Football Manager 2024 Official Feedback Thread

[Johnleegriffin]

On 19/03/2024 at 16:37, nico_france said:

Hi guys, out of curiosity

Does Mbappé stays forever in PSG in your saves ?

Or he's leaving the club in June 2024 as he stated it IRL ?

He just signed another contract until 2030 in my save. 

Edited March 20 by Johnleegriffin

[Kaminsky]

1 hour ago, RDF Tactics said:

Lack of clarity and not following up on communication improvements (plus update roadmap). Amongst other things but my other things are more selfish thoughts. But this helps others help SI knowing where we’re at with things like bug tracking.

ive spent time reporting things. And they aren’t all things I just spot whilst playing, some things I look to test multiple times before reporting. It’s time consuming but for what? I don’t know if it’s going to be help or if what I’m reporting on will be changed anyway like interface issues as FM25 will be different. I (and we) want to be helpful with reporting for FM25 release too.

so my expectations isn’t for one last game-changing patch. Because they haven’t mentioned or promised that. But a roadmap for future updates is what they did mention. But also acknowledging they dropped the ball with communication and will improve that. These things would help those who want to help know where they’re at with things regarding reporting stuff.

FM is a passion of mine. So my words may come across a bit OTT and have people thinking “chill out, it’s their product”. I acknowledge that. But this passion has me wanting to go above to help improve the game, and others. I’m just at the point where I don’t think it’s worth it, for me. It’s time consuming and voluntary

 

I noticed the interactions you garnered from SI employees and some of the mods when you were gathering info/data, or what have you, for a bug report in this thread a few weeks back. There you were praising the game and putting the game in a positive light. When you posted your frustrations the other day on the lack of communication from SI post release, I thought the replies would be less numerous on that topic. 

Lo and behold, crickets in here. Funny that.

[wazzaflow10]

On 18/03/2024 at 02:20, whatsupdoc said:

Formations like this should automatically lose if the game is a football simulation.

Its so difficult to make a hard coded rule in computing when you have so many options like you do in FM. There's no conceivable way to do this without going through each formation you could possibly make with every duty etc etc. They're stuck between letting us have some semblance of freedom and tactical choice and completely locking the tactics creator down into a series of prebuilt "valid" formations. Part of the game is figuring out what works and what doesn't tactically. With that comes potential exploitable formations, but equally potentially disastrous combinations. That's why we've seen XYZ formation doesn't work game must be broken because it allows me to make this formation posts and ABC formation means I can dominate the league with a team that is about to be relegated in real life.

Things can always improve but we have to take the good with the bad when it comes to tactical freedom.

[g1nh0]

2 hours ago, RDF Tactics said:

Lack of clarity and not following up on communication improvements (plus update roadmap). Amongst other things but my other things are more selfish thoughts. But this helps others help SI knowing where we’re at with things like bug tracking.

ive spent time reporting things. And they aren’t all things I just spot whilst playing, some things I look to test multiple times before reporting. It’s time consuming but for what? I don’t know if it’s going to be help or if what I’m reporting on will be changed anyway like interface issues as FM25 will be different. I (and we) want to be helpful with reporting for FM25 release too.

so my expectations isn’t for one last game-changing patch. Because they haven’t mentioned or promised that. But a roadmap for future updates is what they did mention. But also acknowledging they dropped the ball with communication and will improve that. These things would help those who want to help know where they’re at with things regarding reporting stuff.

FM is a passion of mine. So my words may come across a bit OTT and have people thinking “chill out, it’s their product”. I acknowledge that. But this passion has me wanting to go above to help improve the game, and others. I’m just at the point where I don’t think it’s worth it, for me. It’s time consuming and voluntary

 

Sadly, it probably will end up being a waste of time. There is the players and those like yourself very passionate about the game, who wants to see the game progress and be the best it possibly can be, whereas SI are simply a business with their first priority, to maximise profits and safeguard their long term future.

Then with no competition (and the nature of the product), there is also much less of an incentive to work hard to bring about significant improvements, with no need to immediately invest heavily to make those game improvements. They can bring out things / any planned long term at a much more leisurely pace.

