Football Manager 2024 Official Feedback Thread

[Slink Shady]

Why Crashes are such a pain.

I had the game crash during a match when I clicked through to see a players attributes at half time.

This meant I lost a 5-1 win over an important rival, and was winning 2-1 in the match that crashed. Restarting from the last saved game is really not enough for many reasons. I, like many people, use the auto weekly save. This means you can lose as much as 6 days of game play. This takes time to replay.

1) when I replayed the 5-1 win game which had gone due to the crash my star player got injured. Not fair I should lose my star player early in the match because of the crash as he didn't get injured in the original game play, and it ended 1-1. So had to restart again. More of my time wasted.

2) when I again replayed the game I won 3-0. Fine. Problem is my star player again got injured and this time long term ligament damage! So lost him during the game again and for the remaining 9 games! This time I used the in game editor to remove his injury. Difference is my striker (not the star player who plays AMC) got a hat trick in the original game which would be a tremendous confidence boost for the player. He didn't score in the 3-0 and in fact only got 6.8! He got 10.0 in the original game. What about the confidence of the team I played. A 3-0 loss would affect them, but not as much as a 5-1 loss, right?

3) other teams in the league also also get replayed which changes the complexion of the table. In this case my main rival, who I am fighting with to win the league against, won when they lost in the original game play so instead of me having a 4 point lead I now only have a 1 point lead. What if they win the league by less than a 4 point margin? What then? Am I supposed to keep restarting from the save until I get my win and their loss? How can I now trust the game engine to "do the right thing"?

4) is it just coincidence my star player got injured in both restarts and they got progressively worse? I get people can cheat at this game and can replay games until they get the result they desire but I don't do that. I suffer the draws that I felt I should've won and the losses that inevitably happen. It seems to me the game knows when you've replayed a match. Confirm or deny, please?

Something needs to done about this because restarting from the last save is simply not good enough. Not only do you have to replay the games which takes time but it changes everything else as well which can have wide impacts across many leagues. What if it's the last game of the season and you need to win to collect the title, and your nearest rival must draw or worse too? You win your match your nearest rival draws or loses. The game crashes. You replay from the last save. You win, but this time your nearest rival wins and you finish second in the table? Or to avoid relegation? Or get into the playoffs? How many times do you have to replay from the save in order to get back what you had already achieved?

You may say "well save after every match in that case". Sure, fine. So what happens now if players get injured during training when they didn't previously, or vice versa? Do I have to restart then too?

Part of the charm of this game is dealing with the issues you are presented with. Having to restart a game destroys that charm and also puts you in a position of feeling cheated because the game engine won't give you the results that happened from the original game play. It's only a game, but it's a game that takes a lot of time.

Maybe you need to create a crash cache that triggers when you click on "continue", so if a crash happens you can at least restart from there instead of the last save and have to replay games you already played and deal with things you already dealt with. The game knows when it crashed as it brought up a dialogue box in game to report the issue before it closed down.

I've played FM since it's earliest days way back in the early 2000s when you only had dialogue to watch. I love this game and how it has evoled over the years, and I am really really impressed with this version. Sure there are some niggly little bugs here and there but on the whole the game is amazing and I really appreciate the time and effot put in developing and testing this game to get a new one out every year, but this issue really needs to be addressed as it can change so many variables in the game on the replay.

I reported this crash to Sega/SI on a support ticket as well as through the in game crash option. I was advised to clear the cache and preferences just in case these were the cause. I have done this. Game is running fine again apart from the issues raised above?

So, SI, what is your response to these points? Can you create a "crash cache" to help guard against these things? It wouldn't need to save the entire game. Maybe just the league you are playing in and the results/player issues for that league alone since the last save?

Thankfully this is the first crash that has happened. The game is remarkably stable considering the amount of content it crunches.

Happy game play everyone! And COYS (not the team I am manager of).

[Jonthedon26]

1 hour ago, tezcatlipoca665 said:

Just so you know (and so you aren't needlessly waiting): it's been confirmed in a bug report thread that the development team are happy with how the AI transfer and squad building logic is working, so it's not something that's going to be fixed in any upcoming patches. There's not really anything that can be done.

That's great, thanks for the update! In fairness I am still playing my save from the beta so that transfer logic may have been pre-patch so maybe it will work better going forwards. 

[Sunstrikuuu]

  

3 hours ago, RDF Tactics said:

But for me, it's more about what the attributes really mean and what effect they have on the ME. It's never black and white. You can have a James Milner and though he can't play as a Striker at all, if you do decide to play him there then yeah, he should play somewhat Okay as a Striker given he has really high versatility, professionalism, teamwork and determination. It makes sense to why you can play someone like James Milner up front. He has many hidden attributes that complement the move. H

And, frankly, from a purely gameist perspective, I'd like to know how to prioritize my signings.  First Touch uses CA.  If it doesn't actually do anything in the ME, I'd rather not pay for it (I'm not suggesting it doesn't, it's just an example).  

2 hours ago, Jonthedon26 said:

There have been certain bugs/issues in the game for years and years that haven't been addressed still. 

[nods while receiving thirteen identical non-negotiable transfer offers, none of which are for asking price]

2 hours ago, MrPompey said:

What I dont understand here Jimmy is that SI fix focus is being given to unlikely human initiated action playing a striker up front (as an ME Test) yet basic issues such as issues for marking at free kicks is being ignored even though they are raised in the correct thread e.g. bug section and not here

Like not to be a jerk about it and I know there are holidays and stuff, but there were fewer than ten developer posts in the Match Engine section of the bug tracker in December.  Might have been five.  It kind of feels -- and it shouldn't and etc and so on -- like the best way to get someone to actually look at an issue is to raise a big stink about it here, which isn't how it should go.  

[Zachary Whyte]

58 minutes ago, Slink Shady said:

I reported this crash to Sega/SI on a support ticket as well as through the in game crash option. I was advised to clear the cache and preferences just in case these were the cause. 

Hi, if your game is still crashing can you please make a new support ticket, providing your save game and some crash dumps for us to examine, thank you.

[MrPompey]

55 minutes ago, Sunstrikuuu said:

  

And, frankly, from a purely gameist perspective, I'd like to know how to prioritize my signings.  First Touch uses CA.  If it doesn't actually do anything in the ME, I'd rather not pay for it (I'm not suggesting it doesn't, it's just an example).  

[nods while receiving thirteen identical non-negotiable transfer offers, none of which are for asking price]

Like not to be a jerk about it and I know there are holidays and stuff, but there were fewer than ten developer posts in the Match Engine section of the bug tracker in December.  Might have been five.  It kind of feels -- and it shouldn't and etc and so on -- like the best way to get someone to actually look at an issue is to raise a big stink about it here, which isn't how it should go.  

