Newgen fullbacks still have low crossing and dribbling

13 minutes ago, João14 said:

It's not possible that development is something the QA team is happy. It really can't be possible, development is terrible handled by AI managers.

Stats on a 3 year simulation without regens.

July 2023

At least 17

Dribbling - 93
Finishing - 39
First Touch - 104
Free Kicks - 80
Passing - 91
Technique - 172

July 2026 (excluding regens)

Dribbling - 53 (less 40 players)
Finishing - 24 (less 15 players + all of them were already at 17 finishing on July 2023)
First Touch - 72 (less 32 players)
Free Kicks - 27 (less 53 players !!!!!! + none under 27 years)
Passing - 53 (less 38 players + all of them were already at 17 passing on July 2023)
Technique - 103 (less 69 players !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Comparison with a DB of 60k players on full FM on July 2026:

Dribbling - 69 (less 24 players)
Finishing - 34 (less 5 players)
First Touch - 85 (less 19 players)
Free Kicks - 41 (less 39 players !!!!!! + none under 27 years)
Passing - 74 (less 17 players)
Technique - 135 (less 37 players)



What in the mother of earth is this?

Do you really think this is ok? Players don't develop any relevant technicals outside the defending ones? This is borderline outrageous and needs a quick and hot fix.

What type of saves do you need? Is it needed?

This needs URGENT fixing.

quoting this without regens and with a comparison with full FM as I do truly believe there's an issue with player development technicals.

We've chatted about this with our internal QA team and first and foremost, the issue mentioned is in a much better state than it was in previous editions. 

That's not to say it's perfect, but unfortunately it's a limitation of the current system. The attributes mentioned are heavily weighted on the overall CA, so to have them boosted would have a very detrimental effect on the overall ability of full backs game wide - making them extremely unbalanced. 

We did make more positive strides within the progression coding however, and you'll notice that as the players get older the attributes will appear more realistic and at a satisfactory level.

I'm afraid there's just little more that we can do at this stage, but it's one we have our eye on and want to improve on for future editions of FM. 

Thank you for your honesty but for me personally this means that I probably won't start another save in this game. 

I play the game for longtime saves and the most fun part for me is developing youngsters, which I can't really enjoy knowing that the development system is broken. Maybe that's unfair because apparently in the past the system was worse, but I started with FM19 and it didn't really bother me until FM23, but now I just can't unsee it.

It's a bit worrying though that apparently you can't really do anything about it and it doesn't sound like you are planning any kind of "development revamp" for the next edition, but it's fine, I know most players are not that bothered by it.

Actually it feels better, now I can make a clean cut with this game and don't have to have hope in small "updates" that in the end don't change anything at all.

Don´t get me wrong, you made a good game and many people have fun with it and that's great, but it's just not for me anymore.

I will have an eye on future editions though, maybe this aspect will get better and you will get a fan back!

4 hours ago, Kyle Brown said:

We've chatted about this with our internal QA team and first and foremost, the issue mentioned is in a much better state than it was in previous editions. 

That's not to say it's perfect, but unfortunately it's a limitation of the current system. The attributes mentioned are heavily weighted on the overall CA, so to have them boosted would have a very detrimental effect on the overall ability of full backs game wide - making them extremely unbalanced. 

We did make more positive strides within the progression coding however, and you'll notice that as the players get older the attributes will appear more realistic and at a satisfactory level.

I'm afraid there's just little more that we can do at this stage, but it's one we have our eye on and want to improve on for future editions of FM. 

Fair play for the honest answer even though it's disappointing, but definitely what I expected.

So I understand the issue has to do with the weightings of attributes for fullbacks. But doesn't this mean that some other attributes grow to a higher level for newgens than real players to "compensate" for this? Like a 100 CA newgen will on average have higher marking for instance than a 100 CA real player?

Edited December 7, 2023 by LeoFM

20 hours ago, Kyle Brown said:

We've chatted about this with our internal QA team and first and foremost, the issue mentioned is in a much better state than it was in previous editions. 

That's not to say it's perfect, but unfortunately it's a limitation of the current system. The attributes mentioned are heavily weighted on the overall CA, so to have them boosted would have a very detrimental effect on the overall ability of full backs game wide - making them extremely unbalanced. 

We did make more positive strides within the progression coding however, and you'll notice that as the players get older the attributes will appear more realistic and at a satisfactory level.

I'm afraid there's just little more that we can do at this stage, but it's one we have our eye on and want to improve on for future editions of FM. 

Would this also be a possible reason for this issue?

 

 

@LeoFM would you mind sharing those stats for 15-16 y/o players 2023 vs 2030? I don't think we can properly reason about the response from the QA team with the current age bracket.

Zitat

The attributes mentioned are heavily weighted on the overall CA, so to have them boosted would have a very detrimental effect on the overall ability of full backs game wide - making them extremely unbalanced. 