As long as their business model is continuing to work and there isn't any sign of a decline (which there is not and seems to be thriving), then this will continue to be the trajectory things will head at - and to be fair, from a business perspective it is the smart thing to do. I'd be delighted seeing profits continuing to increase without needing to rush any planned improvements that can be implemented further down the line in later editions.

[kiingallen]

1 hour ago, Kaminsky said:

I noticed the interactions you garnered from SI employees and some of the mods when you were gathering info/data, or what have you, for a bug report in this thread a few weeks back. There you were praising the game and putting the game in a positive light. When you posted your frustrations the other day on the lack of communication from SI post release, I thought the replies would be less numerous on that topic. 

Lo and behold, crickets in here. Funny that.

I’m glad you mentioned this observation, because I noticed as well from afar but have pretty much given up my effort of communication in here. I’m glad other people can notice this. 

[DolphinSpain]

1 hour ago, kiingallen said:

I’m glad you mentioned this observation, because I noticed as well from afar but have pretty much given up my effort of communication in here. I’m glad other people can notice this. 

It's been that way for years. Many things are conveniently ignored.

[gggfunk]

Question to people using instant result button - does it include making subs during the match? And is your tactic being used there?

[santy001]

5 hours ago, RDF Tactics said:

so my expectations isn’t for one last game-changing patch. Because they haven’t mentioned or promised that. But a roadmap for future updates is what they did mention. But also acknowledging they dropped the ball with communication and will improve that. These things would help those who want to help know where they’re at with things regarding reporting stuff.

I don't know if FM is the only game you play, if it's one of a few or one of hundreds, but it's a weird sentiment you're expressing that seems common across games these days. An obsession with roadmaps (they don't really mean anything) and a ceaseless call for devs to acknowledge they don't communicate well enough. 

There's rarely a level of communication that actually satisfies players, there's rarely a roadmap detailed or nuanced enough that it satisfies players. There's rarely a developer that can actually deliver on its roadmap in a meaningful manner. The communication is briefly good enough in the eyes of people when it comes to the niche they're interested in. When it moves away from that or there's nothing to share suddenly it is dreadful again and horribly lacking. So far I've been able to play Anno 1800, Baldur's Gate 3, Brotato, Crusader Kings 2 & 3, Cyberpunk 2077, FM24, The Golf Club, Helldivers 2, Kenshi, Mini Metro, RDR2, Timberborn, Undisputed, Vampire Survivors and Victoria 3. That's just covering January -> today.

All those games aside from FM have been competing with FM for my time and attention, while for some people FM is the only game they play it's not a universal rule there is no competition. However, the reality is none of them offer any meaningful communication. Never have in some of the cases of games gone by. 

The studios who do this self-flagellation in the public eye like CDProjektRed with Cyberpunk 2077 (and Blizzard before some of the truly awful stuff came out) seem to suffer more reputational damage and player-loss than those who do not (EA, Activision and Ubisoft among others) . For quite a simple reason, if all you do is spend your time telling people how bad you are at something and how poor a job, they'll likely take your word for it. It also becomes a never-expiring argument to throw at a company. If as developers a big part of what you do is sitting around sating those people in the community who like to be told they're right and what you're doing isn't good enough - how long before that mentality sets in and just becomes a contributing factor to a toxic workplace? Even if its not developers, if Miles is taking to Twitter at 5pm every Friday to do "apology of the week" how long until you start to think "I should probably go work somewhere else" as it's not conducive to a good work place at all.

It's announced FM25 is transitioning to Unity, while there's a lot of people getting way too carried away with what they expect that means, there seems to be a complete lack of logical thinking when people discuss issues. When you raise an issue right now on FM24, what do you think SI has to do? They need to reproduce the issue internally, then see if its also present on the future Unity version. Unless something had to be recreated entirely from scratch in Unity or Unity has some feature which resolves the issue compared to the current game engine (not match engine) it's likely to manifest there too. Resources then have to be allocated into finding a fix, if the fix works in the new Unity version but not the existing version then that puts a very serious question about the allocation of resources. SI will have been working on the Unity transition for years and some issues are likely going to be fixed in the Unity version but could not be fixed either due to staffing constraints or time constraints in the version we've been playing these last few years. I'm not a game developer, I have no hidden insight, it's just applying a bit of logic to the situation that seems likely to me. 