I have to agree, bug feedback this year seems very poor and its not been good in the past. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to identify aside from Jan window updates and any key issues that little fixing will happen now with focus on FM25

[andu1]

Some of the things i dont like about the current ME. Not saying its bad, just that when you play a number of game , the pattern starts to form

The play through the middle is underwhelming with strikers that either get caught too much in offside or the ball is passed too late to them.

The number of corners tend to sky rocket if you play an attacking formation with AI defenders making silly clearences In corner or misplaced first touches that give a corner. Cant even remeber how many times i saw that.

Set piece defending is too passive especially at throwins near the box with defenders just running along attackers or just standing still while the opposition gets into the area or takes a long shot. Too many goals and highlights begin with a throw in.

At corners defenders often just dont head the ball away too much, they head it just 5-10 meters for an opposition player to pick it up. Its like the ball hits them in the head or something.

AI 4-4-2 is laughable. If an Ai team uses that formation I know im winning the match. They just cant defend in 442...

Also it seems the latest update has nerfed 3 at the back systems too much. Teams that play 5 3 2 just get battered by 4231 or 433.

Also AI Managers are way too reliant on 4231, its 4231 manager...

 

[Sunstrikuuu]

7 hours ago, RDF Tactics said:

But again, annoying things from previous FMs are still very present when you are playing a match in Football Manager. I'm speaking from personal experience. I hit the woodwork an insane amount per season, and having games where I'm hitting it 5/6/7 times. Why it happens, I don't know but it really shouldn't be. I have many clips from Twitch where I've predicted the outcome of a highlight (us hitting the woodwork) purely because it's happened too often.

...

3) Sort of touched on it in the last sentence of point 2. Many of my saves feels like the same experience. Woodwork, woodwork, dominate games AI score with only shot on target, players moan about same thing etc. I've managed many different teams so that means many different people and personalities but it very much feels like a similar experience. The same training complaints "not enough strength or quickness training" and more or less the same in-game advice despite different tactic and different staff. I've had different DOFs with different attributes recommend basically the same players.

I'm really, really starting to feel this.  A lot of stuff feels predictable as it's happening.  Hit the woodwork on an open goal?  Get ready, because it's going to lead to a super dangerous counterattack.  "Not enough physical training" -- jaysus, shoot me, spare me further complaints about this.  I've got ten players who've been complaining about it for eighteen months without a break.  Sell half of 'em and a new group comes in to pick up the slack.  

The place where this bothers me the most is tactics.  I can see, usually, what I'm doing in the tactics screen reflected on the pitch.  I can tell the difference between a wingback on support and an inverted wingback on support, and I use one role sometimes and the other sometimes for specific reasons.  I can set a tactic up to create chances via wide play and crosses, and I can set a tactic up to create chances via central play (I mean, sort of; I don't actually think it's possible in this ME.  But I can set a tactic up to get the ball at the feet of a central playmaker with runners ahead of them, which is almost the same thing; I can't make them actually do the pass into space).  It's the mistakes and the little bits of 'randomness' that are repeated match to match, system to system, player to player.  Every central midfielder is going to play the diagonal through ball to the winger outside slightly behind so the winger has to check the run and circle back.  Every winger, a couple times a game, is going to take a touch that dribbles the ball right into the path of a defender who's, like, got telepathy or something and is making an attacking run right into the path of where the ball is about to go.  Every centerback is going to take a lil wander away from an attacker standing in the channel, and every midfielder is going to run out of shape to close someone down on the far side of the pitch for no reason.  I feel like I could put ten centerbacks on the pitch sometimes and there would still be space in the channels as they step up, drop off, shift left, shift right, and generally do everything except marking the fricking attacker.  

I'm sure if I engaged with the set piece creator at all I'd be incandescent over it, seeing some of the examples that have been posted.  If you see a four-man wall set up, just forget about it, an unmarked attacker is going to stick that thing in the back of the net.  It's only been broken since release.  As it is, I treat every set-piece situation like AI vs AI.  That's a mistake on my end, given how effective they are.

---

Annals of Kindergarten Manager 2024:

"It's going to be difficult coming in to work knowing this is how you treat my teammates."  The teammate is question is kicking off about playing time and asking to go on loan two weeks after asking to be removed from the transfer list, which he was on because he asked for a transfer to another club that never bid for him.  Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just shut up all of you

Edited January 3 by Sunstrikuuu

[Sunstrikuuu]

 

Someone call that man an Uber, he's drunk.

[Chris2509]

I've been having repeated issues with these screens. The right panels keep acting up and showing no data.

At some point people here adviced me to delete cache and preferences - this seemed to help once, but doing this now doesn't solve the current issue.

Any other ideas?

 

 

 

[Mr Tonio]

Il y a 19 heures, Jimmy Wong a dit :

Thanks for the feedback and for providing PKM files and saves for our match team. To clarify, attributes 100% matter in FM as better teams tend to do better in matches and in higher league positions.

Not really convinced by this argument, no disrespect meant. It can be attributed to many other things (like high rep club have more top physical players). Tests from the community are not conclusive and it is consistent with players feedback. Plus there clearly seems to be a recent buff (12/12 update) to lone strikers, which was not clearly mentionned in the changelog.

Edited January 4 by Mr Tonio

[fc.cadoni]

7 hours ago, Chris2509 said:

I've been having repeated issues with these screens. The right panels keep acting up and showing no data.

At some point people here adviced me to delete cache and preferences - this seemed to help once, but doing this now doesn't solve the current issue.

Any other ideas?

 

 

 

Use the bug tracker for these type of issues.

https://community.sigames.com/bugtracker/football-manager-2024-early-access-bugs-tracker/ 

[Tonton_Zola]

On 31/12/2023 at 14:25, Rodrigogc said:

Why not remove them then ? I know this is weird, but real football's got no attributes. That would probably put more emphasis on training, since in FM training is only supposed to increase or decrease attributes.

 

I confess I've thought about this multiple times and can't find a way SI could present a football game without attributes but that would be a massive game-changer in terms of realism. 

 

 

 

Very interesting indeed

[Tonton_Zola]

Surely we need a reassuring response from SI on this “attributes don’t matter” hypothesis?

The tests around a sub goalkeeper outperforming a regular striker up front, for example, are potentially deal breaking for many, surely? 

[mielony]

I've never seen so many angry people on a forum. I wonder if the March patch will heal our heads. Regards.

