neilb242

I owned every champ manager up to and including 01/02. I enjoyed every one immensely, and in general got one game going that went on for many seasons. As a footy fan i've always found these games addictive.

I bought fm08 couple weeks back, and have only had time to play about half a season so far, so I'm not gonna start going on about what is or isnt wrong. But I have been reading these forums a fair bit.

One of the main moans seems to be about realism, or lack of it. Well, how realistic is it that a top team would appoint a rookie manager? How likely would it be that the top players wouldn't then demand to leave, and the rest of the squad be unhappy? and if it was ultra realistic you would have much chance of finishing anywhere but rock bottom in your first season.

The champ man games have always been, to me anyway, the most realsitic in terms of data at least. But notice I call them games. Because thats what they are. Games are meant to be fun, so therefore you can take control of any side you wish, and can be sucessful.

There seems to be two extremes of players in the fm world. Those who expect to be able to just win immediately, and those who aren't happy unless they have spent hours fiddling with tactics and training.

I'm somewhere in between, I don't expect instant success, where's the fun in that? thats no challenge. But neither do I have the time or patience to spend all my free time making minute adjustments to every aspect of one players training regime. If I get home from work, I want to relax and do something fun, not do what seems like extra work.

In all previous cms, success has come through finding a good, balanced tactic, and one for your current crop of players, then finding the players to take your club forward. It shouldn't be that a tactic is all powerful so the players you play are irrelevant, in the same way you wouldn't hope to win every game by playing the best players in whatever formation takes your fancy that day. In all previous versions i've played in this game, thats what I've done. Found a good tactic, then improved my team. Once i have the tactic, then thats it. Very rarely any fiddling at all, at most go attacting if losing, not even messing with individual players settings. I know if I did success would prob come earlier and more often, so to those who do this, bravo. You earn your success. But I personally just want to get on with the game. I don't want every season to take a year.

One worry I have, being new to it, is the 2-d pitch. I was disappointed when a friend bought fm05 and told me there was a 2-d display. I never felt this was needed, in fact the lack of something like that was part of the appeal. I can see what needs improving without it. not enough shots? change to more attacting tactic. Too many missed shots? Buy a new striker.

Many people seem to be complaing about how many 1-on-1s their players miss. Maybe these chances are just the displays way of showing a 'chance', just happens its a 1-on-1 not a long shot. but either way, without it, all you know is you had a certain number of shots on goal, on or off target, none of this 'oh hes missed another sitter'

Being as this is a game, and SI have to make money from it, is the 2-d pitch maybe something that was felt neccesary to bring in new players? In the half season I've played on fm08, I've found I could easily live without it, and in fact it maybe affecting how the matches go rather than just showing what is happening.

However, i'm not here to moan. That is just my thoughts. All I really want from fm08 is for it to be fun. It is a game after all, so I'm hoping that the extra detail added since my last champ man experience will make it even more involving and fun , rather than detract from the whole experience. I'm not asking for it to be made easier, just that if you spend the time to find a successful tactic or way of playing, that it rewards you with success without endless fiddling. And before I get shot down, you people who like the added 'realsim' can still tinker lots and be more successful with it. Its just I don't find that so much fun.

So what do you other players most want from the overall experience? Is there anything in the game that detracts from this? Please try to be constructive and not just repeat 'bugs'.

chopper99

I want to take a small team (ie Gateshead) and be able to slowely improve them. I'd like to quickly improve them to be honest but will be happy just to see them improve slowely.

What I don't want is to not understand why my tactics do or do not work. I don't want to hit a good tactic but not really have any idea why it's a good tactic if you know what I mean. This is why I've wanted to see feedback in the game since FM07. I'd like to see this feedback perhaps take the form of your assistant manager giving you ideas as to what went right/wrong in a previous game. I don't want to be told how to win, just given an idea why something is not (or in fact is) working. It'll then be up to me to figure out how to use that information.

And I'm certainly not moaning, I'm enjoying the game immensly at the moment. But I strongly feel that this kind of feedback will help many people to understand the tactical side of the game a bit more. The AI managers clearly have a more in-depth knowledge of what works in what situations so it would be nice if we were give some info too.

SmurfDude

I want what is already in FM, but I want it improved. Especially media & player interaction, and feedback regarding tactics and why they are working, or not working.

Media interaction needs to be much, much deeper, and have bigger consequences. Same goes for team talks.

I also want to have more information about what I'm doing right or wrong with tactics. Whether that be a whole host of stats, ala prozone or alike, after a mathc, or whether it be reading a media article detailing what they think I done wrong, or whether it be from the assistant manager.

What I DON'T want in 09, is a whole host of new features which are half-arsed and shallow, while the remaining ones are left are they are.

