Difference between path to glory vs. sandbox mode

[ajimithing]

I am also one who prefers to have editing capabilities and would be very disappointed if the sandbox mode becomes neglected in the future.

I played Madden 12 for 5 years simply because it was the only way I could edit within franchise mode, edit draft classes, force trades that may have happened in real life.

For example, if I start a RtG franchise in FHM3. (This would never happen but for argument's sake) Connor McDavid gets traded in a mega deal for say Erik Karlsson, Mike Hoffman, Logan Brown, picks, etc etc. If I couldn't force that trade through in my RtG game, I would want to start over and it would be a total loss for me.

Also, no expansion mode is a deal breaker for me too as the NHL is clearly expanding.

I am sticking to sandbox mode in FHM3, and I truly hope it doesn't become a neglected mode.

[julius]

I just want to respond to Sebastian's suggestion that I simply have a different "vision" of the game. In fact, I typically play the game at a slow, detailed and immersive pace, which seems to be the objective behind the Path to Glory mode, but equally achievable in Sandbox mode. I also enjoy the freedom to edit and occasionally fast-sim portions of a season. That is my "vision". Is this so unusual?

This is a multi-season text based sports simulation after all. OOTP 17 and the FM series have a very robust editing and fast-simming capability, plus vastly superior game day graphics (FHM has none). Your closest competitor, Eastside Hockey manager (EHM), also has these features. Editing is cumbersome in EHM, but possible and attempts are underway to improve it. There are areas in which FHM can compete with these games, for example, the tactics system looks promising, but Path to Glory mode is a serious step backwards for many of us, if that represents your future focus.

I think the vague references to "having a different vision" aren't helpful, and skate over the questions you really should be answering.

[GDawg]

As it stands now, I would definitely choose 'sandbox-mode' in FHM 3. I want to be able to revert silly AI trades etc. Play a more 'commissioner-type' of game has always been the most enjoyable mode for me to play in OOTP as well. Suppose I am being eliminated for the playoffs with my team, I'd like to be able to take over one of the other teams during the playoffs, play out the playoffs that way and go back to my own team next season. It's just a more 'broad' NHL experience which is something I enjoy.

Of course, if PtG becomes the more immersive mode in the future (kind of like the road Football Manager is taking, which is excellent in simulating the complete world of football with media/communication with players and board etc. etc.) I might switch to that mode later on.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by julius

I just want to respond to Sebastian's suggestion that I simply have a different "vision" of the game. In fact, I typically play the game at a slow, detailed and immersive pace, which seems to be the objective behind the Path to Glory mode, but equally achievable in Sandbox mode. I also enjoy the freedom to edit and occasionally fast-sim portions of a season. That is my "vision". Is this so unusual?

This is a multi-season text based sports simulation after all. OOTP 17 and the FM series have a very robust editing and fast-simming capability, plus vastly superior game day graphics (FHM has none). Your closest competitor, Eastside Hockey manager (EHM), also has these features. Editing is cumbersome in EHM, but possible and attempts are underway to improve it. There are areas in which FHM can compete with these games, for example, the tactics system looks promising, but Path to Glory mode is a serious step backwards for many of us, if that represents your future focus.

I think the vague references to "having a different vision" aren't helpful, and skate over the questions you really should be answering.

I agree with this. In fact I prefer this linear approached to the way OOTPB does it which can be overwhelming. (Not to me because I no what I am doing) but having the option to edit within your save (key word option) is never a bad idea. I play OOTPB in a slow pace as a GM and complete alot of years (Someone even mentioned that PTG was limited to a certain number of years?) I don't want to compare but FM have a option to edit and that game does not come off as a "tool kit" I slow pace that game while completing number of years while editing minor annoyances.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by julius

I just want to respond to Sebastian's suggestion that I simply have a different "vision" of the game. In fact, I typically play the game at a slow, detailed and immersive pace, which seems to be the objective behind the Path to Glory mode, but equally achievable in Sandbox mode. I also enjoy the freedom to edit and occasionally fast-sim portions of a season. That is my "vision". Is this so unusual?