[ejleal]

On 31/12/2023 at 14:25, Rodrigogc said:

Why not remove them then ? I know this is weird, but real football's got no attributes. That would probably put more emphasis on training, since in FM training is only supposed to increase or decrease attributes.

 

I confess I've thought about this multiple times and can't find a way SI could present a football game without attributes but that would be a massive game-changer in terms of realism. 

 

 

 

In my view, attributes are a way to compensate for the fact that in the game, you can't see how well the player is during training. Attributes aren't inherently unrealistic, but grading them 1-20 is. If the game presented them in a more qualitative manner (with colors for example, as some skins have them), that would be realistic enough.

What the game could do, for instance, is to always leave a small uncertainty regarding attributes even when you fully scout the player. That uncertainty should remain even during the player's early days in your club, because the coach only fully knows the player after some time with him.

[Ein]

The issue is not with the display of attributes, it's whether attributes matter e.g. whether players with higher scoring attributes do better than those without or whether players with higher attributes for pressing press more/cover more distance than those without. The claim is that they do not or that the difference is minimal/less than it should be or that match performance is predominantly governed by other factors (e.g. the role itself). Masking attributes and following the match metrics would simply conceal this issue.

 

Edited January 4 by Ein

[Rodrigogc]

54 minutos atrás, ejleal disse:

In my view, attributes are a way to compensate for the fact that in the game, you can't see how well the player is during training. Attributes aren't inherently unrealistic, but grading them 1-20 is. If the game presented them in a more qualitative manner (with colors for example, as some skins have them), that would be realistic enough.

What the game could do, for instance, is to always leave a small uncertainty regarding attributes even when you fully scout the player. That uncertainty should remain even during the player's early days in your club, because the coach only fully knows the player after some time with him.

I agree, and that does make sense, but the problem is that the game makes it too easy to assess the players. I mean, you don't have to be experienced in FM to see whether a player is a great or bad player just by looking at the attributes and that makes you far ahead the AI in terms of buying players. In real life, usually clubs makes many mistakes when buying players that do not perform at all, Manchester United over the years has bought so many expensive players that never performed what expected, for instance. In FM if you have the money Man Utd spent on players these years, you can builld the best team in the game very easily because it is too easy to assess players quality. 

Your last paragraph is a great suggestion. How would you suggest grading the attributes, instead of 1-20 ? 

 

Edited January 4 by Rodrigogc

[Jonthedon26]

27 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

I agree, and that does make sense, but the problem is that the game makes it too easy to assess the players. I mean, you don't have to be experienced in FM to see whether a player is a great or bad player just by looking at the attributes and that makes you far ahead the AI in terms of buying players. In real life, usually clubs makes many mistakes when buying players that do not perform at all, Manchester United over the years has bought so many expensive players that never performed what expected, for instance. In FM if you have the money Man Utd spent on players these years, you can builld the best team in the game very easily because it is too easy to assess players quality. 

Your last paragraph is a great suggestion. How would you suggest grading the attributes, instead of 1-20 ? 

 

I am still a big fan of the way OOTP Baseball does it:

"In OOTP, players have a number of skills that are assigned numeric ratings approximating the player's ability. The higher the number, the better the player is at that particular skill. OOTP's scouting model is enabled by default. That means that the player ratings you see on the screen may not be the players' true ratings, but instead they are your scout's assessment of that player's ratings".

So you never truly know the players attribute rating, you have to go more on attributes, your own assessment and actual stats from the matches. Too often on FM I find people (naturally) select the player with the best attributes, so even if your star striker got injured and a worse replacement came in and scored 10 goals in 5 games, many would replace them straight away for the striker with the better attributes as soon as they recovered. There is a lot more room for busts in OOTP as well, because as it says the attributes aren't a true reflection. It also makes you rely heavily on your staff, and your need for better staff to better assess the players. 

[SimonHoddle]

3 hours ago, Tonton_Zola said:

Surely we need a reassuring response from SI on this “attributes don’t matter” hypothesis?

The tests around a sub goalkeeper outperforming a regular striker up front, for example, are potentially deal breaking for many, surely? 

Tumbleweed 

[CrowManager]

56 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

I agree, and that does make sense, but the problem is that the game makes it too easy to assess the players. I mean, you don't have to be experienced in FM to see whether a player is a great or bad player just by looking at the attributes and that makes you far ahead the AI in terms of buying players. In real life, usually clubs makes many mistakes when buying players that do not perform at all, Manchester United over the years has bought so many expensive players that never performed what expected, for instance. In FM if you have the money Man Utd spent on players these years, you can builld the best team in the game very easily because it is too easy to assess players quality. 

Your last paragraph is a great suggestion. How would you suggest grading the attributes, instead of 1-20 ? 

 

The way Mustermann and Starattributes do it: Just not showing an exact number and showing one of the 4 color ranges. 

Superior way to play imo.

Edited January 4 by CrowManager

[Rodrigogc]

19 minutos atrás, Jonthedon26 disse:

I am still a big fan of the way OOTP Baseball does it:

"In OOTP, players have a number of skills that are assigned numeric ratings approximating the player's ability. The higher the number, the better the player is at that particular skill. OOTP's scouting model is enabled by default. That means that the player ratings you see on the screen may not be the players' true ratings, but instead they are your scout's assessment of that player's ratings".

So you never truly know the players attribute rating, you have to go more on attributes, your own assessment and actual stats from the matches. Too often on FM I find people (naturally) select the player with the best attributes, so even if your star striker got injured and a worse replacement came in and scored 10 goals in 5 games, many would replace them straight away for the striker with the better attributes as soon as they recovered. There is a lot more room for busts in OOTP as well, because as it says the attributes aren't a true reflection. It also makes you rely heavily on your staff, and your need for better staff to better assess the players. 

 

Amazing. In real life, buying a player is  a thorough process, taking Man Utd for example, I've read Wan Bisaka was selected after the scouting team assessed more than 200 players. But after the scouting, there comes watching the players games, there comes the manager aproving or not the signing, etc... Ten Hag gave his thumbs up on many players that did not work, like Antony, Weghorst, but it's said that Man Utd had already scouted players like Bellingham even before he went to Borussia. So, as you can see, their problem has never been finding the players, but the final decision has been consistently bad over the years. In FM the finall decision is too easy to make, you just look at the attributes, some hidden attributes that the scouting provides, and maybe personality. It never fails, that's the problem. It should be harder to assess players quality, or there should be more factors that will tell when a players does great in a club and fails on another, etc.

