a super sub. like a difficulty level boost, but for certain players that earn different things over time. like fowler always scoring against arsenal, have a little note on his report or something that boosts his performance against them? or a central pairing playing 35+ games in a season getting a slight boost when playing together the next season like in real life. then it isnt 'cheating', or boosting players for the hell of it but more a reward

[Goosewinkle]

Seems to me difficulty levels would be fairly easy to implement (for example, just make the user's players play as if all their attributes are +2 of what they actually are).  Obviously this would imbalance the game a lot, but that's entirely the point.

I've been playing since 09 and I do think FM is a pretty hard game.  But I kinda like it that way.  I want to be sacked sometimes (real life top managers are sacked sometimes).  And I want to lose against Sunderland sometimes (sometimes real life top managers lose against Sunderland).  

I am a little mystified though that there are people who struggle to ever win.  Seems like just going with the default standard 4-4-2 would yield some wins and get you to the middle of the table.