Football Manager TV: Matchday

[Wlocke]

20 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

It's knowing your user base. FM gamers have never really been your typical gamers. Many play on machines that are min spec for the titles. They've always shown what the base user would get as a minimum. Same reason why there has rarely ever been a massive leap in minimum requirements 

How convenient =) 

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, Wlocke said:

How convenient =) 

Common sense really 

 

6 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

Well let's take your user base point and expand on it. To cater for the entire user base - Show a few screenshots / footage of what low, med & high 3D graphics will look like. That way we all get to see what it will look like on our systems regardless of PC specs.

 

And we may well get that with the later videos. But it is why most videos are run done at minimum resolution. 

I'd argue you want your last set of videos to be at low medium and high, but I also see the argument for not making them all that way 

[XaW]

11 hours ago, rdbayly said:

I produce promotional material as part of my job. A fanatical user base doesn't miss a trick, and I'd be very wary of using language such as "significant improvements" and "Complete overhaul" unless I could back it up in the video. Most of what I see is widgets moved around the screen containing information that is already available. 

The issue here, and something that's not explicitly stated, but I feel they hinted at, is that they have done a massive change in the background. Everyone who works in software development knows that these kinds of changes is the hardest ones to implement. Changes the user are not likely to know the difference from, but changes who are completely necessary in order to facilitate future enhancements. A "Complete overhaul" and "significant improvements" are possible without you as a customer knowing the difference. It's not easy to get customers on board with these kind of changes, and especially a fan base such as this.

If you work with promotional material then you know things like this is the hardest to market to the customer as fantastic features. Other companies might claim it to be "security improvements", "structural enhancements" or "infrastructure changes", but the issue is the same. Much needed changes that won't have much impact on the current version, but who will enable future version to support the features the company have in their road map. SI don't only think about FM18. I'm guessing they have a general plan for at least 3-4 versions of the game and the biggest features and issues they want to do. The implementation of support for DX11 and and refactoring the graphics engine are most likely something they needed to do now in order to do something great around it in the next version. Maybe a new Match Engine and a revamp of tactics?

I'd like to add that this is my own impression and thoughts, and not something that SI have stated anywhere.

However, this does not mean that this is a sub par version that's not something worth playing. It's just a certain aspect that will be further improved in the future. For me, Dynamics and the other new features makes the game worth purchasing so far. When I get it, I'll get a chance to see if it's as good as I hope.

44 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

Well let's take your user base point and expand on it. To cater for the entire user base - Show a few screenshots / footage of what low, med & high 3D graphics will look like. That way we all get to see what it will look like on our systems regardless of PC specs.

If you need that before deciding, I'll post some 3D gameplay with better resolutions when the Beta comes out for you to decide.

Edited October 22, 2017 by XaW

[rdbayly]

4 minutes ago, XaW said:

SI don't only think about FM18. I'm guessing they have a general plan for at least 3-4 versions of the game and the biggest features and issues they want to do. The implementation of support for DX11 and and refactoring the graphics engine are most likely something they needed to do now in order to do something great around it in the next version. Maybe a new Match Engine and a revamp of tactics?

I'd like to add that this is my own impression and thoughts, and not something that SI have stated anywhere.

Great point here. If true, as a consumer, I would have preferred our kid Joe to have emphasised this to a greater extent in the video, rather than appear to over-promise and then for FM18 to under-deliver.

I still can't help but think if you try and pass off existing features and graphics as new, it will **** off the user base. 

[XaW]

5 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

Great point here. If true, as a consumer, I would have preferred our kid Joe to have emphasised this to a greater extent in the video, rather than appear to over-promise and then for FM18 to under-deliver.

I still can't help but think if you try and pass off existing features and graphics as new, it will **** off the user base. 

The issue with that is that if it's the case you are basically telling your customers to not buy this version, but wait a year for the next improvements. They have most likely been doing this for a lot of versions. For marketing you are trying to raise the nicest and shiniest features that appeals to consumers, and sometimes throw something like DX11 info in to give something to the techies as well. I think they stated it pretty good in that aspect.