[frank_olaf]

If I remember correctly, in previous version of FM each coach had a preferred tactical style i.e. Gegenpress, Catenaccio etc. but I can't see that anymore in FM24, I only see preferred formation. has this been removed or moved to somewhere else? Thanks

[RDF Tactics]

55 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

I agree, and that does make sense, but the problem is that the game makes it too easy to assess the players. I mean, you don't have to be experienced in FM to see whether a player is a great or bad player just by looking at the attributes and that makes you far ahead the AI in terms of buying players. In real life, usually clubs makes many mistakes when buying players that do not perform at all, Manchester United over the years has bought so many expensive players that never performed what expected, for instance. In FM if you have the money Man Utd spent on players these years, you can builld the best team in the game very easily because it is too easy to assess players quality. 

Your last paragraph is a great suggestion. How would you suggest grading the attributes, instead of 1-20 ? 

 

the issue is that attribute 16 doesn't mean 16.

The way I understand it, if a player has attribute 16, then that can range from 15.5 to 16.4...under the hood, FM will just round up the attribute. That also explains why sometimes when you look at your players attribute changes, the game can say he's improved on an attribute by 2 but he's actually gone from 10 to 13. It 'should' read that he's attribute has gone up by 3 but under the hood, it hasn't gone up by 3 whole numbers yet.

And another reason why a 16 isn't always a 16...consistency attribute. If I have finishing of 16 but a consistency of 5. Then I'm probably only playing with my finishing at 16 in 5 out of 20 matches.

I don't want to be big-headed at all so please don't take it that way. I work at a pro football club as a scout and analyst. When doing reports, you can score them in a similar way FM does attributes. For example, I might put that the striker I'm watching has 5 out of 5 finishing. Or, score him 5 out of 5 for his performance. I think in FM, scout reports and how you gain knowledge on a player can do with huge improvements. Scout reports don't really help you. In FM, if a striker has good finishing then the scout report will tell you he has good finishing.

But, the scout report can and should have a little more detail and also link attributes together. For example, Jesus has good finishing ability in front of goal and often looks to place his shots, his main technique. But his lack of concentration and composure lets him down in front of goal.

Football Manager can for sure do better and start combining attributes and giving us a better report on a player. That can possibly help us understand attributes a bit better. "Okay, player A has great finishing but its unlikely we'll see that on a regular basis". That alone might make us think twice. I know FM already put a player has low consistency in reports but FM players dont and wont always make that link. In pro it says player has great finishing. Then in a con it says low consistency. That instead can be linked like many (not all) IRL scout reports would have.

[Rodrigogc]

9 minutos atrás, RDF Tactics disse:

the issue is that attribute 16 doesn't mean 16.

The way I understand it, if a player has attribute 16, then that can range from 15.5 to 16.4...under the hood, FM will just round up the attribute. That also explains why sometimes when you look at your players attribute changes, the game can say he's improved on an attribute by 2 but he's actually gone from 10 to 13. It 'should' read that he's attribute has gone up by 3 but under the hood, it hasn't gone up by 3 whole numbers yet.

And another reason why a 16 isn't always a 16...consistency attribute. If I have finishing of 16 but a consistency of 5. Then I'm probably only playing with my finishing at 16 in 5 out of 20 matches.

I don't want to be big-headed at all so please don't take it that way. I work at a pro football club as a scout and analyst. When doing reports, you can score them in a similar way FM does attributes. For example, I might put that the striker I'm watching has 5 out of 5 finishing. Or, score him 5 out of 5 for his performance. I think in FM, scout reports and how you gain knowledge on a player can do with huge improvements. Scout reports don't really help you. In FM, if a striker has good finishing then the scout report will tell you he has good finishing.

But, the scout report can and should have a little more detail and also link attributes together. For example, Jesus has good finishing ability in front of goal and often looks to place his shots, his main technique. But his lack of concentration and composure lets him down in front of goal.

Football Manager can for sure do better and start combining attributes and giving us a better report on a player. That can possibly help us understand attributes a bit better. "Okay, player A has great finishing but its unlikely we'll see that on a regular basis". That alone might make us think twice. I know FM already put a player has low consistency in reports but FM players dont and wont always make that link. In pro it says player has great finishing. Then in a con it says low consistency. That instead can be linked like many (not all) IRL scout reports would have.

You can be as big headed as you want, explanations like that are always helpful, because the game is not so easy to understand. This consistency level might explaint why people often complain their GKs can't save a shot but the AI GK saves them all in a match. Sure reports can be more helpful, since I've noticed some attributes grow faster than others, mainly phisical ones, which is okay. Finishing, on the other hand, tend to grow slower. 

 

One thing that would be useful, is the game saving at least the last 10 games of any club for you to watch, but that probably would take a heavy toll on the save. When I buy strikers, I like to look their last 3 games analysis, to see what type of shooting they miss, what type of passes they can do, etc.. but FM do not provide more than the last 3 games for you to watch, if I'm not mistaken. 

[tezcatlipoca665]

Another problem I've always had with attributes is how they're kind of useless in terms of representation. If a player has 17 Finishing but isn't taking their chances and is a poor goal scorer overall because of other factors such as Composure, Decisions, Technique etc. not being at adequate levels, then what good is it telling me they're a good finisher? They're clearly not. I think the idea of removing numbered attributes as they exist is a great idea. Somebody already mentioned the Mustermann skin using a graphical representation, and I think that works, but I also think some of these attributes are useless in theory, even outside of the ME.

Alongside some of the other suggestions, I think training should help show how the players are performing since this is really how a lot of managers assess who makes it into the first team squad. I don't mean with reports like 'so and so performed well in training' with a number as it works now - I mean maybe seeing the actual training itself in the new match engine on a training field so we can see who's passing well, tackling well, taking set pieces well, shooting training, etc. You could probably just delegate this and get a basic report from the assistant manager or something, if you feel like the idea of seeing your players training is tedious (I mean, some managers irl don't like being involved with training at all). It'd be much more immersive to look at your players up close that way. But anyway, something to think about.

[Ein]

I agree that it is very easy to assess players. I think that is partly because players' attributes and personalities are not as dynamic as they should be. In FM, attributes more or less increase incrementally until a ceiling is reached and then remain pretty much static until the physicals decline with age. The same with personality attributes and other hidden attributes like consistency; they generally improve incrementally with time and experience. However, in real life, you can find plenty of examples of players who stop performing after securing big moves. Other players start performing out of the blue (think Guirassy). The incremental approach doesn't really simulate most real-life development trajectories.