As someone who also puts a lot of time in for free and has a passion for the game, evidenced through my years moderating these forums and over a decade of doing research, next year will see us mods dealing with those people who have let expectations carry them away about what Unity means. We'll also have people outraged that the transition to Unity hasn't fixed their issues. Then we'll likely have those few who are impacted by the recurrence of some previously fixed issues. As someone who's been bowling around for a number of years now with every major software transition I've seen in the workplace some old, previously fixed issues have reoccurred. As substantial a change as Unity is it seems logical to me that could happen with FM too. 

[RDF Tactics]

3 hours ago, santy001 said:

I don't know if FM is the only game you play, if it's one of a few or one of hundreds, but it's a weird sentiment you're expressing that seems common across games these days. An obsession with roadmaps (they don't really mean anything) and a ceaseless call for devs to acknowledge they don't communicate well enough. 

There's rarely a level of communication that actually satisfies players, there's rarely a roadmap detailed or nuanced enough that it satisfies players. There's rarely a developer that can actually deliver on its roadmap in a meaningful manner. The communication is briefly good enough in the eyes of people when it comes to the niche they're interested in. When it moves away from that or there's nothing to share suddenly it is dreadful again and horribly lacking. So far I've been able to play Anno 1800, Baldur's Gate 3, Brotato, Crusader Kings 2 & 3, Cyberpunk 2077, FM24, The Golf Club, Helldivers 2, Kenshi, Mini Metro, RDR2, Timberborn, Undisputed, Vampire Survivors and Victoria 3. That's just covering January -> today.

All those games aside from FM have been competing with FM for my time and attention, while for some people FM is the only game they play it's not a universal rule there is no competition. However, the reality is none of them offer any meaningful communication. Never have in some of the cases of games gone by. 

The studios who do this self-flagellation in the public eye like CDProjektRed with Cyberpunk 2077 (and Blizzard before some of the truly awful stuff came out) seem to suffer more reputational damage and player-loss than those who do not (EA, Activision and Ubisoft among others) . For quite a simple reason, if all you do is spend your time telling people how bad you are at something and how poor a job, they'll likely take your word for it. It also becomes a never-expiring argument to throw at a company. If as developers a big part of what you do is sitting around sating those people in the community who like to be told they're right and what you're doing isn't good enough - how long before that mentality sets in and just becomes a contributing factor to a toxic workplace? Even if its not developers, if Miles is taking to Twitter at 5pm every Friday to do "apology of the week" how long until you start to think "I should probably go work somewhere else" as it's not conducive to a good work place at all.

It's announced FM25 is transitioning to Unity, while there's a lot of people getting way too carried away with what they expect that means, there seems to be a complete lack of logical thinking when people discuss issues. When you raise an issue right now on FM24, what do you think SI has to do? They need to reproduce the issue internally, then see if its also present on the future Unity version. Unless something had to be recreated entirely from scratch in Unity or Unity has some feature which resolves the issue compared to the current game engine (not match engine) it's likely to manifest there too. Resources then have to be allocated into finding a fix, if the fix works in the new Unity version but not the existing version then that puts a very serious question about the allocation of resources. SI will have been working on the Unity transition for years and some issues are likely going to be fixed in the Unity version but could not be fixed either due to staffing constraints or time constraints in the version we've been playing these last few years. I'm not a game developer, I have no hidden insight, it's just applying a bit of logic to the situation that seems likely to me. 

As someone who also puts a lot of time in for free and has a passion for the game, evidenced through my years moderating these forums and over a decade of doing research, next year will see us mods dealing with those people who have let expectations carry them away about what Unity means. We'll also have people outraged that the transition to Unity hasn't fixed their issues. Then we'll likely have those few who are impacted by the recurrence of some previously fixed issues. As someone who's been bowling around for a number of years now with every major software transition I've seen in the workplace some old, previously fixed issues have reoccurred. As substantial a change as Unity is it seems logical to me that could happen with FM too. 

All of what you said is great, but hardly has anything to do with what I've said or my frustration.