This is a multi-season text based sports simulation after all. OOTP 17 and the FM series have a very robust editing and fast-simming capability, plus vastly superior game day graphics (FHM has none). Your closest competitor, Eastside Hockey manager (EHM), also has these features. Editing is cumbersome in EHM, but possible and attempts are underway to improve it. There are areas in which FHM can compete with these games, for example, the tactics system looks promising, but Path to Glory mode is a serious step backwards for many of us, if that represents your future focus.

I think the vague references to "having a different vision" aren't helpful, and skate over the questions you really should be answering.

I think maybe you're overfocusing on what's basically a matter of semantics and wording or a slightly different way of explaining a similar point of view.

FHM has all these features as well. It just has two different game modes. Most all of the improvements made to either Sandbox or PTG in the future are likely to benefit both modes because really, 99% of the design of the game applies to both modes.

Though Sebastian's talking about focusing on RTG, that doesn't mean Sandbox mode will be overlooked or somehow a lesser version of PTG.

Both modes are available to play, both will remain in the game and both will continue to be improved.

PTG existing and even being the "featured" mode doesn't take anything away from your enjoyment of FHM if you prefer Sandbox mode and that's available there, it's just an added, slightly different mode.

You mention FM, it's basically the same as with FM having both the classic and regular modes. Because FM Classic can be seen as a simplified, streamlined version of FM, that doesn't make the regular version any less well supported or feature rich. It's likely to be the same with Sandbox and PTG.

If I understand you correctly you're saying you want more options, but really you're kind of asking for less options, you want only Sandbox mode to exist and take complete priority, whereas Sebastian's talking about both modes as important parts of the game moving forward.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I agree with this. In fact I prefer this linear approached to the way OOTPB does it which can be overwhelming. (Not to me because I no what I am doing) but having the option to edit within your save (key word option) is never a bad idea. I play OOTPB in a slow pace as a GM and complete alot of years (Someone even mentioned that PTG was limited to a certain number of years?) I don't want to compare but FM have a option to edit and that game does not come off as a "tool kit" I slow pace that game while completing number of years while editing minor annoyances.

I mean, I actually agree with you (and julius) to be honest, and personally I'll play Sandbox mode 90% more often than PTG.

What I don't quite get is why this is such a big issue.

If there was no Sandbox mode and you couldn't play the game and edit at all, then I'd totally get being upset about it. I'd be unhappy as well.

But we can play in Sandbox mode and do our editing and that'll continue to be the case going forward.

So I guess I just don't see where it's a problem that there's another mode to play the game in as well.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I think maybe you're overfocusing on what's basically a matter of semantics and wording or a slightly different way of explaining a similar point of view.

FHM has all these features as well. It just has two different game modes. Most all of the improvements made to either Sandbox or PTG in the future are likely to benefit both modes because really, 99% of the design of the game applies to both modes.

Though Sebastian's talking about focusing on RTG, that doesn't mean Sandbox mode will be overlooked or somehow a lesser version of PTG.

Both modes are available to play, both will remain in the game and both will continue to be improved.

PTG existing and even being the "featured" mode doesn't take anything away from your enjoyment of FHM if you prefer Sandbox mode and that's available there, it's just an added, slightly different mode.

You mention FM, it's basically the same as with FM having both the classic and regular modes. Because FM Classic can be seen as a simplified, streamlined version of FM, that doesn't make the regular version any less well supported or feature rich. It's likely to be the same with Sandbox and PTG.

If I understand you correctly you're saying you want more options, but really you're kind of asking for less options, you want only Sandbox mode to exist and take complete priority, whereas Sebastian's talking about both modes as important parts of the game moving forward.

Sebastian posted that eventually the modes will drift apart.

My interpretation of that is PTG will eventually have many features that will exclusively benefit you as the gm/coach. For example having to deal with assigning jersey numbers.

Edit-

It's not a big issue at all especially for this year where the only major differences are editing. I am personally looking into the future and I had to chime in because it seem like the idea of editing is someone wanting to tool box or cheat the game and that is not really the case for everyone. PTG suits me as a player but at the same time I don't think having limitations are a good idea.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Sebastian posted that eventually the modes will drift apart.