 

 

Edited January 4 by Ein

[tezcatlipoca665]

Negotiated a contract with vice captain of the team and his agent demanded that he be made captain during negotiations. I removed it from the discussions altogether because I don't want him as captain (and I usually get rid of contract promises anyway). The player just signed the contract now, and he's been given the captaincy automatically anyway. Now the former captain is upset at being stripped of the captaincy. Huh?

Can't give a saved game for it unfortunately.

[Sunstrikuuu]

Anyone have any thoughts about fitness and keeping players fresh?  I have a couple who the physio is recommending I send on holiday for a week but the player is complaining about not getting enough minutes.  It's December.  Seven players who need to go on holiday despite being on half training for most of the season seems... excessive.

[wazzaflow10]

4 hours ago, RDF Tactics said:

the issue is that attribute 16 doesn't mean 16.

The way I understand it, if a player has attribute 16, then that can range from 15.5 to 16.4...under the hood...

That's more or less meaningless in the grand scheme of things though. The issue is that you know a player is around a 16 with 100% certainty. 15.5 and 16.4 won't play that different that it really matters.

5 hours ago, RDF Tactics said:

I think in FM, scout reports and how you gain knowledge on a player can do with huge improvements. Scout reports don't really help you. In FM, if a striker has good finishing then the scout report will tell you he has good finishing.

What is being asked/requested is that the attributes shown in the game reflect a scouting report rather than a hard absolute number. Even FM's own researchers will boost a player after a good season and nerf after a poor season. A player that is in form such that reports say a player has progressed from a good league player to leading league player should have attributes shown in line with that sort of CA. Instead they are static numbers with only real CA progress as increases/decreases. It is very easy to see a player is "overachieving" and sell or "underachieving" and buy because there's not attribute risk.

Really the game should hide a player's CA just as they do PA. Attributes shown on the player profile screen should be reflective of scout/coach opinion, form etc. IMO it would nerf a lot of the "this game is too easy" talk after 3 years when you buy and know who the best players are with 100% certainty. Its virtually impossible for a star singing to flop as a human manager right now.

[Sunstrikuuu]

20 minutes ago, wazzaflow10 said:

Its virtually impossible for a star singing to flop as a human manager right now.

Couple other reasons for this.  One is that the 1-20 system kind of flattens stars out.  A star striker who's slow gets above-average speed because it helps boost their CA up into star-star territory.  Harry Kane, I think, has been faster and more injury-resistant in-game than he is IRL for a bit.  He's not overrated by FM, just rated in a different way that fits the CA curve better.  A second is that FM is really nice to everyone.  There aren't any stars in FM with 2 Professionalism, nobody ever pulls a Neymar and just downs tools to go to a birthday party or drinks themselves out of the game like Ronaldinho or skips every game Up North because they don't like the cold and the wet like Mesut Ozil did (clubs have the same problem.  The most basic assumption of FM is that everything generally works the way it should).  Everybody's basically decent and tries their best most of the time.  And third, frankly, is that certain attributes don't matter enough and star players have too much of them anyway (see point one), so you don't usually see tactics that fall apart because the stars just can't or won't run enough.  The idea of playing a lesser player to do a star's running, like David Villa and Pedro did for Messi in 2010 or a whole group of PSG forwards are doing for Mbappe now, is unneccessary.  You can actually play Neymar, Messi and Mbappe together without giving up your defensive shape.

 

[makavali]

I've been playing religiously since FM17 and I've adored every version. My complaints were always minor and they did not affect my ability to immerse myself in a save. 

This year, at the beginning of January, I'm tired of the game already and I've decided to not play until the next patch at least. Considering the issues I have with this year's version, I doubt that I will return even after it has been patched. 

I'm not angry, annoyed or disappointed. I'm simply sad because I love this game so, SO much. 

Football Manager 2024 feels weird, broken, and plastic. The game plays like a bootleg version you would get from AliExpress. It's stupidly easy, predictable, and dull. The AI has never been dumber. 

I'm truly baffled and I can't understand how in the world SI managed to make this happen. Taking into consideration how good FM23 was after the last patch, it feels like they had to manually make the game worse, as, otherwise, I just can't wrap my head around such a drastic difference. 

FM24 does not feel like FM anymore. 

[Rodrigogc]

1 hora atrás, wazzaflow10 disse:

That's more or less meaningless in the grand scheme of things though. The issue is that you know a player is around a 16 with 100% certainty. 15.5 and 16.4 won't play that different that it really matters.

What is being asked/requested is that the attributes shown in the game reflect a scouting report rather than a hard absolute number. Even FM's own researchers will boost a player after a good season and nerf after a poor season. A player that is in form such that reports say a player has progressed from a good league player to leading league player should have attributes shown in line with that sort of CA. Instead they are static numbers with only real CA progress as increases/decreases. It is very easy to see a player is "overachieving" and sell or "underachieving" and buy because there's not attribute risk.

Really the game should hide a player's CA just as they do PA. Attributes shown on the player profile screen should be reflective of scout/coach opinion, form etc. IMO it would nerf a lot of the "this game is too easy" talk after 3 years when you buy and know who the best players are with 100% certainty. Its virtually impossible for a star singing to flop as a human manager right now.

Spot on. Attributes in FM show what exactly is, when actually football and the quality of players is somewhat subjective. Apart from the top players (Messi, Neymar, Mbappe, CR...), almost all players can be viewed in a very different way by people who watch football or by managers. Guardiola saw potential in players like Ake and Akanji, and I would certainly say that Ten Hag or other managers wouldn't have signed them had they had the chance to. Some managers can see a player as a great player while many would not. That is the problem with FM, you can see right away whether a player is good or not and that gives human managers a huge advantage against the AI.

 

I'd say something like, 10% of the players will be viewed as great by every one, but the other 90% people will have many different opinions about them, this subjectivity is what FM is lacking, because attributes say it all. 

Edited January 4 by Rodrigogc

[Nick_CB]

It's January 2024 and scouting isn't working properly. 

[DP]

Get rid of the transfer value range, please. It looks so ugly and confusing. 

Is it really difficult to say a player is worth, say, £50m like on the older versions? People realise there is variance each way but it’s so much easier on the eye and a better way to judge a player to just give him a single value like in the old days. 

[CrowManager]

2 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

That's more or less meaningless in the grand scheme of things though. The issue is that you know a player is around a 16 with 100% certainty. 15.5 and 16.4 won't play that different that it really matters.