Norville Rodgers

I want to be manager of whichever team i feel like, and take them as far as possible, winning as much as possible, and buying the biggest names possible into the bargain. FM provides this.

Serpico

I agree almost 100% with that, though I'm not sure about even bigger consequences for media faux pas. It's hard enough already to get your team of mega stars to beat bottom of the conference Chudley Cannons if you click the wrong button.

Tactics needs to be a million times more understandable that they are now.

robin_trott_hoof

One issue about FM08 that intrigues me (particularly post-patch) is the difference in tactics from FM07.

For FM07 I had a tactics set that consistently worked. Sure, you had to have the right players for the positions and players that were at least as good as the opposition. But if you used the correct tactic in the correct circumstance and applied common sense to what happened during the game, your team would generally improve over time.

When I imported these to FM08, they worked, although not as well. That's to be expected to some degree. But post-patch, they're as effective as playing a 2-7-1 formation.

So what caused such a change? Were the tactics deemed to be a weak link in 07 and overhauled for 08? Or did a change in the match engine change the approach needed? I'm curious.

Starr_Man5

Thats my feelings on the feedback issue, almost 100% exactly Chopper mate, as well you know.

Lyvean

Despite your post being quite personal and dare I say, constructive, you are missing the point on this and you sound like many people in here who try to defend simple failing with elaborate, out of this world arguments. The many 1 on 1s are not "some" chances that happen and may mean something else. They are 1 on 1s. Period. If you have them, you are prone to score more than miss. How many times have you seen 5,6,7 or 10 1 on 1s in a real game and the player only scored once or at all? You can't have a match engine and then ask people to think out of the box. The chance is there! You see it with your own eyes! So, this shot/goal ratio is broken and its just a way to balance the inept AI. This is a gamestopping bug/code unbalance that actually make your world class strikers -which should score more with less chances (that's what makes them world class)- look like idiots.

What we must all demand from SI is to have a game that actually offers what it says. Be it a simulation or an arcade, the game MUST offer its mechanics in a working order. Anything less is unacceptable and mean the game is not what we pay.

You can't ask a customer to pay for something that you tell him works in a certain way, only to find that he/she must think outside the box and do not pay attention to "trivialities" like a team who creates 15 shots on target with 8 1 on 1s yet it manages to lose against a team with less than half of those chances. You can ask him to accept this as a team would accept it in real football. You can't ask him to live with it through an entire season!

SI should only include in the game things that can actually work.

What we want from FM you say? What it says on the box when you pay for it and nothing less!

Neb

Despite your post being quite personal and dare I say, constructive, you are missing the point on this and you sound like many people in here who try to defend simple failing with elaborate, out of this world arguments. The many 1 on 1s are not "some" chances that happen and may mean something else. They are 1 on 1s. Period. If you have them, you are prone to score more than miss. How many times have you seen 5,6,7 or 10 1 on 1s in a real game and the player only scored once or at all? You can't have a match engine and then ask people to think out of the box. The chance is there! You see it with your own eyes! So, this shot/goal ratio is broken and its just a way to balance the inept AI. This is a gamestopping bug/code unbalance that actually make your world class strikers -which should score more with less chances (that's what makes them world class)- look like idiots.

What we must all demand from SI is to have a game that actually offers what it says. Be it a simulation or an arcade, the game MUST offer its mechanics in a working order. Anything less is unacceptable and mean the game is not what we pay.

You can't ask a customer to pay for something that you tell him works in a certain way, only to find that he/she must think outside the box and do not pay attention to "trivialities" like a team who creates 15 shots on target with 8 1 on 1s yet it manages to lose against a team with less than half of those chances. You can ask him to accept this as a team would accept it in real football. You can't ask him to live with it through an entire season!

SI should only include in the game things that can actually work.

What we want from FM you say? What it says on the box when you pay for it and nothing less! </BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest mate, I haven't really seen this happen much. I use a 4-5-1 formation, so maybe my players don't get into the same situations as yours do. but you know what that implies though...... if my tactics don't produce this issue and yours do..... but I don't really know, I suppose its for SI to say whether it is actually a bug or not.

As for what people want out of FM? fun / realism. not one, not the other, but both. I'd like to be able to dive in a fiddle with the smallest tactical options one day and another just press continue and with minimal fuss a season has gone by. I hate the way that 1 season takes just over 20 hours to play. I much preferred it with CM 01/02 when you could do a couple of seasons in one sitting, watching all the games, looking at all the players. it was just faster! Most games are designed to be completed in 50-150 hours (correct me if I'm wrong!) thats not even 10 years into my managerial career. so after 200 hours of playing FM, I've still got 30 seasons or 600 hours ahead of me! too much in my opinion.

Lyvean

What do you mean if your tactics don't produce this issue? That we must all play 4-5-1 to have a realistic experience?