I can clearly see a lot of improvements in the videos they have shown, like stadium and the surroundings at least. I'm also hoping for a better feeling for the 3D, but that's something I need to try out for myself. 

[fm2020.smith]

i would love to see them make a different version for the highb end pcs. really push the latest graphics cards, memory, and chips 

[MBarbaric]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

When you say everything in the distance looks better, do you mean outside the stadium.  Things outside the stadium don't really interest me and with the camera angle I use I can't see them anyway.

 

Some of the stadiums look good, others not so good, as i have mentioned previously the stair wells look massive, look at any pictures or videos of stadiums and you won't see steps this wide, and whats with the doors at the top of the stairs, looks like they should be in a cinema rather than a fotball stadium.  Also some of the floodlights look poor.  I have just played a match on FM16, and while the texturing may not be as good the stadiums look more realistic

indeed, the things outside the stadium look much better while on pitch detail looks prettty much the same. i believe @XaW has got to the bottom of it regarding the reasons behind. It is just a foundation to move the grphics (an ME?) forward over next mid/long term period. In fact, all features announced, are somewhat on that trail as dynamics and injuries info were already present in the game. For me it really looks like a transitional year and real quality improvements are to be expected further down the road. The fact that we had nothing about ME is also not encouraging but let's see how that pans out over the next week.

[Double Indemnity]

On 10/21/2017 at 23:45, apvmoreira said:

You by any chance know that in Portugal there are more than 25 hours of debate and analysis about the games, per week? And in all those there is always more than 2/3 of the time to analyse the mistakes of refs and players?

Press conferences are all over the place, and tunnel interviews? In Brazil you can see the radio guys next to the bench talking with the managers!! Now that would be a great addition to FM!!

It's not British, it's not English, its worlwide.

I'm not complaining about there being debate and analysis—and in general I like the idea of the manager having to deal with the media, because it's part of the job! I'm talking specifically about some of the language and presentation things aping a particularly British style that makes the game feel pretty weird when you're playing in other leagues, which I do about 90% of the time.

Certain word choices ("Woeful" as a descriptor for form stuck out to me in the recent video) and phrases—or even just certain press questions—are identifiably not just British English but Footie Bantz English. There are very few opportunities for a manager to give a smart answer in interviews, especially to ones about statistics or tactics (the game treats everyone as if they were Sean Dyche; you can't be Allegri or Guardiola). Stop quizzing my Italian manager over and over about whether he'd ever take a job overseas at one of those weird foreign clubs! Non-English managers don't find that as intimidating! The social media is riddled with British idioms and British perspectives; luckily, you can ignore it. In-game commentary is littered not just with Britishisms, but flawed pundit notions like the goalkeeper being at fault if he's beaten at his near post. Every non-English player or staff member sounds English when you interact with them. There are ways to avoid that by using more neutral, international English (and more concise language in general; the game has a problem with making you choose between lengthy and mostly opaque responses).

That's not to say there aren't lots of intelligent English football journalists and analysts in real life who write insightfully about the game in clean, urbane prose. Just that Football Manager increasingly doesn't read or sound like them. It sounds like a tabloid—or like Sky Sports. It's not quite in "Right, lads, let's give them a proper tonking" or "The game's gone soft" territory, but it's definitely flirting with that viewpoint on the game. That's ... kind of appropriate for a British-made game where most players probably play one of the top EPL clubs, but it makes managing the thousands of other teams in the game a little jarring.

It also makes me wonder if there's a way to use the translation options in the game to make an "International English" version of the game.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Double Indemnity

[apvmoreira]

1 hour ago, Double Indemnity said:

I'm not complaining about there being debate and analysis—and in general I like the idea of the manager having to deal with the media, because it's part of the job! I'm talking specifically about some of the language and presentation things aping a particularly British style that makes the game feel pretty weird when you're playing in other leagues, which I do about 90% of the time.