This would mean that at the beginning of the game (at 2023), there should be barely any U17 players with said attributes above some threshold like 10/11, as the rules about CA weighting of those attributes must also apply in those cases. Depending on that data, we could draw to conclusions to explain the numbers you've provided:

1. If you notice, that there are barely any 15-16 y/o players above that threshold, then we known that generating said talents is not the issue, but the attribute progress of those attributes.

Zitat

We did make more positive strides within the progression coding however, and you'll notice that as the players get older the attributes will appear more realistic and at a satisfactory level.

The provided save game is from a previous patch, is that correct? If Kyle refers to some changes in the latest patch, we'd need some new numbers to check if the development has improved. This should also be done not only for U21, but something like U23, as some testing by "Evidence Based FM" has shown that the development significantly slows down past 23.

2. If you notice, that there are in fact lots of 15-16 y/o with those attributes in the game, the response from the QA team would be very confusing, as the same should also apply to those players. In that case, as I highly doubt that QA team would intentionally provide false information about that issue, I would assume that something about the communication went wrong, and I would urge some QA / Devs to invest some time into properly comprehending what people are actually complaining about.

21 ore fa, Kyle Brown ha scritto:

We've chatted about this with our internal QA team and first and foremost, the issue mentioned is in a much better state than it was in previous editions. 

That's not to say it's perfect, but unfortunately it's a limitation of the current system. The attributes mentioned are heavily weighted on the overall CA, so to have them boosted would have a very detrimental effect on the overall ability of full backs game wide - making them extremely unbalanced. 

We did make more positive strides within the progression coding however, and you'll notice that as the players get older the attributes will appear more realistic and at a satisfactory level.

I'm afraid there's just little more that we can do at this stage, but it's one we have our eye on and want to improve on for future editions of FM. 

Each year it's always the same pr answer "we'll fix it next game". And it never happens. I bet my house it will be still not fixed in the next game with the new engine, we'll just hear a different excuse

@svonn Sure, these numbers are from the latest 24.2 patch as well:

Of 660 natural fullbacks aged 16 or under in 2023:
359 have 10+ crossing
49 have 10+ dribbling
31 have 10+ crossing and dribbling

*for some reason, 423 out of the 1083 fullbacks at the start of the game were newgens, and only one of those newgens had 10+ crossing and dribbling

Of 973 natural fullbacks aged 16 or under in 2030:
140 have 10+ crossing
27 have 10+ dribbling
8 have 10+ crossing and dribbling

I should also add that in 2030, there were 18 newgen fullbacks aged 16 or under with a CA of 90+. In 2023, there was only one.

Also here are the numbers for fullbacks aged 21 or under in 2030:
7045 in total
280 have 12+ crossing
59 have 12+ dribbling
17 have 12+ crossing and dribbling

These numbers suggests the 24.2 is maybe a little bit better, but honestly if you account for the 1000 more fullbacks than in my beta simulation it's a minuscule difference.

@Kyle Brown Now, that data provided by @LeoFM looks like something that would absolutly match the statement by the QA team but also explains the lack of players with attributes in that range. This even has cascading effects - If the Newgens are generated with too low CAs (only for these Positions?), this will not only cause less players with "natural" attribute distributions above that threshold, but it might also lead to less playing time at senior level at age >18, so also players at senior level will have worse stats. I wonder if this effect might sort of "balance out" as soon as the real players are removed from the game, since the AI will be forced to play the newgens. I might start a test save to check that at some point.

 

Actually, I've misread, at first I thought there were 18 at 2023, but it's the other way around. Can you say anything about the rough distribution of CA? Are there generally more high CA newgens later, or just more outliers?

Edited December 8, 2023 by svonn

58 minutes ago, svonn said:

@Kyle Brown Now, that data provided by @LeoFM looks like something that would absolutly match the statement by the QA team but also explains the lack of players with attributes in that range. This even has cascading effects - If the Newgens are generated with too low CAs (only for these Positions?), this will not only cause less players with "natural" attribute distributions above that threshold, but it might also lead to less playing time at senior level at age >18, so also players at senior level will have worse stats. I wonder if this effect might sort of "balance out" as soon as the real players are removed from the game, since the AI will be forced to play the newgens. I might start a test save to check that at some point.

 

Actually, I've misread, at first I thought there were 18 at 2023, but it's the other way around. Can you say anything about the rough distribution of CA? Are there generally more high CA newgens later, or just more outliers?

According to my findings, there are more players in the range of 60-90 CA in 2023 compared to 2030.

