Transfer update doesn't make sense

[milnerpoint]

No its not, because Mourinhio didnt know those events were going to take place, so in reality your not dealing with the real life situation at all, your dealing with another fake situation in the game. Mourinhio didnt know in January he would be selling Mata and signing Matic, having that advantage negates the challenge of dealing with those situations. The truth is, your argument only works from one side.

[DamianJMcGrath]

I understand the counter argument of "well, in July, that future transfer hadnt been agreed" but the January update would contain facts that happen 6 months later than the game start date so some hindsight can be applied to keep the game as accurate as possible for that first season.

The slight unrealism of knowing about the January transfer in July is offset by the bigger realism of the January transfer actually happening in January.

[milnerpoint]

So would you also have them programme managers to be sacked at the same times as they were in real life? Would you have long term injuries programmed to happen on the days they happened in real life? All of these things add to the "challenge" of being in the real life managers shoes. There is no point focusing on getting one part 100% correct if you ignore the rest of the reality of the first 6 months of the season.

When you press continue for the first time, the game stops having anything to do with what has happened in real life, and takes its own reality on.

[Lawlore]

And, since we're using Mata as the example, what if you're (say) Real Madrid, and you decide in August game time that you want him? You can't have him- he's going to United.

Bear in mind we're not talking about one player here- all that this discussion would be replaced with is "I can't sign X because it's already hardcoded he's moving to Y in January! Even though I can offer 50 times his fee and wages! The transfer wasn't already agreed in real life, it's unrealistic and not fair!"

[DamianJMcGrath]

I guess my point comes down to which is the biggest unrealistic thing.

In real life, in July 2013 the transfer of Mata to United wasn't agreed or known about. It was totally a transfer done in January 2014. Now when you start a game, it starts in July 2013. From a reality point of view, what is better - to have Mata as part of your squad already or to have him down as a future transfer for January? The future transfer thing, to me, is the least unrealistic.

In regards to the manager changes, why not? As long as its not the human controlled team obviously, why not have managers moving clubs in line with reality for those 6 months? What problems would that cause? I can't think of any.

[DamianJMcGrath]

And, since we're using Mata as the example, what if you're (say) Real Madrid, and you decide in August game time that you want him? You can't have him- he's going to United.

Bear in mind we're not talking about one player here- all that this discussion would be replaced with is "I can't sign X because it's already hardcoded he's moving to Y in January! Even though I can offer 50 times his fee and wages! The transfer wasn't already agreed in real life, it's unrealistic and not fair!"

If this change we're talking about gets implemented, then there would be a transfer ban for the first season, so only known transfers in January happen. After January, the user can sign their own players. This is all about keeping it realistic for those 6 months and extending the "no transfer budget for first window" to two windows.

That stops those problems.

[milnerpoint]

If you want the most realistic situation, start on the original database and play from there, whatever happened in January is meaningless as it has nothing to do with the game you started, you wont experience that January, you will experience your own January. If you really really really need the January transfers then accept that to have them, you have them at the start of the game.

[milnerpoint]

If this change we're talking about gets implemented, then there would be a transfer ban for the first season, so only known transfers in January happen. After January, the user can sign their own players. This is all about keeping it realistic for those 6 months and extending the "no transfer budget for first window" to two windows.

That stops those problems.

Why would it be more realistic to ban any transfers for the first season? There is no transfer ban in reality, so why have it in the game?

[Sikker]

In Fm13 (that starts at July 2012) Lorente was set up to join Juventus after his contract had run out at July 13. I reckon the same holds for Lewandowski going to Bayern.

Is there any difference in knowing a player will join your club a year from now or ½ a year from now? Is one more realistic than the other?

[Lawlore]

If this change we're talking about gets implemented, then there would be a transfer ban for the first season, so only known transfers in January happen. After January, the user can sign their own players. This is all about keeping it realistic for those 6 months and extending the "no transfer budget for first window" to two windows.

That stops those problems.

Point taken. But that then brings the question of how far you can go into realism- where do you stop? What if Martin Jol has Fulham top when he's due to get sacked?

Say van Persie, Welbeck and Rooney get badly injured through the first part of the season- in January you are going to need a striker but not be able to sign one. Or maybe your GK throws a media hissy fit and wants to leave, but you can do nothing about that because it didn't happen in real life. Forcing a "reality" mode is all well and good, but after you press Continue once, the game has nothing to do with what happens in reality.