My interpretation of that is PTG will eventually have many features that will exclusively benefit you as the gm/coach. For example having to deal with jersey numbers and disgruntled players who didn't get their number.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

Sure, fair enough. See my next post for more on that.

I mean it'd be nice if those sort of features are possibly added to Sandbox mode as well once they come out for PTG. I hope that'll be the case.

But given how close the modes are now, I guess I just don't see the point of worrying too much about how they might diverge in FHM7 or something.

There's going to be a lot of water under the bridge between now and then, a lot of design decision to be made, and who knows how things will actually end up turning out.

[tward13]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I mean, I actually agree with you (and julius) to be honest, and personally I'll play Sandbox mode 90% more often than PTG.

What I don't quite get is why this is such a big issue.

If there was no Sandbox mode and you couldn't play the game and edit at all, then I'd totally get being upset about it. I'd be unhappy as well.

But we can play in Sandbox mode and do our editing and that'll continue to be the case going forward.

So I guess I just don't see where it's a problem that there's another mode to play the game in as well.

I think it's an issue because of Sebastian's comment about PTG being the main focus.

If anyone's counting (and apparently someone does at some point) put me in the "I'll never play PTG" mode. I don't need "achievements" and such. I just want to GM/Coach my team and speed up or slow down as suits me at the moment.

So yes those of us who will use sand-box exclusively for current season or historical would prefer that resources be better allocated to improve the version that everyone can use rather than a new one that splinters the user group further.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tward13

I think it's an issue because of Sebastian's comment about PTG being the main focus.

If anyone's counting (and apparently someone does at some point) put me in the "I'll never play PTG" mode. I don't need "achievements" and such. I just want to GM/Coach my team and speed up or slow down as suits me at the moment.

So yes those of us who will use sand-box exclusively for current season or historical would prefer that resources be better allocated to improve the version that everyone can use rather than a new one that splinters the user group further.

Sure and I understand that, but I also think everyone's overthinking what Sebastian is saying a bit and maybe reading more into it than he even means.

Even if PTG is the focus, I can't imagine that the majority of the changes made to the game won't benefit all three modes.

PTG might get a few additional goodies thrown in, but I really don't think that what Sebastian is saying means that Sandbox and Historical are going to become red-headed stepchildren that get no love compared to PTG or that most of the new features added will somehow only benefit in PTG, not the other modes as well.

[Lukas Berger]

Anyhow, I don't want to drag this out into a long argument that gets heated at all. Obviously we're listening to and interested in what everyone has to say.

I'm sure Sebastian and the whole team will take everyone's thoughts on board and will do their best to make decisions on the game going forward that make for the best experience possible for the greatest number of users.

Another "tormenting" question.

Will you improve Sandbox mode and add unique features to it or will it stay the same plus the improvements to PtG that "will benefit Sandbox mode"? In other words, will Sandox mode be a completely unique and fresh or will it be just something to shut up the historical and fictional minority?

Yes, you have your vision, you're developer, we understand that. But what about the question above?

[Bruins86]

I understand why you don't want to allow editing in PTG mode, but for what its worth I will never play it simply for the sole fact that I don't agree on a lot of the player ratings and wouldn't be able to get into the game when I am seeing some of my favorite players retire early cause someone decided they should get a 11 instead of a 14 in aging. Granted I understand it is all subjective but at least in sandbox I can edit where I think it needs it before I begin my game.

Having said that, I am loving this years game so far especially the new injury system just wish there was a way to edit the injury proneness by body part.

[Rand]

Originally Posted by Bruins86

I understand why you don't want to allow editing in PTG mode, but for what its worth I will never play it simply for the sole fact that I don't agree on a lot of the player ratings and wouldn't be able to get into the game when I am seeing some of my favorite players retire early cause someone decided they should get a 11 instead of a 14 in aging. Granted I understand it is all subjective but at least in sandbox I can edit where I think it needs it before I begin my game.

Having said that, I am loving this years game so far especially the new injury system just wish there was a way to edit the injury proneness by body part.