Comparing it to other games and how/what they do is fine. I am addressing what FM said. I have an "obsession" with roadmaps because it was something I was looking forward to. As they said, it will be similar to how they did feature-release roadmaps as that was well received. So it meant something. If they had no intentions of doing these things, they should never mention it. But, a bit of a push to call it an obsession when I've only just brought it up.

An obsession looks more like me banging on about FM needing a glossary for yeaaarrrss but nobody calls that out as an obsession. Likely because it's a good idea many players are on board with. An update roadmap, to me, was also a good idea. So I shall mention a couple of times like I do.

Importantly, you mentioned the move to Unity. Clarity on what people should be reporting or is worthwhile would help massively those who want to and are reporting. Some issues are likely to be fixed, some aren't, I'm not asking for details on what exactly SI are up to. But asking a community to report bugs which you may have no intention of looking at for whatever reason (as in development reasons, maybe they're scrapping something) - can be wasting people's time.

Apologies for people's "lack of logical thinking". SI said Unity will be bringing "powerful user interface tools". Does it seem logical to keep reporting Interface bugs in FM24 when you aren't sure the very thing you are reporting will even exist in the next version? Or maybe you're hoping for another FM24 update (not me personally) and still reporting in case there is one.

"whole new UI which will dramatically improve the ways you are able to interact with the game". Again, forgive people for not understanding what that really means. If my FM24 filter is out of place and has a visual bug, do I report that still? Newgens and manager creation are also changing. I'm not sure SI will be trying to reproduce these issues internally for FM25. Logically speaking.

And part of what you said, I mean, is literally what is being asked for here. You were able to communicate within a few hours. No, you are not SI but you were able to explain some things.

So, sure. May seem like I have some wild expectations, but only put on by SI through their words. If they can't deliver something in a meaningful manner, they shouldn't mention it as if it means something. If they want to mention it, then they should expect questions to be asked if not delivered.

And next year, people have already been told that a "whole new UI" will be introduced. But if old UI issues appear... Are we really going to point fingers at people and say their expectations carried them away? 

Edited March 21 by RDF Tactics

[Mobius]

edit - nevermind, RDF said everything I said better and more succinctly 

Edited March 21 by Mobius

[RDF Tactics]

7 minutes ago, Mobius said:

edit - nevermind, RDF said everything I said better and more succinctly 

I saw what you wrote anyway. I've run into this mod before, it is likely the reason for the "obsession with roadmaps" and "weird sentiment you're expressing that seems common across games these days". Mod probably felt good typing that

[santy001]

I quoted your post because it had the sentiments I've seen across the broader gaming industry which I said, so while I picked up on your thoughts, it's not to say you're obsessed personally or you're expecting too much personally but it's something that is rampant and symptomatic through the wider space. I probably shouldn't have quoted your post, but I felt it gave a link to the context of the post better. You're not the only one who has made such posts in this thread alone, and I'm far too lazy to go and manually quote segments of all of them. Or as it turns in this case, even more than one of them. Yet your post had a number of the same threads wound together which made it seem appropriate at the time.

Roadmaps don't mean anything because there is no consequence for failing to deliver on them in a tangible way. If a roadmap isn't delivered on, you don't get a refund. If a roadmap isn't delivered on, the developer doesn't face fines etc. Anthem had a roadmap it couldn't deliver on, so came up with a new roadmap for Anthem 2.0 - the whole game was then scrapped. With how many poorly thought out examples in the wider games industry, it's a toss up between roadmaps and Peter Molyneux as to which has a worse reputation. 

When it comes to bugs like with the interface , there being a whole new UI can be interpreted in different ways. If you've got code already existing which can be moved across just fine why go through the trouble of doing the same thing a different way? The presentation of the information/screen and how it's generated in the background are separate. Reporting issues always has merit because despite all the thousands of bugs reported, there will still be more unknown in the game and the more SI are aware of the more than can be checked moving forward into the future. There is a point at which SI determine no more bug reporting would be beneficial. Take a look at the FM23 bug tracker:

23 minutes ago, RDF Tactics said:

Mod probably felt good typing that

Not at all, one of the big things I try to do is offer people something to think about that hopefully helps stop people getting wound up and agitated by a game that is supposed to be a source of fun. It's a consistent sentiment I express ranging from advising people to step away when they stop enjoying it to a post like my previous one. At the end of the day I'm very happy with my FM experience, I don't need to defend it, I don't need to explain it. In the most brutally honest manner, if other people aren't enjoying it then it's of no consequence to my own enjoyment. The best I can hope for is that with such a post it prompts a few people to reflect and make a positive change in their mindset that doesn't increase the risk of their future experiences being negatively impacted. This is because even though it has no impact on me, I still would rather people do find a place where they're happier with a game which they've purchased and put time into. 

34 minutes ago, Mobius said:

Not sure what your gripes about being a mod have to do with the issue either...

They weren't gripes, but they were that little dangling hook of bait to prove a point. There is no empathy for the other side in a discussion online, and when that's not there why would developers of any game feel comfortable increasing community engagement further when it in turn could only expose the game/individuals to further criticism?

[Bahnzo]

6 hours ago, santy001 said:

There's rarely a level of communication that actually satisfies players

This just isn't true. I play Path of Exile here and there, and their communication with players is generally pretty good, IMO of course. Maybe it's being a smaller company which helps, but I've seen it in numerous games over the years. 

The problem is when you promise stuff (like roadmaps) and then don't deliver. Don't promise what you can't back up. 

[Mobius]

edit - nevermind

Edited March 21 by Mobius
pointless

[santy001]

43 minutes ago, Bahnzo said:

This just isn't true. I play Path of Exile here and there, and their communication with players is generally pretty good, IMO of course.

PoE is one game I've often heard good things about (only ever got about 7-8 hours in myself and found level up system to be way more involved than I had any interest in learning). But I know there are still people out there who criticise GGG at times because again, it doesn't align with the stuff they want communication on. There's also a rather simple reality with games that when you absolutely smash it out of the park with a game (eg BG3) or with a season in a game like PoE you get so much more leeway from players. Sports based titles often can't ever really expect to hit that same high (or indeed some of the lows other games have managed) because of their nature. 

If wanting more dev communication is becoming the barrier to an individuals enjoyment of the game then that does need challenging because whatever that person has in mind likely isn't what the studio has in mind even if they are planning changes in that area. 

On the other hand you have the likes of Mobius who can quote a post and still somehow get it spectacularly wrong on the next line. When people will just invent pure fiction when a pretty open ended question is asked, not even SI specific to somehow try and associate it with SI policy. It's disingenuous and were it not for the fact it demonstrated my point again, I'd have just hidden the post. 

[Mobius]

Just now, santy001 said:

On the other hand you have the likes of Mobius who can quote a post and still somehow get it spectacularly wrong on the next line. When people will just invent pure fiction when a pretty open ended question is asked, not even SI specific to somehow try and associate it with SI policy. It's disingenuous and were it not for the fact it demonstrated my point again, I'd have just hidden the post. 

I really think you've misinterpreted, or decided to take umbrage at my comment unnecessarily there but it does seem to have upset you, so I've just deleted the post because that wasn't the intention. Apologies. 

[kiwityke1983]

It's a pretty universal truth that you aren't going to please everyone all of the time for a reason.

[NineCloudNine]

3 hours ago, santy001 said:

PoE is one game I've often heard good things about (only ever got about 7-8 hours in myself and found level up system to be way more involved than I had any interest in learning). But I know there are still people out there who criticise GGG at times because again, it doesn't align with the stuff they want communication on. There's also a rather simple reality with games that when you absolutely smash it out of the park with a game (eg BG3) or with a season in a game like PoE you get so much more leeway from players. Sports based titles often can't ever really expect to hit that same high (or indeed some of the lows other games have managed) because of their nature. 

If wanting more dev communication is becoming the barrier to an individuals enjoyment of the game then that does need challenging because whatever that person has in mind likely isn't what the studio has in mind even if they are planning changes in that area. 

On the other hand you have the likes of Mobius who can quote a post and still somehow get it spectacularly wrong on the next line. When people will just invent pure fiction when a pretty open ended question is asked, not even SI specific to somehow try and associate it with SI policy. It's disingenuous and were it not for the fact it demonstrated my point again, I'd have just hidden the post. 