[DamianJMcGrath]

Why would it be more realistic to ban any transfers for the first season? There is no transfer ban in reality, so why have it in the game?

Its only a ban until January. And its actually very realistic. By January in real life, the events of July to January are known so the game world is changed slightly (through the use of future transfers and transfer bans) to keep those 6 in game months tied to reality as closely as possible.

[milnerpoint]

In order for the game to remain "realistic" you have to code it to exactly follow the first 6 months of a season, so essentially, your job would be to only press continue until January kicked in, that sounds like no fun, and completely impossible to code.

Again, after you press continue the games stops following what has happened in real life and becomes its own reality.

[milnerpoint]

Its only a ban until January. And its actually very realistic. By January in real life, the events of July to January are known so the game world is changed slightly (through the use of future transfers and transfer bans) to keep those 6 in game months tied to reality as closely as possible.

So, say im Man Utd, in August all 3 of my keepers break their legs and i have no keepers at all, and no way of signing any, is that then realistic? Would Man Utd just not play with a keeper for 7 months in real life? What if i take over a club in league 2 in october and have a serious injury crisis, is it realistic they would make no effort at all to bring in loans and free transfers?

[Dagenham_Dave]

If this change we're talking about gets implemented, then there would be a transfer ban for the first season, so only known transfers in January happen. After January, the user can sign their own players. This is all about keeping it realistic for those 6 months and extending the "no transfer budget for first window" to two windows.

That stops those problems.

But here's the thing. You want the 'cards' replicated exactly how they are for David Moyes. You could argue that the transfer of Mata was only done because of United's poor league form during the first half of the season. Would Moyes have spent 35 million on one player in January had United been five points clear at the top of the league? Debateable at best. There's every chance that a human manager of United in the game would have them well clear at the top. Would you as a manager be therefore happy that 35mill was being spent in January on a player you effectively don't need?

[DamianJMcGrath]

So, say im Man Utd, in August all 3 of my keepers break their legs and i have no keepers at all, and no way of signing any, is that then realistic? Would Man Utd just not play with a keeper for 7 months in real life? What if i take over a club in league 2 in october and have a serious injury crisis, is it realistic they would make no effort at all to bring in loans and free transfers?

What would have happened in real life between the transfer windows for Man United if they had an injury crisis? If the answer is tough, then there's your answer. If the answer is "emergency loans", then that function could remain available to FM players.

But here's the thing. You want the 'cards' replicated exactly how they are for David Moyes. You could argue that the transfer of Mata was only done because of United's poor league form during the first half of the season. Would Moyes have spent 35 million on one player in January had United been five points clear at the top of the league? Debateable at best. There's every chance that a human manager of United in the game would have them well clear at the top. Would you as a manager be therefore happy that 35mill was being spent in January on a player you effectively don't need?

That's a fair point, but it's the same for any future transfer built into FM when you start the game. As people have said, there are often future transfers already set up, and you have no control over them. This would just be another one. Before I take over as United boss in-game, I'd have evaluated the squad, finances and any future activity so I'd be fully up to speed on what was going to happen.

Regardless of anyone's opinion on this, having Mata in the United squad from July 2013 cannot be deemed realistic at all.

[Cougar2010]

Regardless of anyone's opinion on this, having Mata in the United squad from July 2013 cannot be deemed realistic at all.

Its as realistic as any of the options available though.

The problem is SI are trying to make the best of a situation that is of no-ones creation. Whilst its not perfect it gives the user a choice - SI have provided two databases one which is true to life as of 1st September and one which is accurate as of 31st January. As the user you choose which database you wish to use and you choose when and who you want to manage.

Its about as good as you can expect it to be unless someone can come up with an amazing idea to improve it.

[DamianJMcGrath]

Perhaps a viable idea would be to give the user an option to use the January 31st database, and have the game start date as 1st February, with the league table as accurate as possible up to that date? That was brought up earlier in this thread and could do with some discussion around the problems that causes as well.

[Cougar2010]

Perhaps a viable idea would be to give the user an option to use the January 31st database, and have the game start date as 1st February, with the league table as accurate as possible up to that date? That was brought up earlier in this thread and could do with some discussion around the problems that causes as well.