Certain word choices ("Woeful" as a descriptor for form stuck out to me in the recent video) and phrases—or even just certain press questions—are identifiably not just British English but Footie Bantz English. There are very few opportunities for a manager to give a smart answer in interviews, especially to ones about statistics or tactics (the game treats everyone as if they were Sean Dyche; you can't be Allegri or Guardiola). Stop quizzing my Italian manager over and over about whether he'd ever take a job overseas at one of those weird foreign clubs! Non-English managers don't find that as intimidating! The social media is riddled with British idioms and British perspectives; luckily, you can ignore it. In-game commentary is littered not just with Britishisms, but flawed pundit notions like the goalkeeper being at fault if he's beaten at his near post. Every non-English player or staff member sounds English when you interact with them. There are ways to avoid that by using more neutral, international English (and more concise language in general; the game has a problem with making you choose between lengthy and mostly opaque responses).

That's not to say there aren't lots of intelligent English football journalists and analysts in real life who write insightfully about the game in clean, urbane prose. Just that Football Manager increasingly doesn't read or sound like them. It sounds like a tabloid—or like Sky Sports. It's not quite in "Right, lads, let's give them a proper tonking" or "The game's gone soft" territory, but it's definitely flirting with that viewpoint on the game. That's ... kind of appropriate for a British-made game where most players probably play one of the top EPL clubs, but it makes managing the thousands of other teams in the game a little jarring.

It also makes me wonder if there's a way to use the translation options in the game to make an "International English" version of the game.

I play in Portuguese, and some expressions are typical for us, the others aren't but it's ok, it does not ruin the game at all

[HUNT3R]

On 10/22/2017 at 12:04, rdbayly said:

Great point here. If true, as a consumer, I would have preferred our kid Joe to have emphasised this to a greater extent in the video, rather than appear to over-promise and then for FM18 to under-deliver

He did say this at the end - that the new graphics engine will mean that quite a lot is possible in future.

[DP]

7 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

He did say this at the end - that the new graphics engine will mean that quite a lot is possible in future.

I interpreted this as the graphics will better represent the ME when it’s had a bit of an overhaul. Possibly the inclusion of proper collision and ball physics - which will require significant change to the current engine. 

[rdbayly]

5 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

He did say this at the end - that the new graphics engine will mean that quite a lot is possible in future.

Frankly I would buy FM18 if the only changes were a data update and a re-skin. This is especially the case if there were some videos alongside it that set out the vision for game over the next few versions (specifically around tactics and ME)

[Barkermush]

Will we have some improved, or updated matchday sounds to go with the improved matchday experience?

Or will it be the same old matchday sounds (since FM05) slapped over the newer graphics?

[Dagenham_Dave]

I made the mistake of reading the YouTube comments on this video. My eyes are now bleeding profusely. 

One person commented there wasn't a single new feature in this year's game. There should be some sort of vetting facility before people are allowed to comment online. 

[XaW]

4 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

I made the mistake of reading the YouTube comments on this video. My eyes are now bleeding profusely. 

One person commented there wasn't a single new feature in this year's game. There should be some sort of vetting facility before people are allowed to comment online. 

I've always felt this is something that should be done.

Edited October 25, 2017 by XaW

[aditya]

On 10/21/2017 at 12:07, Scoham said:

They can't please everyone, not everyone wants the same new features or existing areas focussed on.

Dynamic potential doesn't make sense for one thing. What needs improving is more variation in how players can develop. Something like that isn't likely to be mentioned in a video but it doesn't mean that area of the game hasn't had any improvements made to it.

dynamic potential means players are not limited by a certain number. For example, a players PA is adjusted according to clubs facilities, coach, game time, perfomance on pitch, media, character through out his career. For example, a 120 PA player who suddenly signed for Madrid could get their potential increase by 10% because of its facilties, another 5% by coach, team mates, tutoring, then playing in La Liga will get that experience boost too. Of course, this all depends on the character, hes got to be ambitious.

That for me is dynamic potential, might use wrong word. Players like Vardy, Kante, Giroud is a great example. Avg players from lower league, suddenly became quality players under the right guidance. This will make us gamers look for hidden gems, our FM experience will differ from others, why? different result will effect PAs differently. Isnt that the ultimate FM experience? seriously

[KUBI]

Potential is something fixed, dynamic is how much of your potential you can reach. Vardy and the other players did not play at their potential for years, but under the right circumstances they could gain their ability to their own maximum potential. 