What is being asked/requested is that the attributes shown in the game reflect a scouting report rather than a hard absolute number. Even FM's own researchers will boost a player after a good season and nerf after a poor season. A player that is in form such that reports say a player has progressed from a good league player to leading league player should have attributes shown in line with that sort of CA. Instead they are static numbers with only real CA progress as increases/decreases. It is very easy to see a player is "overachieving" and sell or "underachieving" and buy because there's not attribute risk.

Really the game should hide a player's CA just as they do PA. Attributes shown on the player profile screen should be reflective of scout/coach opinion, form etc. IMO it would nerf a lot of the "this game is too easy" talk after 3 years when you buy and know who the best players are with 100% certainty. Its virtually impossible for a star singing to flop as a human manager right now.

Yeah but that's just down to people refusing to make the game harder. Get Mustermann and you suddenly don't know exact attributes and aren't just forcing every wonderkid with slightly higher pace/acceleration into the lineup. That's people complaining about things they have control over. 

[Sunstrikuuu]

17 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

Spot on. Attributes in FM show what exactly is, when actually football and the quality of players is somewhat subjective. Apart from the top players (Messi, Neymar, Mbappe, CR...), almost all players can be viewed in a very different way by people who watch football or by managers. Guardiola saw potential in players like Ake and Akanji, and I would certainly say that Ten Hag or other managers wouldn't have signed them had they had the chance to. Some managers can see a player as a great player while many would not. That is the problem with FM, you can see right away whether a player is good or not and that gives human managers a huge advantage against the AI.

 

I'd say something like, 10% of the players will be viewed as great by every one, but the other 90% people will have many different opinions about them, this subjectivity is what FM is lacking, because attributes say it all. 

No, I don't agree with that.  The biggest difference IMO is that the human player can actually act like a Guardiola, but the AI really doesn't.  The human player can tailor their entire club to produce players who fit a very specific philosophy.  They can control everything from soup to nuts, producing an assembly line of the exact talent to play the exact way they want to.  The AI does not do that kind of structure.  A human player can scout a player like Ake and go 'yep, he'll work in this system', or 'nope, he's good but I need a fullback who holds width and plays like a winger'.  It's less about seeing the attributes and more one single person having total iron control over every facet of squadbuilding, tactics and development and making sure they pull in harmony all of the time.

[wazzaflow10]

4 hours ago, CrowManager said:

Yeah but that's just down to people refusing to make the game harder. Get Mustermann and you suddenly don't know exact attributes and aren't just forcing every wonderkid with slightly higher pace/acceleration into the lineup. That's people complaining about things they have control over. 

You still do though. He's just replaced the numbers with a size of circle. Sure its obscured a bit more but fundamentally nothing has changed. It's like the older games when you just had text to describe a player. Excellent would be something between 16-18 rating (hypothetical I don't remember what the ranges were off the top of my head). The real challenge is when attributes change based on things other than player growth. People who are playing to just hoover up wonderkids and game the system are going to do it regardless. This would put them in peril of overvaluing the "newest" talent in favor or something established and wrecking their team.

It would really serve two purposes:

1) All the people complaining about dynamic PA would shut up because a player who went from league One to CL top scorer would look like a world class player to them despite having an actual CA/PA in the 120s.

2) You'd actually have to make a choice about do you sell a star player who's not performing because his form has declined a bit and his attributes suggest he's on the downside of his career?

[wazzaflow10]

6 hours ago, Sunstrikuuu said:

Couple other reasons for this.  One is that the 1-20 system kind of flattens stars out.  A star striker who's slow gets above-average speed because it helps boost their CA up into star-star territory.  Harry Kane, I think, has been faster and more injury-resistant in-game than he is IRL for a bit.  He's not overrated by FM, just rated in a different way that fits the CA curve better.  A second is that FM is really nice to everyone.  There aren't any stars in FM with 2 Professionalism, nobody ever pulls a Neymar and just downs tools to go to a birthday party or drinks themselves out of the game like Ronaldinho or skips every game Up North because they don't like the cold and the wet like Mesut Ozil did (clubs have the same problem.  The most basic assumption of FM is that everything generally works the way it should).  Everybody's basically decent and tries their best most of the time.  And third, frankly, is that certain attributes don't matter enough and star players have too much of them anyway (see point one), so you don't usually see tactics that fall apart because the stars just can't or won't run enough.  The idea of playing a lesser player to do a star's running, like David Villa and Pedro did for Messi in 2010 or a whole group of PSG forwards are doing for Mbappe now, is unneccessary.  You can actually play Neymar, Messi and Mbappe together without giving up your defensive shape.

 

You do know that Neymar and Messi played  together only mildly successfully at Barcelona for 4 years with players like Suarez, Alexis Sanchez next to them. Probably has more to do with both being older, injured and PSG thinking they were the new Galacticos rather than PSG.

I'm not sure where the attributes don't matter came into play. Do we have any evidence for this?

And its well known that real players don't have bad personalities but that's mostly due to not wanting to get sued apparently. Could the game do with slightly more personality? Sure, absolutely but that's not really holding the game back that much.

[Leon_fogo]

The game has some absurd flaws, it seems that goals always come at the end of the match, regardless of the team you are playing against (be it small or big), I understand that there have been a lot of goals scored in real life at this point in the game but in FM it is getting boring!

Fair play simply seems to have been removed from this version of the game, the players get injured and the game continues, neither the human nor the machine players throw the ball out, totally unrealistic!

I'm really hoping to have a hot fix before the March patch, the game needs adjustments and Sigames knows this, the forum has many reports that we just have to observe to correct the game... we are tired of the ball hitting the post, of movements bizarre from the goalkeepers, with goals from crosses and few passing passes.

[Arnar]

One thing i have noticed is that the player status bar while playing a game.

You have to change player role multible times for it to switch.

If the other team changes tactic and player position it doesnt update correctly

f.i want to have my wing back man mark a winger, just played a game where the other team swithced from 4-1-2-2-1 to 4-2-4, the rw went to the lw and lw went to striker. It showed the old positions in the player status bar.

So my rwb was man marking a striker and my lwb was man marking the lw.

[steve.bs69]

IF attributes count, imho it should be a 1-30 or 40 or 50 range, because in this way there is too slight difference between a top player and an ordinary one, it is all quite flat as it is atm

 

Irl for ex here in Italy there is huuuuuuge difference even in terms of athletism between a Serie A and a Serie B player and so on, with 1-20 it is not possibile to reply it

Edited January 5 by steve.bs69

[rp1966]

6 hours ago, Leon_fogo said:

The game has some absurd flaws, it seems that goals always come at the end of the match,

You can check that in the team -> analyst report screen.  I bet it's more spread out than you think. Human perception bias is a horrible curse ... 