The first part is already provided. You can either load a country that has a start date of January or February or you can choose to holiday through from July.

You won't get the league table as accurate as possible as copyright rules simply don't allow it, the best you can get is what is available now which is FM calculating the results through from July to January either by picking a later start date or by using the holiday function.

[a.panda]

Perhaps a viable idea would be to give the user an option to use the January 31st database, and have the game start date as 1st February, with the league table as accurate as possible up to that date? That was brought up earlier in this thread and could do with some discussion around the problems that causes as well.

How accurate do you want it to be? Let's not talk about licensing issues.

1. Do you want a total replicate of what happened after midnight 31 Jan 2014? I guess you want the up-to-date squad with the up-to-date league table, then you would want the exact number of yellow and red cards - so the press can ask about the dirtiness of your player(s); the number of hours your striker haven't scored - thus the subsequent pressure to perform on the next (aka your first) match; The exact minutes of goals in all the matches played - thus the press can ask you about team losing last-minute goals frequently; the tactical familiarity - so you would have no chance to explore new tactics before the next league game as they are bound to play a certain tactic. I guess you want all these to make the game as accurate as possible?

2. How could SI do this to include all the stat... in the world? You can't only selfishly request this for English Premier League. The work has to be done to the FA Cup, the League Cup, Championship, League 1/2, Conference, the U21, U18, the Italian leagues, Spanish, Peruvian, Chinese, Indian, Australian etc. I think the work done by researcher worldwide for attributes and transfer was done brilliantly, but do you expect them to update the scores (and all the stat in point 1 potentially) for the sake of accurateness on a weekly basis?

[DamianJMcGrath]

You don't have to go to that detail. Historical data to that degree isn't ever used prior to the game start date. For example, you never get asked about how dirty your player is based on yellow cards last year, before the game start date.

If the game started in January, it could just have the results and maybe scorers, so the starting position is accurate, and the challenge is there to get United into 4th from where they currently are. No need to have too much detail. The detail can start from the game start date like it does now.

[milnerpoint]

So the results of every single game played in the world of football for the active leagues in FM would have to be put in including youth leagues. Then you would have to make sure you had the scorers of every single goal correct, for every game in every active league in FM. Thats before looking at any transfers.

Five minute job eh.

[DamianJMcGrath]

I doubt the user would care about all of those leagues. It would be relatively simple for SI to simulate the results like they do now but also allow the user to upload via a text file or amend via the editor a set of results for as many leagues as they care about, so the user can control how accurate they'd like things to be.

[StretfordEnd]

And, since we're using Mata as the example, what if you're (say) Real Madrid, and you decide in August game time that you want him? You can't have him- he's going to United.

Bear in mind we're not talking about one player here- all that this discussion would be replaced with is "I can't sign X because it's already hardcoded he's moving to Y in January! Even though I can offer 50 times his fee and wages! The transfer wasn't already agreed in real life, it's unrealistic and not fair!"

And what the difference in that and starting a game with this January update at Man Utd and Vidic is already set to leave on a free at the end of the season and you have no option but to let him go because you can't interact with him to change his mind or offer him a contract. He didnt confirm he was leaving until January so your saying that shouldnt be included either? What about the players choosing Dortmund and knowing Lewandowski is already going to Bayern?

So its ok to set future transfers for players that have announced they want to leave, and theres nothing you can do about it, but we cant have future transfers for players joining in January?

[a.panda]

I doubt the user would care about all of those leagues

I'm afraid you underestimate the number of people playing in e.g. Finnish or Chinese leagues. Of course, if you are talking about youth leagues, I have no comment.

It would be relatively simple for SI to simulate the results like they do now but also allow the user to upload via a text file or amend via the editor a set of results for as many leagues as they care about, so the user can control how accurate they'd like things to be.

I can't say it's a bad idea. You could have suggested this in first place. Using this function you can resemble the league anytime you like, so if you want to start a game "real time" in November you can do so and your club is sitting where it is IRL. A perfect tool for perfectionist (which, in the game, is a generally good personality!)

[milnerpoint]

Yeah but all of that is ignoring the fact the results, and the league standings are licensed and cannot be replicated in anyway, unless you pay a lot of money. You then need to license the league standings for ALL active leagues in the game, including youth leagues, before you know it, your paying more than the game price for an update.