I added the CA ratings to a Google spreadsheet so you could have a look at the numbers yourself: (pardon my poor spreadsheet ability, wasn't able to make a combined chart)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12NE48-d3p_f7xZ4VuZPHWSNwwuKekGsEo8ytXl-59V4/edit?usp=sharing

Edited December 8, 2023 by LeoFM

@LeoFM Thanks <3 I've slighlty changed the visualization here to use a histogram, which makes it a bit easier to see how the distribution changes:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hvhF4ROrXaPJ3OdCi6S4piYGPw8g3WHkx8ar3w9C4Gg/edit?usp=sharing

 

So my initial statement from above was correct despite my read comprehension mistake. While in 2030 there are more outlier talents, the overall distribution of CA is MUCH lower than at 2030.

The average goes down from 55.7 to 41.4 and the standard deviation goes up from 16.8 to 21.2 (which is fine).

If you add columns with the dribbling and crossing values of the players to your spreadsheet, I could probably calculate if the shift in the CA distribution correlates with the shift in attribute distribution.

 

Provided what @Kyle Brown was told by QA, I would assume that those should correlate heavily and that the overall lower CA is the main culprit.

 

 

@svonn I have added crossing and dribbling values to the spreadsheet.

Could you also check heading for CBs in the same manner? Seems to be a new issue this year.

On 07/12/2023 at 12:23, Kyle Brown said:

We've chatted about this with our internal QA team and first and foremost, the issue mentioned is in a much better state than it was in previous editions. 

That's not to say it's perfect, but unfortunately it's a limitation of the current system. The attributes mentioned are heavily weighted on the overall CA, so to have them boosted would have a very detrimental effect on the overall ability of full backs game wide - making them extremely unbalanced. 

We did make more positive strides within the progression coding however, and you'll notice that as the players get older the attributes will appear more realistic and at a satisfactory level.

I'm afraid there's just little more that we can do at this stage, but it's one we have our eye on and want to improve on for future editions of FM. 

Thanks for your reply.

I've also been very frustrated with this issue for years, as a dedicated player who's sunk a lot of time into this game and always uses a tactic that revolves around having very strong wingbacks that can dribble and cross on the flanks of a narrow midfield diamond. I usually have to spend the first few years of my saves retraining players from other parts of the pitch to play this role (most recently a CAM) until I can blow 100m each on the two good newgen wingbacks in the entire world. Not to be dramatic, but this is the first year I've not bought the game in as long as I can remember, in large part because problems like this one have started to feel too repetitive and unmanageable to be ignored, and they've taken a bit of the immersion out of it lately.

What I still don't understand based on your response is this:

1a. You say the issue is caused (or at least exacerbated by) the fact that crossing and dribbling are weighted very highly. Why do we not see this issue with wingers who have both? Is it because they don't use CA on defensive attributes? Does this balancing act issue also impact box to box midfielders who have to have both offensive/defensive attributes, as well?

1b. And why, in general, is this the main role that is impacted, when surely other positions have combinations of necessary but highly weighted attributes that are generated far more frequently?  For example, it feels like there are always TONS of AFs with strong finishing and pace, and TONS of playmakers with those combinations of playmaking attributes with no issue.

2. I don't know anything about coding, so excuse my ignorance, but how is it not possible to simply set up whatever code generates newgens to give natural FBs/WBs a higher CA/PA range, if coding them to prioritize crossing/dribbling would drain too much CA/PA in other areas of their attribute spread? This seems like a decent temporary workaround patch.

3. Why has SI not invested in a temporary workaround by somehow boosting AI's tendency to train FBs/WBs in this area and attempt to boost young players crossing/dribbling after they've been generated?

Edited January 25 by Weston

On 08/12/2023 at 10:28, LeoFM said:

these numbers are from the latest 24.2 patch as well:

Of 660 natural fullbacks aged 16 or under in 2023:
359 have 10+ crossing
49 have 10+ dribbling
31 have 10+ crossing and dribbling

*for some reason, 423 out of the 1083 fullbacks at the start of the game were newgens, and only one of those newgens had 10+ crossing and dribbling

Of 973 natural fullbacks aged 16 or under in 2030:
140 have 10+ crossing
27 have 10+ dribbling
8 have 10+ crossing and dribbling

I should also add that in 2030, there were 18 newgen fullbacks aged 16 or under with a CA of 90+. In 2023, there was only one.

Thanks for doing this research, it really lays the problem bare.

It's even worse than it seems at first glance, considering the increase in FBs overall - 8 is obviously much lower than 31, but in 2023 that's 4.7% of the total, whereas in 2023 that's just 0.8%! That's a really shocking decrease in serviceable FBs that needs more substantial addressing.

One of the other issues with FM that's bothered me for years is how young players are unrealistically so much stronger in the later game than the start of the game, as SI has clearly boosted newgens a bit beyond realism to make the game seem fun and exciting for folks who buy it solely to hunt for wonderkids.

The fact that there are 18x more high-CA players in one position over 7 years is a problem. The fact that there are about 1/4 as many FBs with the correct attribute spread *despite that* overall increase in ability is really especially concerning...

@Kyle Brown can you comment on the above?