I do tend to agree and also appreciate you writing detailed, considered posts.

I would add though that there is a large space between the detailed interaction some players expect, and absolutely zero communication of any sort, which is what we get.

Edited March 21 by NineCloudNine

[RDF Tactics]

@santy001 in all honesty, you’re adding extra stuff and talking about things others aren’t.

i haven’t mentioned SI not communicating is affecting my playing experience of FM, or my enjoyment. Or insinuating that. 

My frustration is very simple. SI claimed something but didn’t deliver so I’m bringing that up.

and Again, you are explaining things which shouldn’t be difficult for SI to explain. If a whole new UI can be interpreted in different ways, what exactly is the issue of wanting to know in what way is the UI going to be “whole new”. To most people, that sounds like you’re creating a whole new UI. This can create confusion, then, on what you’d report.

In what other way can “whole new” be interpreted? Especially when you’re changing the game as we know it. Telling us certain things are going to be wholly new and completely different, there will be expectations that it’s going to be “whole new” and completely different. 

To me, and others, it’s a simple thing of developers shouldn’t promise something and not do it. If they’re not comfortable, again, still, shouldn’t say you will. And it’s not just about replying to people’s comments in the thread, it’s in general. And part of what SI had in mind, unfortunately, I can’t actually speaking on that, legally. But I’ve been very fortunate with opportunities given and able to have direct contact. So I’m not exactly just pulling my expectations out of thin air.

Yet, all of this does not affect my playing experience or enjoyment. That was never a part of any of my feedback or comments.

other people may say “I can’t play this game” “This game is unplayable”. Through all of this, I’ve been in here clearly disagreeing with that. It may be a complaint you see in here, but not from me.

Edited March 21 by RDF Tactics

[RDF Tactics]

6 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said:

I do tend to agree and also appreciate you writing detailed, considered posts.

I would add though that there is a large space between the detailed interaction some players expect, and absolutely zero communication of any sort, which is what we get.

Similar to what I said. What he’s writing, I’m not sure why its difficult for someone at SI to put similar across. Of course, legally, they will not be an allowed to say certain things.

when it comes to communication from SI, part of it was to be more open about studio developments. We’ve got zero of that throughout the year.

And people asking them to back up the communication improvement, doesn’t then mean we expect SI to be hanging around all day replying to complaints and questions. Not at all. But we’ve gotten zero of any sort, like you say. 

[RDF Tactics]

Admittedly, I am not clued up with finances and stuff in the game. Is there a reason that at Sporting, I can't offer players more wages?

The most I can offer out is £42.5k. A few players are asking for new contracts and now struggling to keep players happy as I can't offer more than £42.5k. Annoyingly, like Morita, he's asking for £50k, I offered the most I could and he counter-offered with more than the original £50k he asked for haha but I don't know the reason I can't offer out more when I can. With player's contracts relatively low at Sporting compared to their ability, a few players are knocking on my office door.

I have a "fix", but it's not ideal. I was able to offer one player the £42.5k but gave him a minimum release clause (domestic) of £10k  help!

[NineCloudNine]

1 hour ago, RDF Tactics said:

Admittedly, I am not clued up with finances and stuff in the game. Is there a reason that at Sporting, I can't offer players more wages?

The most I can offer out is £42.5k. A few players are asking for new contracts and now struggling to keep players happy as I can't offer more than £42.5k. Annoyingly, like Morita, he's asking for £50k, I offered the most I could and he counter-offered with more than the original £50k he asked for haha but I don't know the reason I can't offer out more when I can. With player's contracts relatively low at Sporting compared to their ability, a few players are knocking on my office door.

I have a "fix", but it's not ideal. I was able to offer one player the £42.5k but gave him a minimum release clause (domestic) of £10k  help!

In the database for each country (or it might be each league, I’ll check later) there is a page listing typical wages for players by CA band. These do not, I believe, act as absolute caps (they definitely don’t at the top end) but I think they do constrain the wages typically available in each league.

This is a bit of a crude mechanism but it does prevent too much wage disparity and allows the game to reflect reasonably accurately the vast differences in spending power between countries. 