If you want SI to simulate the first 6 months, whats stopping you from doing it? SI's simulation wont be any closer to real life than yours would be. So you can start with the updated database and take over any club in January 31st, problem solved no?

[DamianJMcGrath]

It doesn't need to be absolutely perfect in terms of yellows and reds and assists, but the basis of results, and scorers would do. With a game start date of January, it gets around the pesky "Mata playing for United in July" problem.

No work for SI apart from allowing results to be user defined for user specified leagues for that 6 month period (or less). That seems doable for SI as a one off exercise.

Everyone's happy and everyone has a choice.

[DamianJMcGrath]

Yeah but all of that is ignoring the fact the results, and the league standings are licensed and cannot be replicated in anyway, unless you pay a lot of money. You then need to license the league standings for ALL active leagues in the game, including youth leagues, before you know it, your paying more than the game price for an update.

If you want SI to simulate the first 6 months, whats stopping you from doing it? SI's simulation wont be any closer to real life than yours would be. So you can start with the updated database and take over any club in January 31st, problem solved no?

If the results and league standings are user input, there's no licence implications.

[Lawlore]

And what the difference in that and starting a game with this January update at Man Utd and Vidic is already set to leave on a free at the end of the season and you have no option but to let him go because you can't interact with him to change his mind or offer him a contract. He didnt confirm he was leaving until January so your saying that shouldnt be included either? What about the players choosing Dortmund and knowing Lewandowski is already going to Bayern?

So its ok to set future transfers for players that have announced they want to leave, and theres nothing you can do about it, but we cant have future transfers for players joining in January?

I'm not sure of the point you're making, or how it relates to the point I'm making. I reiterate that my position is that the January update is more trouble than it's worth, and that it'd be better off not existing. But that's me.

My point was referring to setting players such as Mata to have future transfers- if you do that, then it is unrealistic, because that knowledge was not there at the start of the season. We did not know that Mata was going to Manchester United in January, so in-game, another club could quite happily come in and bid for him. And if the human player is manager of that other club- I said Real, but really, it could be anyone- it's going to be frustrating to not be able to bid on them before they move, when in reality they could well have done so.

In fact, I think you're agreeing with me. To take Vidic- as you say, it was not known that he was planning to run out his contract this season until January. As such, if you are the United manager in game, having him set to run it out from the start of the season- and I don't know what the actual situation is with the update- is not realistic, in the same way that having Mata at the club from the start of the season is not realistic.

The thing is, the best SI can do is to try and make the managers and players in-game behave realistically. That is different from representing what has actually happened in the real world. From the moment the first Continue button is pressed, it sets off what is essentially a new timeline, totally unrelated to goings on in the real world. To come to the earlier question of "Why not have realistic sackings?", which went a bit unanswered- what if Martin Jol's Fulham are top by the end of November in-game, when he's due to be sacked? Football is not simple, and it depends very much on "what ifs?". Every kick of the ball changes the match dynamic. Every change of a match dynamic can affect the score. Every score affects the table, and how a manager, players and club respond. And credit to them, SI do a pretty good job of making the AI act realistically- it's not perfect, far from it, especially in relation to transfers, but it's (for the most part) believable, and it's streets ahead of any other football simulator. It isn't trying to recreate exactly what happens in the real world- and this is where a transfer update falters. It is trying to create something which is conceivable in the real world- but by January, that creation may look nothing like what actually happened.

[milnerpoint]

Yeah the easiest solution to SI is to just remove the January update, its probably more trouble to them than its worth, its really only done because we as the fans asked for it. They could quite easily not do any data updates during the games release, thankfully they give us a choice.

Personally speaking, i never use the data updates, i dislike players being moved from the start of the season and i dislike transfers being set up that didnt exist when the game started, and quite frankly i could not care less about January transfers when it comes to FM, they make no difference at all to the game imo, because my save games have nothing to do with MOtD.

[StretfordEnd]

In fact, I think you're agreeing with me. To take Vidic- as you say, it was not known that he was planning to run out his contract this season until January. As such, if you are the United manager in game, having him set to run it out from the start of the season- and I don't know what the actual situation is with the update- is not realistic, in the same way that having Mata at the club from the start of the season is not realistic.