[Scoham]

33 minutes ago, aditya said:

dynamic potential means players are not limited by a certain number. For example, a players PA is adjusted according to clubs facilities, coach, game time, perfomance on pitch, media, character through out his career. For example, a 120 PA player who suddenly signed for Madrid could get their potential increase by 10% because of its facilties, another 5% by coach, team mates, tutoring, then playing in La Liga will get that experience boost too. Of course, this all depends on the character, hes got to be ambitious.

That for me is dynamic potential, might use wrong word. Players like Vardy, Kante, Giroud is a great example. Avg players from lower league, suddenly became quality players under the right guidance. This will make us gamers look for hidden gems, our FM experience will differ from others, why? different result will effect PAs differently. Isnt that the ultimate FM experience? seriously

I know what you meant but it still doesn't make sense. Potential is the highest ability a player could possibly reach. Working with better coaches at better facilities etc just gives that player a better chance of reaching it.

I agree we should see more late developers and players progressing up the leagues in game but what needs improvement is the ways players can develop.

[KUBI]

One way to bring the Vardy moment into the game would be something like a "sleeping potential". A player with a PA of 160 will only reach 150 during a "normal career", but under special circumstances his maximum potential. 

[Mitja]

it's simple. the right player (with right mental attributes) could be able to improve his PA under right circumstances.

[KUBI]

7 minutes ago, Mitja said:

it's simple. the right player (with right mental attributes) could be able to improve his PA under right circumstances.

No, he does improve his ability, not the PA.

[Mitja]

ideally the PA should be calculated by the game it self, depending solely on player age. younger the player, more the potential for improvement.

then the mental stats determine player's willingness to reach that potential. playing and coaching circumstances determine how quickly the PA could be reached.

[Scoham]

9 minutes ago, Mitja said:

ideally the PA should be calculated by the game it self, depending solely on player age. younger the player, more the potential for improvement.

then the mental stats determine player's willingness to reach that potential. playing and coaching circumstances determine how quickly the PA could be reached.

Yes but that PA should never change.

[Mitja]

36 minutes ago, Scoham said:

Yes but that PA should never change.

yes in such system it shouldn't. it would depend on player age. 

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, KUBI said:

Potential is something fixed, dynamic is how much of your potential you can reach. Vardy and the other players did not play at their potential for years, but under the right circumstances they could gain their ability to their own maximum potential. 

Playing devils advocate because I think @aditya made a good point.

If you are 16 at a local non-league club. How can they possibly know your maximum potential? How can anybody... you suddenly jet off to Barcelona with state of the art facilities and coaching and strict training regimes...

You are going to develop physically in a way that couldn't previously be predicted. and they may be able to teach techniques that were previously unknown to the player.

I get that potential is basically a game mechanic and if having it fixed is the best thing for building the game.. that's great. But IRL potential is based on scouting experience, best guesswork, good physical attributes for age. It's certainly a moveable object IRL.

[XaW]

I won't start a whole discussion about  PA here (I have had it with other in the suggestion section before, so look there for further discussions), but in short; No, potential is always fixed. Also in real life, you can never become better than the best you could be.

I've advocated for a change in the mechanic to make it MUCH harder to reach the potential, and thereby giving the illusion of a range PA because of it (since most players would have a much higher potential than today). Injuries, lack of playing time, poor facilites, poor coaches, poor mentality(personality in-game) and lots of other factors could influence why players would rarely reach their FULL potential and how managers use and train them will give each and every player a different career each game. Since managers and coaches have stats in-game, the AI would sometimes do the correct to make do the things needed to let a player get close to their potential, and sometimes far off.

Once again, just my two centes.

[Scoham]

21 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

Playing devils advocate because I think @aditya made a good point.

If you are 16 at a local non-league club. How can they possibly know your maximum potential? How can anybody... you suddenly jet off to Barcelona with state of the art facilities and coaching and strict training regimes...