That's 90% of the reason I'm in sandbox mode also, I want to use realistic ratings and don't always agree with the developers/researchers opinions on players. Minus my own preferred team anyway, I tend not to touch those ratings unless I'm decreasing them because of potential issues of bias. Aging ratings I care less about, since that's hypothetical and too hard to guess at so I don't much care what they rate there as it's imo almost entirely guesswork.

I hope long term a pre-game editor will be available that would mitigate this and allow us to fix any ratings we deem questionable while still accessing the PTG mode. Short of some alterations to player ratings to more accurately represent their abilities I don't actually ever do anything differently then a PTG play would do.

[AlpineSK]

Originally Posted by Rand

I hope long term a pre-game editor will be available that would mitigate this and allow us to fix any ratings we deem questionable while still accessing the PTG mode. Short of some alterations to player ratings to more accurately represent their abilities I don't actually ever do anything differently then a PTG play would do.

This does pose an interesting question: Will the editor be able to edit features in a PtG game?

[Bruins86]

Originally Posted by Rand

That's 90% of the reason I'm in sandbox mode also, I want to use realistic ratings and don't always agree with the developers/researchers opinions on players. Minus my own preferred team anyway, I tend not to touch those ratings unless I'm decreasing them because of potential issues of bias. Aging ratings I care less about, since that's hypothetical and too hard to guess at so I don't much care what they rate there as it's imo almost entirely guesswork.

I hope long term a pre-game editor will be available that would mitigate this and allow us to fix any ratings we deem questionable while still accessing the PTG mode. Short of some alterations to player ratings to more accurately represent their abilities I don't actually ever do anything differently then a PTG play would do.

I guess using aging as a example was a somewhat poor choice lol

[omjo]

If I can add my two cents...

I play a lot of Fallout New Vegas. Maybe too much, when I should be studying. Anyway, this is relevant, I promise. Yes, they are vastly different genres, but in a way an open-world RPG and a open-world simulator are kind of the same. Kind of...

In New Vegas, there's two types of game modes. There's the standard game mode, and then hardcore more. Hardcore mode ramps up the difficulty of the game by using features already in the standard mode - such as being able to eat, sleep, and drink. In hardcore mode, those are requirements to survive. It forces you to eat, drink and sleep regularly. It doesn't really add anything that the base game doesn't already have. It just restricts certain things to make the game harder, and funner.

That's the way I see PtG. It doesn't add anything that Sandbox mode doesn't already have. It just makes it harder to play, since you have less control over the world itself. When I say harder, I mean it in a good way. It ramps up the difficulty by not only removing editing but also requiring you to improve your attributes. It lets you focus on the manager part of FHM.

I think it's existence is being blown out of proportion. I don't see any reason why other game modes will be abandoned. A sandbox mode for a game like this is crucial. And since sandbox and PtG are built on the same engine, aside from PtG-specific features I don't see why engine improvements and features won't be added to sandbox mode.

If you want to play sandbox as PtG but with more editing, well... That's the beauty of sandbox games. You can do that. You can, theoretically, play the game however you like in sandbox. That's how I played FHM 2014 and FHM 2. If you don't care for editing and just want a streamlined GM sim mode, play PtG. That's how I'll play FHM 3.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by AlpineSK

This does pose an interesting question: Will the editor be able to edit features in a PtG game?

I imagine so. As long as there is no online competition thing with PtG (which is something for a waaaay future version) I see no reason why an editor should not work with PtG games.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Sure and I understand that, but I also think everyone's overthinking what Sebastian is saying a bit and maybe reading more into it than he even means.

Even if PTG is the focus, I can't imagine that the majority of the changes made to the game won't benefit all three modes.

PTG might get a few additional goodies thrown in, but I really don't think that what Sebastian is saying means that Sandbox and Historical are going to become red-headed stepchildren that get no love compared to PTG or that most of the new features added will somehow only benefit in PTG, not the other modes as well.

Also, I guess Sebastian will make most PtG enhancements available in sandbox mode if it makes sense, for example as an option. That jersey number thing he talks about for example, I see no reason why such a feature could not be part of sandbox.

[fredreed]

Speaking of editing players in sandbox mode can you like clone players like in OOTP baseball 13?