That is my point. When you start a game now with the Jan Update, Vidic is set to leave on a free even though he didnt confirm this until January. Inter isnt confirmed as his club as that missed data lock but his free transfer is set. So why can they set a future transfer for Vidic leaving, (if Inter would have been confirmed in time he would have been set to go there, like Lewandowski is set for Bayern) but they can't set future transfers for other players?

So no, im not agreeing with you, I was providing a counter argument. You can't have it both ways. They either can or can't include future transfers. People argue that if you take over Chelsea, you might want to keep Mata so its unfair that he is set to leave. Its also unfair that when I take over Man Utd, I'm losing Vidic on a free and have no control over it.

[Lawlore]

Which is what I said- for a game starting at the beginning of the season, Vidic should not be set to run out his contract, and Mata should not be at the club or even set to join the club in January. I'm not trying to have it both ways- I'm saying quite openly that neither of those situations should exist. They are one and the same.

My argument here was against the idea that these should be set as future transfers, which wouldn't take into account anything that happens in-game between August and January, when the game itself has diverged wildly from real life.

In an ideal world, the January update would start a game at the end of the transfer window, so that squads are both accurate and the game is at the right time. But SI cannot reproduce the existing tables at that point due to licensing issues- they could well simulate it, but again, that then creates a disconnect between what's happened in the game and what happened in the real window. And you can do that yourself by including a league which starts in January, and starting the game at that league's beginning. So what exists is, presumably, the next-best thing, the option to start a season with the squads as they are in January, which is weird but looks to be as good as it can get.

[forameuss]

If the results and league standings are user input, there's no licence implications.

They're not allowed to use the real fixtures in the Premier League for...you guessed it, licensing reasons. So how are you supposed to get the correct standings and results if you're first not allowed to use the real fixtures? So yes, there are licence implications.

[Lawlore]

They're not allowed to use the real fixtures in the Premier League for...you guessed it, licensing reasons. So how are you supposed to get the correct standings and results if you're first not allowed to use the real fixtures? So yes, there are licence implications.

To build on this, the list of licenses they do have, including the divisions with fixtures, is available here:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/363140-FM14-licensing-details

[StretfordEnd]

Which is what I said- for a game starting at the beginning of the season, Vidic should not be set to run out his contract, and Mata should not be at the club or even set to join the club in January. I'm not trying to have it both ways- I'm saying quite openly that neither of those situations should exist. They are one and the same.

My argument here was against the idea that these should be set as future transfers, which wouldn't take into account anything that happens in-game between August and January, when the game itself has diverged wildly from real life.

In an ideal world, the January update would start a game at the end of the transfer window, so that squads are both accurate and the game is at the right time. But SI cannot reproduce the existing tables at that point due to licensing issues- they could well simulate it, but again, that then creates a disconnect between what's happened in the game and what happened in the real window. And you can do that yourself by including a league which starts in January, and starting the game at that league's beginning. So what exists is, presumably, the next-best thing, the option to start a season with the squads as they are in January, which is weird but looks to be as good as it can get.

If you don't want Vidic leaving, or Mata already at United or even set to join in January then you use the original database. Thats pretty obvious.

But what about the people that want the updated attributes that the update offers? All the attribute changes in Jan do is set the players to how they should have been originally rated at the start of the game. The attribut changes just ammends mistakes if you will from the original data.

So is the only option for SI to make an update in January that contains attribute updates only and leave the transfers alone?

The thing it still comes down to though is if SI simply added and option to not have a transfer budget in the January window aswell, that would allow the community to make future transfer updates for the people that want it and play a first season with the transfers as is.

[StretfordEnd]

They're not allowed to use the real fixtures in the Premier League for...you guessed it, licensing reasons. So how are you supposed to get the correct standings and results if you're first not allowed to use the real fixtures? So yes, there are licence implications.

SI arent allowed to use real fixtures for licensing reasons. But they could make it easier for a user to add a edt file containing the real fixtures (which is already possible). You can also include results of the games incase you start in January for example. So the league standings are real for that point in time.

SI cant use player pictures and logo's for licensing reasons but they dont exactly make it hard for us users to mod the game. Same for the German teams and so on. Plenty of workrounds available if they put the effort in.

[Kriss]

So is the only option for SI to make an update in January that contains attribute updates only and leave the transfers alone?