You are going to develop physically in a way that couldn't previously be predicted. and they may be able to teach techniques that were previously unknown to the player.

I get that potential is basically a game mechanic and if having it fixed is the best thing for building the game.. that's great. But IRL potential is based on scouting experience, best guesswork, good physical attributes for age. It's certainly a moveable object IRL.

That's perceived potential, not actual potential.

[westy8chimp]

17 minutes ago, XaW said:

Also in real life, you can never become better than the best you could be.

 

4 minutes ago, Scoham said:

That's perceived potential, not actual potential.

Well then surely everyone is PA200 ... given the best facilities, best training, best advice how can you tell any 10 year old or 15 year old what their maximum potential is?

IRL there's no fixed figure. You go to a trial match, an experienced scout will watch positional sense, physical attributes and look for 'natural' football intelligence. Will feedback a handful worth signing.

Once in a youth squad they get a chance to shine and over the next few years then you see some have more 'potential' than others to be stars. (as they change physically and show aptitude for learning tactically)

then take into account that a local club like Eastleigh isn't going to have good enough scouts to judge the potential compare to their bigger club neighbours Southampton... that should have an effect. (ok this sentence is more about perceived... but shouldn't the game show a perceived PA? There is no such thing as a fixed PA really)

 

 

[XaW]

1 minute ago, westy8chimp said:

 

Well then surely everyone is PA200 ... given the best facilities, best training, best advice how can you tell any 10 year old or 15 year old what their maximum potential is?

IRL there's no fixed figure. You go to a trial match, an experienced scout will watch positional sense, physical attributes and look for 'natural' football intelligence. Will feedback a handful worth signing.

Once in a youth squad they get a chance to shine and over the next few years then you see some have more 'potential' than others to be stars. (as they change physically and show aptitude for learning tactically)

then take into account that a local club like Eastleigh isn't going to have good enough scouts to judge the potential compare to their bigger club neighbours Southampton... that should have an effect. (ok this sentence is more about perceived... but shouldn't the game show a perceived PA? There is no such thing as a fixed PA really)

No, there are difference to how it is. Or else everyone at La Masia would be as good as Messi. Why aren't everyone as fast as Usain Bolt? There are vastly difference in physical abilities and that's not that hard to spot with youngsters, while someone develop later you can often spot the physical aspects at an early age. Then it's the technical abilities, some have more developed ball control than others. Take me and a mate of mine as examples here. I've always been comfortable with a football, I can't remember when I first played football, but I always had decent control. My friend, on the other hand, still cannot do much with the ball, even as an adult who loves football. Now, no one of us have ever gotten accepted by a major team, it's still an example. We both played for the same team, with the same teammates and trained as much since we didn't do much other than playing football all the time. We still go play sometimes, but he is still much worse with the ball at his feet than me. Why are not me and him exactly as talented when we had the same opportunity? Because of natural differences. I believe than many others have the POTENTIAL to be a good footballer (not Messi good, but enough for semi-pro at least) than the ones who succeed, but it's often down to chance and the players own efforts (mentality/personality) at becoming good and to do what it takes.

[Scoham]

14 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

 

Well then surely everyone is PA200 ... given the best facilities, best training, best advice how can you tell any 10 year old or 15 year old what their maximum potential is?

IRL there's no fixed figure. You go to a trial match, an experienced scout will watch positional sense, physical attributes and look for 'natural' football intelligence. Will feedback a handful worth signing.

Once in a youth squad they get a chance to shine and over the next few years then you see some have more 'potential' than others to be stars. (as they change physically and show aptitude for learning tactically)

then take into account that a local club like Eastleigh isn't going to have good enough scouts to judge the potential compare to their bigger club neighbours Southampton... that should have an effect. (ok this sentence is more about perceived... but shouldn't the game show a perceived PA? There is no such thing as a fixed PA really)

 

 

There aren't attribute ratings IRL either, they along with PA give a way of rating players to be used by the game.