Players increasing their demands with each negotoation round is, on the other hand, nuts. 

Edited March 21 by NineCloudNine

[Costav]

1 hour ago, RDF Tactics said:

Admittedly, I am not clued up with finances and stuff in the game. Is there a reason that at Sporting, I can't offer players more wages?

The most I can offer out is £42.5k. A few players are asking for new contracts and now struggling to keep players happy as I can't offer more than £42.5k. Annoyingly, like Morita, he's asking for £50k, I offered the most I could and he counter-offered with more than the original £50k he asked for haha but I don't know the reason I can't offer out more when I can. With player's contracts relatively low at Sporting compared to their ability, a few players are knocking on my office door.

I have a "fix", but it's not ideal. I was able to offer one player the £42.5k but gave him a minimum release clause (domestic) of £10k  help!

I've faced this situation more than once in the past years, and here my considerations:

1. As far I understood, when a player negotiate the wage you should consider not only the basic wage he's asking you, but also the budget impact ("Wage budget cost", in bottom left of the page, which is the expected total wage they will receive, including bonuses and other fees). That's what they negotiate. So (MAYBE) you removed some bonuses and then the player decided to increase the basic wage request in order to keep the same wage level. As a demonstration, in the finance section, wage list, you see the total wage received by the players, not only the basic salary. 

2. IRL there are some boards that establishes salary caps for every single player. It is absolutely realistic to imagine Sporting board decided to do the same, that's why you have a limit. Many years ago Roma had  cap of 2.5 million each player (excluded for Totti and De Rossi). Few years ago Milan had the same policy. Just as an example.

It's not only what @NineCloudNine said, it's also that the board could have decided not to spend more for reasons that are not made explicit. And if we want to compare FM to RL, you may face several of those episodes where a decision taken does not make any sense to you but it does to the people that have taken it. 

Edited March 21 by Costav

[RDF Tactics]

11 minutes ago, Costav said:

I've faced this situation more than once in the past years, and here my considerations:

1. As far I understood, when a player negotiate the wage you should consider not only the basic wage they are asking you, but also the budget impact ("Wage budget cost, in bottom left, "which is the expected total wage they will receive, including bonuses and other fees). That's what they negotiate. So (MAYBE) you removed some bonuses and then the player decided to increase the basic wage request in order to keep the same wage level. As a demonstration, in the finance section, wage list, you see the total wage received by the players, not only the basic salary. 

2. IRL there are some boards that establishes salary caps for every single player. It is absolutely realistic to imagine Sporting board decided to do the same, that's why you have a limit.

The bonuses I never touch, unless we can't afford to pay it or sometimes because of the cap on wages, it means you have to tone down some bonuses as well. But, in Morita's case, it was only the wage as he did ask too far from what the cap was. It was only £8k more than the cap, so the bonuses were all left untouched. Offered him £42.5k and he came back and said nah, actually I want £57k now  But doesn't happen to all players and all the time. Adan was adamant about wanting £59k. There was no budging from that number at all lol

And yeah, like @NineCloudNine mentioned, there is a cap but it seems like it's a league thing. I just tried offering a contract at Porto and it was a similar thing. A cap on a figure though can afford to pay more.

To be honest, I don't mind it. I like it. Maybe not best-balanced atm but I like the challenge of sometimes your player asking for a certain figure but because of a cap, you can't offer him. Stops you from being able to hold talent in certain leagues when realistically, they may be too good for the league and should be difficult for you to keep them.

I was just making sure it wasn't a game problem 

Edited March 21 by RDF Tactics

[Costav]

1 minute ago, RDF Tactics said:

The bonuses I never touch, unless we can't afford to pay it or sometimes because of the cap on wages, it means you have to tone down some bonuses as well. But, in Morita's case, it was only the wage as he did ask too far from what the cap was. It was only £8k more than the cap, so the bonuses were all left untouched. Offered him £42.5k and he came back and said nah, actually I want £57k now

Then I don't know why he asked for more...maybe he perceived you initial offer as an insult ahaha!