Goals for:

Goals against

[RDF Tactics]

13 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

That's more or less meaningless in the grand scheme of things though. The issue is that you know a player is around a 16 with 100% certainty. 15.5 and 16.4 won't play that different that it really matters.

What is being asked/requested is that the attributes shown in the game reflect a scouting report rather than a hard absolute number. Even FM's own researchers will boost a player after a good season and nerf after a poor season. A player that is in form such that reports say a player has progressed from a good league player to leading league player should have attributes shown in line with that sort of CA. Instead they are static numbers with only real CA progress as increases/decreases. It is very easy to see a player is "overachieving" and sell or "underachieving" and buy because there's not attribute risk.

Really the game should hide a player's CA just as they do PA. Attributes shown on the player profile screen should be reflective of scout/coach opinion, form etc. IMO it would nerf a lot of the "this game is too easy" talk after 3 years when you buy and know who the best players are with 100% certainty. Its virtually impossible for a star singing to flop as a human manager right now.

Well, that depends. A FM player may opt to sign a certain player over another because he has 16 finishing over the player that has 14. Naked eye, it's a big difference but under the hood, it may not be. Then back to the point that attributes are linked. So a player with finishing 16 doesn't automatically mean he's a better finisher than someone with 14. That is where it plays a big difference. Many FM players buy players based on standout attributes and can be easy to overlook contributing attributes.

Because you know a player has around 16 finishing doesn't automatically mean he's a good finisher.

And I agree about the hard absolute number, that was my point about scouts painting a better picture. Which is why I think scout reports can be a lot better and the way you gain knowledge on a player can be better. They can combine attributes (not the hard numbers) and give us a better picture. Like a striker having good finishing but low composure - that doesn't have to be based on strictly numbers, it can/should be the scout's opinion. One way they can gather this information is from previous matches, common knowledge etc.

Now, the issue with that is that is, it can create a cycle. For that, we have to buy the best scouts to get the best opinions. This ends up in us signing the same scouts each game lol so its a circle. We come back and say the game has become easy signing the best scouts etc. Those scouts find the best players or give us the best reports so we can still end up doing the same thing. Buy the best players because our good scouts know who they are. The issue with the AI not buying great scouts themselves.

My issue with the people who complain the game is too easy after signing the best players is that they are buying the best players knowing that lol So if you buy Marcos Leanardo, don't then buy him in the next save and save after than knowing what you'll get.

One good thing about Football Manager is that there's many ways of playing. I personally like to mix data with attributes. So I don't care if your attributes are great if your form doesn't back that up. That's just mostly how I play (not suggesting everyone should play this way, just pointing out there's other ways of playing). I use data, I calculate my own data, create my own averages etc. So when I play and people ask 'why you sign X and not Y', I show them why X is better statistically. Attributes allow me to know if they are capable of performing that data consistently. 

For the most part, I think attributes and stuff are fine (not perfect). For me, it's how the game plays out. So like how you mentioned it's impossible for a star signing to flop. Based on attributes, yeah, that's correct. In my opinion, signing Marcos Leanardo from Brazil to England should bang or work out straight away. Things like adaptability could play a major role here. I wouldn't say make him homesick, but make us recognise the player has a period he's trying to fit in. Having other Portuguese speakers can help - if he has low adaptability then the signing may never work etc. Things like that could play a bigger role. Adaptability, pressure, ambition, professionalism, controversy, temperament. They are all attributes just like finishing. Imo, they can be playing a bigger role in nerfing Marcos Leanardo becoming a good signing all the time, for example. 

[RDF Tactics]

11 hours ago, CrowManager said:

Yeah but that's just down to people refusing to make the game harder. Get Mustermann and you suddenly don't know exact attributes and aren't just forcing every wonderkid with slightly higher pace/acceleration into the lineup. That's people complaining about things they have control over. 

yeah I made this point in my reply to it. It's also how people decide to play the game (not criticising those people).

Below is my Lyon team. I think this was my first save when FM came out. To challenge PSG, we didn't just sign FM godly players. We used data and made some quirky signings to challlege PSG - signing Barco, Almada, Joao Neves etc because I know they're wonderkids would've made this challenge a lot less challenging. Look at the star ratings of players, only Assan Ouedraogo is a really class player.

I currently have £100m to spend, on which can easily go on certain players but it's not how I want to approach the game.

 

When doing a player search, I'm not looking for attributes, but looking for data. This for me just makes Football Manager a more interesting game and also because of the work I do in real life, I feel this approach is a lot closer to that. (Now this is why I'm passionate about FM fixing the chalkboard search because it's not great or user friendly).
 

 

Now last screenshot because these screenshots are HUGE hahaha. But from that search, I can find a player like Rayan. Intriguing to me mostly because I've never signed him, no experience with him on FM. Look at his data, 14apps, 7 gls, 6 assists. Only 19, that's pretty decent. From here, I'll add him to my shortlist and keep an eye for around the time the transfer window opens where I then have a more extensive look.

But Rayan doesn't look world-class by attributes. I can see areas where I'd want to improve using my training. But playing this way, I don't feel that "after season 3 it becomes too easy". PSG have won the league every year, I've finished 2nd every year. I failed at the challenge beating PSG to a Ligue 1 title but mainly because I opted to recruit this way which meant I never had the best players like PSG have.

Obviously, in different leagues you won't have a PSG. In Italy, I did similar with Bari and was able to win things. But I felt a sense of achievement doing it without just opting to buy players purely based on their attributes.

 

[RDF Tactics]

13 hours ago, Rodrigogc said:

Spot on. Attributes in FM show what exactly is, when actually football and the quality of players is somewhat subjective. Apart from the top players (Messi, Neymar, Mbappe, CR...), almost all players can be viewed in a very different way by people who watch football or by managers. Guardiola saw potential in players like Ake and Akanji, and I would certainly say that Ten Hag or other managers wouldn't have signed them had they had the chance to. Some managers can see a player as a great player while many would not. That is the problem with FM, you can see right away whether a player is good or not and that gives human managers a huge advantage against the AI.

 

I'd say something like, 10% of the players will be viewed as great by every one, but the other 90% people will have many different opinions about them, this subjectivity is what FM is lacking, because attributes say it all. 

That's not strictly true. Attributes don't show what exactly is because an attribute like consistency is supposed to nerf that. So again, you can see a striker has 16 finishing. But if his consistency is at 9, his finishing won't (or shouldn't) be 16 even half the time. Then there's other attributes like pressure. If he can't handle pressure then again, it's unlikely the player will be performing to those attributes. So yes, though you can see the attributes, it's not what you're always going to get.

