forameuss

Should be an odvl value in there that holds the original name, certainly was when I did it. Maybe they've changed something in the editor.

If it's just the UID and name, it's not too bad, although still pretty tedious (unless someone else knows a better way, which I'd be delighted to hear). Go into the editor and load a fresh database Do a search for cities with no parameters to get all of them (make sure you set the Maximum Records per Search value in settings to Unlimited) Select all, then click edit It'll take a while, but once it's done getting them all, you'll see what looks like a blank city object. Change the name to anything (I usually just use A) This will again take a while, and the editor will be unresponsive throughout, but once it's back that should have changed every single city to have the same name Export those changes (not save) which will give you an XML file From that, you'll get an entry for each city with the "old" name, and db id within. You'll need to do some parsing of the data at that point, I use Python. from that you can pretty easily build up any format you need I probably still have a copy of exactly this list of IDs somewhere, can check when I'm back on my laptop if you'd like.

They haven't even formally announced the game, you're not going to get recommended specs from anyone.

That's probably not something that can be answered outside of SI. All we see is the CA and PA values of a player once they're decided in the save (and we're not even supposed to see that), how it is determined isn't something we can see. There's probably more to it even than just "pick a random value" as I wouldn't be surprised if there's some balancing so that random chance can't put everyone with a negative PA at the top end. Think your only option if you really want an answer would be to create players with combinations of values en masse and try and draw some conclusions there. Probably going to be a long, tedious process, but doubt you'll get an answer from SI.

What is there to "buy"? It's just how things work. If it's just a case of one number being bigger than the other, fine, but it rarely is and a lot of the areas that are sorely lacking are in complex modules that are probably made far more complex than they need to be given they're years old. You act like testing is fixing. They can have the most robust testing process in the world (and it's a lot more wide-ranging than a lot of people are going to imagine) but that just identifies a problem. What are you expecting them to do if that fix is either difficult to achieve or causes more knock-on effects?

Or, probably more accurately, they're well aware that there are several areas of the game that aren't really good enough, but if they were to wait until all those elements were at the standard you're clearly expecting, then they'd probably never release a product ever again. This is likely the best chance for this to happen. Will it? Who knows.

Hadn't checked, but in working on the original database, you can't import files from that into the 24.3 one, so pretty sure there will be wholesale changes.

Don't think it's possible by design for PA to fall below CA. If you had the values in the example, it would effectively come between 160 and 170 I would imagine.

Some people need new hobbies.

Well, no, not really. Number 1 essentially means it's received no attention at all, because it's deemed too low a priority. Number 2 would require a significant amount of effort already burned into it for them to decide it wasn't worth keeping going. Number 3, as I said, is somewhere in between the two.

Almost certainly one of two things. It's either such low priority relative to other issues that it's yet to receive the sort of attention needed to actually fix it, or it's a lot harder to fix than it seems and they've yet to find a suitable solution. Or a somewhere-in-between third option which is a bit of both - it would take too long to fix relative to its priority.

Not currently. Only really supports starting from a fresh point. No idea, would depend on how they've changed the unique IDs. If they've shifted, you'll probably run into problems.

And where exactly have they explicitly said they are "satisfied with it"? I'd be surprised if that's ever the case. It's almost like there's a lot more to fixing something in a complicated system than a Disneyland style "if you just wish hard enough".

I presume then that the problem is a snowball effect. If the reputation or rewards on offer for winning the league end up being too high, then one team winning it is going to make them odds on favourites to do it again. If they win again, they're stronger still, and on and on until they're largely untouchable. The only way you could really stop that happening without intervening yourself would be to eliminate that boost as much as possible. Even then, certain teams are probably always going to rise to the top.

It literally says it's named after the manager, who is also OP going by the screenshot.