I'd say yes, I never use the new DB anyway as I'm a long way into my career save by the time it arrives so a corrected DB which is compatible with my save would be my choice.

[Ackter]

I'd say yes, I never use the new DB anyway as I'm a long way into my career save by the time it arrives so a corrected DB which is compatible with my save would be my choice.

Save-compatible updates like that will never be a possibility.

[Cougar2010]

I'd say yes, I never use the new DB anyway as I'm a long way into my career save by the time it arrives so a corrected DB which is compatible with my save would be my choice.

You've lost me there Kriss :confused:

If you aren't starting a new save it wouldn't make any difference if they included attributes changes & transfers or just attribute changes.

[Lawlore]

But what about the people that want the updated attributes that the update offers? All the attribute changes in Jan do is set the players to how they should have been originally rated at the start of the game. The attribut changes just ammends mistakes if you will from the original data.

So is the only option for SI to make an update in January that contains attribute updates only and leave the transfers alone?

The thing it still comes down to though is if SI simply added and option to not have a transfer budget in the January window aswell, that would allow the community to make future transfer updates for the people that want it and play a first season with the transfers as is.

I'm not sure I'd use the term "mistakes". The attributes were considered appropriate for when they were locked at the start of the season. Particularly for the English leagues, my understanding is that they're not just one person's opinion- they are scrutinised, debated and discussed on a dedicated forum and have to be approved by a Head Researcher before making the game.

But I take your point about the option of stopping the transfer window for the whole of the first season to allow the community to create the update ourselves- I see no real argument with that. I admit I still don't see the personal attraction of it, because the fact remains that the game itself will still have diverged wildly from real life by January (see: "Fulham could be top" example), rendering the January transfers irrelevant to the situation that exists in-game, but if there's demand for that, I don't see any reason for SI to not include that as an option. It seems a weird way to play, to me, but that makes it no less valid.

Edit: Also, 1,500th post. Yay.

[IMT]

Then don't, but give us that would the chance

But hardly anyone with any sense would, you need to accept that what you are asking for simply isn't going to happen.

[Kriss]

Save-compatible updates like that will never be a possibility.

I'm just talking about attribute amendments nothing else, which should be easily possible.

That should answer Cougar2010 as well, I wouldn't need to start anew if the only thing changing was player attribute values, that should be over writable.

[Cougar2010]

I'm just talking about attribute amendments nothing else, which should be easily possible.

That should answer Cougar2010 as well, I wouldn't need to start anew if the only thing changing was player attribute values, that should be over writable.

Within your save?

That would never be viable, what would happen if you had a 36yo Rooney for instance whose attributes had all dropped to the point where he was a say 1.5/2* player for Man Utd, would he immediately be transformed into a world class forward again?

It would also make training a waste of time if suddenly all the attributes were updated through a patch.

[Kriss]

Wish I hadn't spoken I was referring to the (usually few) genuinely required attribute updates that the data update corrects, i.e. those which were unintentionally aberrant in the first release.

If you're still lost ask somebody who gives a toss my save is so far down the line by March that none of this really refers to me.

[Ackter]

And you still haven't been promoted.

[Kriss]

Nah, but I've only been sacked twice

[StretfordEnd]

The last 3 comments have just made my night. That's excellent. It might be slightly funnier than normal in my state but never the less well played.

[StretfordEnd]

c

I'm not sure I'd use the term "mistakes". The attributes were considered appropriate for when they were locked at the start of the season. Particularly for the English leagues, my understanding is that they're not just one person's opinion- they are scrutinised, debated and discussed on a dedicated forum and have to be approved by a Head Researcher before making the game.

But I take your point about the option of stopping the transfer window for the whole of the first season to allow the community to create the update ourselves- I see no real argument with that. I admit I still don't see the personal attraction of it, because the fact remains that the game itself will still have diverged wildly from real life by January (see: "Fulham could be top" example), rendering the January transfers irrelevant to the situation that exists in-game, but if there's demand for that, I don't see any reason for SI to not include that as an option. It seems a weird way to play, to me, but that makes it no less valid.

Edit: Also, 1,500th post. Yay.

Congratulations on your 1,500th post. If I carry on arguing like I have done the last few days I won't be far behind you lol. My point about the attributes is a bit long winded to explain as i say it in my head but i'll try.