Now for me, those hidden attributes should/could have more of an effect to stop players from being able to always perform. Players should feel lonely if low adaptability. Players should crumble more if low pressure.

And like spoke on before, a lot is about how you as a player choose to play the game. If its no attributes or attributes displayed differently then there are skins but also, you can just opt to play the game differently. The game, in my opinion, doesn't force you to buy players based on their attributes.

 

If I gave 100 people here the option to sign Elysée Logbo or Semih Kılıçsoy and said money isn't a factor, probably around 85 of people go safer and say Semih Kılıçsoy. They maybe already know he's a wonderkid in FM etc. Whereas Elysée Logbo is a more interesting player for me. Attribute-wise, not as good. But he makes an interesting case for me as I haven't heard of him, he's got some traits I find can be helpful. Good height and jumping reach. He has the potential to be a signing that hasn't been purely based on his attributes but also because of his data. Not just goals, but his conversion rate, headers won per 90, non pen xG per 90....albeit, he plays in Ligue 2 but that's what makes in interesting for me personally.

I do feel a big part is how people decide to approach the game. Attributes doesn't have to be the absolute. And again, it's not a brag or "EVERYONE SHOULD PLAY LIKE ME"....just there are different approaches to the game

 

Edited January 5 by RDF Tactics

[Mr_Maz]

panels and links completely messed. since yesterday evening = randomly happened in-play with no error message

 

click on squad, a player or a club and it just sends you to the home panel.

impossible to play the game properly now.

 

tried all options - different save files, clear and reload skin, uninstall and fresh install (via steam), new game, etc. Nothing works

[frank_olaf]

17 hours ago, Sunstrikuuu said:

Anyone have any thoughts about fitness and keeping players fresh?  I have a couple who the physio is recommending I send on holiday for a week but the player is complaining about not getting enough minutes.  It's December.  Seven players who need to go on holiday despite being on half training for most of the season seems... excessive.

If I have another game within three or four days, I always rest my players for two days (right click on the player, go to training and select rest). Probably not ideal for their development but keeps them a bit more fresh.

[Rodrigogc]

34 minutos atrás, RDF Tactics disse:

That's not strictly true. Attributes don't show what exactly is because an attribute like consistency is supposed to nerf that. So again, you can see a striker has 16 finishing. But if his consistency is at 9, his finishing won't (or shouldn't) be 16 even half the time. Then there's other attributes like pressure. If he can't handle pressure then again, it's unlikely the player will be performing to those attributes. So yes, though you can see the attributes, it's not what you're always going to get.

Now for me, those hidden attributes should/could have more of an effect to stop players from being able to always perform. Players should feel lonely if low adaptability. Players should crumble more if low pressure.

And like spoke on before, a lot is about how you as a player choose to play the game. If its no attributes or attributes displayed differently then there are skins but also, you can just opt to play the game differently. The game, in my opinion, doesn't force you to buy players based on their attributes.

 

If I gave 100 people here the option to sign Elysée Logbo or Semih Kılıçsoy and said money isn't a factor, probably around 85 of people go safer and say Semih Kılıçsoy. They maybe already know he's a wonderkid in FM etc. Whereas Elysée Logbo is a more interesting player for me. Attribute-wise, not as good. But he makes an interesting case for me as I haven't heard of him, he's got some traits I find can be helpful. Good height and jumping reach. He has the potential to be a signing that hasn't been purely based on his attributes but also because of his data. Not just goals, but his conversion rate, headers won per 90, non pen xG per 90....albeit, he plays in Ligue 2 but that's what makes in interesting for me personally.

I do feel a big part is how people decide to approach the game. Attributes doesn't have to be the absolute. And again, it's not a brag or "EVERYONE SHOULD PLAY LIKE ME"....just there are different approaches to the game

 

 

I've played FM also buying players relying solely on data (I hid all the attributes in the color panel), and in fact it is very fun. And I made mistakes, which is great and realistic, but the problem to me is that it becomes too time-consuming. I decided to play with attributes again and easily found some of the best newgens in the game (and both from Chile):

 

 

The point to me is: Signing players using only data is time-consuming, signing players looking at attributes is too easy. I think there should be a spot where you won't be able to tell a young player is great right away but also would not have to spend hours scrolling through game data to decide which player to buy. I know some people like to do it, I myself like, but it is time-consuming. 

 

Someone mentioned earlier the mustermann skin, and I just think that SI could provide us with a similar skin for people who don't like to play with attributes, that would be already helpful. 

Edited January 5 by Rodrigogc

[Mr_Maz]

26 minutes ago, Mr_Maz said:

panels and links completely messed. since yesterday evening = randomly happened in-play with no error message

 

click on squad, a player or a club and it just sends you to the home panel.

impossible to play the game properly now.

 

tried all options - different save files, clear and reload skin, uninstall and fresh install (via steam), new game, etc. Nothing works

ahh resolved.

 

deleted the skin, and downloaded a fresh copy and it works

[RDF Tactics]

12 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

 

I've played FM also buying players relying solely on data (I hid all the attributes in the color panel), and in fact it is very fun. And I made mistakes, which is great and realistic, but the problem to me is that it becomes too time-consuming. I decided to play with attributes again and easily found some of the best newgens in the game (and both from Chile):

 

 

The point to me is: Signing players using only data is time-consuming, signing players looking at attributes is too easy. I think there should be a spot where you won't be able to tell a young player is great right away but also would not have to spend hours scrolling through game data to decide which player to buy. I know some people like to do it, I myself like, but it is time-consuming. 

 

Someone mentioned earlier the mustermann skin, and I just think that SI could provide us with a similar skin for people who don't like to play with attributes, that would be already helpful. 

Oh it’s very time consuming haha that’s why I also believe changing the way attributes are can lead to a similar thing. It might result in recruitment being a longer process for those who only have a couple of hours to play each day. 
 

it is hard to tell what the hidden attributes are actually doing and what effect they’re having. But too many times I’ve signed a player who had adaptability as a con but able to play out of their skin straight away. I hardly have to go through a process with a player where I’m trying to make them happy and comfortable in a new environment (that would also test my man management).

 

there’s for sure a lot of things FM can do. Previously I have requested or gave feedback on things but to be honest, that’s time consuming and there’s very very little chance it gets taken seriously anyway. It’s like my 3rd year talking about the chalkboard and how it searches but it’s still the same in FM24 lol so on that part of sending in requests etc, I’ve given up and would just rather talk about it with people like you and in streams etc