AI/Human Manager Stats

just a suggestion... why not make them the same? why are they different? how is it possible to compare yourself to other managers if they are judged on coaching skills, mnagement skills, etc and we are judged on 'hands on' approach and other BS.

sorry if that is a bit ranty but most of the manager stats we get are very ambiguous and count for basically nothing

i agree they should be the same

we (human managers) should have the same stats as the other managers, like attacking coaching and defence coaching that way its fair

Agreed. Do AI managers get to train their players since they have the relevant attributes, while we don't? Doesn't it make sense for all managers to help out with training - wouldn't they in real life?

How it would look is harder to figure out. Would you get "starting points" during the manager creation that you could distribute in the various attributes based on your preferences? or would all attributes start at some preset (or random) level then increase/decrease based on your performance as a manager? i.e. You may get points you can distribute at the end of the year based on certain milestones reached and accomplishments - like winning a trophy/league. Or have to take points away if you hit negative milestones/accomplishments - relegation, poor defense record, scoring record, etc.

Agreed. Do AI managers get to train their players since they have the relevant attributes, while we don't? Doesn't it make sense for all managers to help out with training - wouldn't they in real life?

How it would look is harder to figure out. Would you get "starting points" during the manager creation that you could distribute in the various attributes based on your preferences? or would all attributes start at some preset (or random) level then increase/decrease based on your performance as a manager? i.e. You may get points you can distribute at the end of the year based on certain milestones reached and accomplishments - like winning a trophy/league. Or have to take points away if you hit negative milestones/accomplishments - relegation, poor defense record, scoring record, etc.

Love this RPG-esque twist, what a great idea. SI take note.

just a suggestion... why not make them the same? why are they different? how is it possible to compare yourself to other managers if they are judged on coaching skills, mnagement skills, etc and we are judged on 'hands on' approach and other BS.

sorry if that is a bit ranty but most of the manager stats we get are very ambiguous and count for basically nothing

Human managers DO have values in the various coaching/management areas

however you need genie/fmm to actually view them

your ca/pa at creation is 100/200, and is normally at 200/200 within 2 years

What TheRealMagpies says is correct, but let me add a further point. The AI managers use artificial intelligence - you don't!! The AI managers stats determine how defensive his set-up is, what kind of substitutions he makes etc. You make your own judgement, so how can you compare those? Pad lal, are you suggesting that if you are given low defensive stats at start-up that you HAVE to manage like Keegan? What would be the point?

What DOES happen now is that after about 6 months the manager screen does record your actual preferred formation, marking style etc. - I like that.

Pad lal, are you suggesting that if you are given low defensive stats at start-up that you HAVE to manage like Keegan? What would be the point?

Perhaps it could determine the effectiveness of the various styles.

maybe if you favour an attacking style and your attacking training schedule is good, you can gain attacking points. I just don't like it that the human manager has random stats rather than the same as other managers

maybe if you favour an attacking style and your attacking training schedule is good, you can gain attacking points. I just don't like it that the human manager has random stats rather than the same as other managers

Human manager stats are not random

playstyle values (depth, tempo, rotation etc) are all 10 and never change

coaching stats all start at 2 and increase over time and are heavily influenced by "coaching attribute" deficits due to the rest of the backroom staff, which to me infers, as the manager, we ARE involved in the training of players

the mentality ratings are all fixed, and over the course of several seasons will change, those changes appear to be influenced by media/player interaction

as Human players we do not get to observe our coaching attributes, mentality ratings or playstyle values unless you use a 3rd party tool to do so.

AI managers arent exactly random either, with most having values following nationality based cultural trends.

Human manager stats are not random

playstyle values (depth, tempo, rotation etc) are all 10 and never change

coaching stats all start at 2 and increase over time and are heavily influenced by "coaching attribute" deficits due to the rest of the backroom staff, which to me infers, as the manager, we ARE involved in the training of players

the mentality ratings are all fixed, and over the course of several seasons will change, those changes appear to be influenced by media/player interaction

as Human players we do not get to observe our coaching attributes, mentality ratings or playstyle values unless you use a 3rd party tool to do so.

AI managers arent exactly random either, with most having values following nationality based cultural trends.

Thanks for the explanation. In a game that has so many attributes available for us, I'm not sure why they decided to make some of our key coaching attributes hidden.

I'm not sure I agree with the key influence in improving your coaching attributes to be coaching deficits in your backroom staff. It seems like it should be merit-based, or style of play based, not a fill in the gaps scenario.

+1 for the RPG manager.

Especially at lower leagues, the ability to personally see to some aspects of training would be a huge boon.

Regarding the 100 CA, 200 PA, I think it does make sense that we should have a 200 PA. However, shouldn't our CA be dependent on our starting Experience?

Also, does that growth rate (2 years) make sense?

I suppose that the average player doesn't get deep into a save-game, but for those that do, especially LLM, dafuge's challenge, etc, wouldn't it make more sense for it to take at least five years to reach 200 CA? Perhaps even more, it would depend on the level you were managing at? In other words, max of 100 at BSS, 120 at BSP, 140 at L2, 160 at L1, 180 at CH, reserving 200 for managers in the PRM?

It takes about the same time to go from ca100 to ca200 whether your unemployed or employed at a club and is roughly 2 years.

what seems to make the most difference is your starting experience level (automatic, sunday league etc) as each option gives a different Reputation Value, each league appears to have a reputation limit that you can't progress past until you either win promotion or are recruited by a higher placed team

Automatic experience + starting unemployed limits you to BSP or BSN/S & thier worldwide equivalents

selecting a club manually from League2 or higher allows you to circumvent the reputation limits that the game seems to employ.