When the game starts, players are rated on the previous season. When the game comes out, the players play from August to the end of Jan and then get rated accordingly. So lets say in the situation of Sturridge, that was already rated OK from the original database, but he's performed above the original rating, its only fair that he's given his amended rating from the start of the season because he was under-rated in the first place (hindsight is wonderful and I apologise to the researchers but it really is the point). The January update is taken primarily from performance from August to January. If the researchers for every club had every player rated correctly to their ability from August to begin with, there would be no need for an attribute update, but obviously players are over/under rated so adjustments need to be made.

There has been a big discussion on the Januzaj v Sterling issue in the Liverpool thread. While im not going to raise that again here, that was my point when mentioning "mistakes" in my above post. Not just for those players but for practically every player in the database. Most were over/underrated from the start and had to be adjusted accordingly. Again hindsight is a marvelous thing, but we do have the opportunity to put it right with the update.

If Si could extent the first window transfer embargo to two windows though that would be a big help. Especially when making future transfer databases. Even if they didnt make a future transfer database, it would still stand to reason that they would include a full season embargo anyway.

When you but FM14, you start in June/July 2013, with the squad already as is from the transfer window. Thats fair enough. When starting a game you have the option to not include a transfer budget in the first window. Because for many years, user wanting a more realistic experience have argues that if a team has already done their transfer business when starting anew game, why should you have a budget to buy more players? They wanted realism. So SI implemented an option to cancel the transfer budget for the first window. This allows the user to have all teams with correct squads for the first 6 months in game. Excellent. Once the Jan update comes along it all goes to pot. You then have a transfer budget to buy whoever you want (whats left of it). Why? If the summer transfers are included, and you have the option to stop transfer budgets because IRL all deals were done so you cant do any more, why not do it for January? If SI must insist on putting players at clubs from the start ( I understand whY because of resources) then they must also adopt the same principles as the first window. If the club has bought their players and spent their budget, you have nothing left. Its exactly the same as starting a season with the deals done and having no money because deals r done. In January deals are done so transfer budget should be stopped again in terms of realism for people that want it.

[santy001]

You're making the mistake of confusing your opinions as facts in your post there Stretford, but come January a lot of clubs re-evaluate their position. Cardiff are a fine example of this, and in other cases sides like Stoke didn't get all the business they wanted done in the summer, so come January there was money to spend and still even come the end of January - the club didn't get all the business they wanted done - implying were you able to go back and try again there would still be funds available.

We can't ever be certain because of the fact we aren't involved in the upper echelons of clubs, but we look at the evidence of what happened, what nearly happened and what didn't happen before deciding things like transfer budgets. FM adds a number of features that are more for player preference than actually based on the research or emulation of the real football world.

False names, hidden attributes, the mutual termination of backroom staff, the first window transfer budget, just a few of the things that are for player preference rather than directly about emulating the realism of the world of football.

[Lawlore]

I think I take the basic point you're making, SE- you're saying that if the update is putting January transfers at their new clubs at the start of the season, your option means human managers would not be able to add further transfers come the January window, because the game already includes the real-life done deals. Again, I have no real quarrel with that as an option if people want- I can kinda see the logic, especially if you did couple it with a future transfer DB. It still strikes me as weird, as it puts the human manager in a rather passive position, unable to respond to what actually happens in your game, but I do see what you're saying.

As for attributes, they're accurate at the start of season based on previous knowledge. Any adjustments in January- and again, I don't know if there have been significant changes- could not have been predicted. In the same way that Sturridge could have had a shocker of a second half of the season, since the close of the window and January data lock. We don't know. The research team have their rules and guidelines for assessing and adjusting players, and especially in the PL, generally they're reasonably on the money. There is no "correct" set of attributes for any one player, as any discussion of ability will ultimately come down to opinion- their job is to make that opinion informed but unbiased. But we're moving off-topic.

[ANDEHLSON]

Tbh what I would like would be to have the option (option, not to remove the "normal" db) to have even the Summer (2013) transfers undone.

Don't really like having to put up with the decisions made by the other manager when you're joining the team right at the beginning of the season. Especially when they are completely useless and you can't possibly get rid of them until 6 or even 12 months have passed and you have little to no money in some cases. Which gets even worse with the January ones. Ugh...

Would love to have the June db option... But I'm probably alone in this.