Everyone has a limit, and managers, coaches and scouts will have their own perception of it. As a 10 year old I knew I wasn't going to be a professional footballer, and I'm sure coaches and teachers also knew it. No matter how much top quality training I had I was never going to have a touch and control  like Messi, or his agility and balance.

No one would have known my maximum but they had a rough idea which would become more accurate over time.

Eastleigh if they had seen them would no doubt seen potential in the likes of Bale and Walcott but Southampton will be a much more attractive option to the player.

The game shows perceived potential on coach and scout reports. It can change over time and also vary between coaches and scouts depending on their judging PA attribute.

[XaW]

5 minutes ago, Scoham said:

The game shows perceived potential on coach and scout reports. It can change over time and also vary between coaches and scouts depending on their judging PA attribute.

I actually posted this about the same thing earlier today in another thread here on the forum. The PPA are not the same as PA as it should be. Otherwise scout/coaching stats would be mostly useless.

[Scoham]

6 minutes ago, XaW said:

I actually posted this about the same thing earlier today in another thread here on the forum. The PPA are not the same as PA as it should be. Otherwise scout/coaching stats would be mostly useless.

That's a good example and it probably happens more often than many of us realise.

[Mitja]

1 hour ago, Scoham said:

Everyone has a limit, and managers, coaches and scouts will have their own perception of it. As a 10 year old I knew I wasn't going to be a professional footballer, and I'm sure coaches and teachers also knew it. No matter how much top quality training I had I was never going to have a touch and control  like Messi, or his agility and balance.

I don't think Messi is a good example here.  and at 10 year old kid it's almost impossible to know whether he could be a pro player or not.

on the other hand all 16 years old kids have the same potential to improve in future, that is in next cca 10 years. time ticking is the only objective limiting factor how good they could become.

but their starting ability is not the same, nor is their character, nor will be the circumstances in their future careers. these are subjective factors. there is no researcher who could calculate all these subjective factors and that's the biggest problem with current FM system, which could be easily simplified.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Mitja

[MBarbaric]

1 hour ago, Mitja said:

on the other hand all 16 years old kids have the same potential to improve in future, that is in next cca 10 years. time ticking is the only objective limiting factor how good they could become.

Not sure that is really correct. Anyway, they all have different starting positions. Some 16 yrs old (or even at much younger stage), you can pretty much certainly tell if he has technical ability to become a pro player. However, their mental state at that age is so volatile they might start running after girls and never look back to football. Lot of these kids (pro material or not) just disappear from football by the time they are 19/20 as they lack mental strength or whatever reason.

[Scoham]

1 hour ago, Mitja said:

I don't think Messi is a good example here.  and at 10 year old kid it's almost impossible to know whether he could be a pro player or not.

on the other hand all 16 years old kids have the same potential to improve in future, that is in next cca 10 years. time ticking is the only objective limiting factor how good they could become.

but their starting ability is not the same, nor is their character, nor will be the circumstances in their future careers. these are subjective factors. there is no researcher who could calculate all these subjective factors and that's the biggest problem with current FM system, which could be easily simplified.

Swap Messi with any League one midfielder or attacker then - it was clear I never had the potential to be a pro footballer at 10 years old. I guess you're talking about those at a pro club - obviously that's different but not really relevant to FM anyway.

I've seen England youth sides and u18 matches - you can tell which players are more or less likely to make it. Just like in the game you can't see how much potential they have or whether they'll reach it.

As someone that until recently was a researcher for 12 years I know they aren't asked to guess character or circumstances. Hidden mental attributes are (should) be left as 0 (random) for youth players and what happens in game determines circumstances.

As I've said PA shouldn't and doesn't need to adjust, the game instead needs a more varied and complex system for player development.

Dynamic potential on its own wouldn't be simple to implement either.

[Mitja]

this is something i had in mind, from a couple of years ago when we had this discussion.  

16,17 years old. maximum CA is +80 points

18,19....+60

20,21....+40

22,23...+30

24,25...+15

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

under the right circumstences players older than 24, 25 can still achieve some improvements. 

26,27...+10

28,29...+5

30,31...+3

32,33...+2