1 minute ago, RDF Tactics said:

To be honest, I don't mind it. I like it. Maybe not best-balanced atm but I like the challenge of sometimes your player asking for a certain figure but because of a cap, you can't offer him. Stops you from being able to hold talent in certain leagues when realistically, they may be too good for the league and should be difficult for you to keep them.

I have the same feeling, and I also feel it should be like this.  I mean, there are similar limitation in RL, and if you (a generic you) want a product that tends to replicate those, you should be able to accept things that are not under you control.

Imagine the situation where you can offer as much as you want....then everybody complaining because it's too easy to buy any player ahah.

[Smoo]

Sporting's top earners in my current save, funny that the AI isn't given a wage cap.

[Costav]

4 minutes ago, Smoo said:

Sporting's top earners in my current save, funny that the AI isn't given a wage cap.

In which year are you? It seems to me that rdf was in the first or the second year.
There can be several reasons why Sporting has a higher wage cap. 

You can do comparisons only "Ceteris paribus", or in very similar situations.

[RDF Tactics]

1 minute ago, Smoo said:

Sporting's top earners in my current save, funny that the AI isn't given a wage cap.

REFEREE!!!!! WHAT SORT OF SCAM IS THIS? 

This is mine atm. I am in first season, though. Not sure how much they'll increase the cap. But Diomande is close to double than what I can pay.

But also goes back to something I spoke about before. Players should be able to recognise this. If there's a wage cap, the player should know there's a wage cap. He shouldn't be asking for more than the cap knowing I can't offer that. His moan or complaint can/should be that he wants to leave to earn more because of the cap. If he doesn't want to leave, then, he should deal with the fact there's a cap haha as there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I have the option to tell the player "We can't offer that right now" but it's not really the same as getting the player to understand it's not in your hands. Probably an interaction thing.

[NineCloudNine]

13 minutes ago, RDF Tactics said:

Stops you from being able to hold talent in certain leagues when realistically, they may be too good for the league and should be difficult for you to keep them.

That, I think, is the intention. 

[Costav]

3 minutes ago, RDF Tactics said:

Players should be able to recognise this. If there's a wage cap, the player should know there's a wage cap. He shouldn't be asking for more than the cap knowing I can't offer that. His moan or complaint can/should be that he wants to leave to earn more because of the cap. If he doesn't want to leave, then, he should deal with the fact there's a cap haha as there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Why exactly?

Just assume some of them may recognize it but some other don't.

Example: Philippe Mexes, season 2010. One of the best player in Rome. He did want to earn more, but he did not want to leave. The club offers up to its wage cup. He did not accept and, at the end of the season, he decides to leave. In negotiation, this happens.

[Smoo]

21 minutes ago, Costav said:

In which year are you? It seems to me that rdf was in the first or the second year.
There can be several reasons why Sporting has a higher wage cap. 

You can do comparisons only "Ceteris paribus", or in very similar situations.

I'm halfway through season 3, but Diomande, Coates and Goncalves signed those contracts at the end of season 1, the rest at the end of season 2.

[XaW]

53 minutes ago, Preveza said:

Perfectly said. Would love to see a mod post some 'constructive' criticism of the game we all love.

Sigh, this old "the mods dont' criticize the game" schtick is getting old. Why on earth would we not want the best game we can get? We are spending a lot of our free time in here because of the game, why would we not speak up?

So let me show a few of my posts then...

And those are the ones I remember from the top of my head.

And if I need to repeat myself, then fine. I think SI should be much more open in their communication with its users, the silence that many experience when reporting issues or feedback is not good. I thought it looked like it would improve around the release of FM24, as there were signs of improvement, but it has been lacking since. I think the game would benefit focusing much more on fixing and tuning older systems before implementing new ones, as I think there are a lot of technical debt in the game that really needs to be sorted. Having so many small niggles that has been present for many years is not a good look, and some focus on the polish would really be worth a lot to me.

There, happy now? Or are my constructive critique not enough, and you need me to shout out accusations or call SI names before you think a mod can give critical feedback?

[Socerer 01]

1 hour ago, Preveza said:

Perfectly said. Would love to see a mod post some 'constructive' criticism of the game we all love.

I’ve only seen @Rashidi and @XaW do it. Maybe herne did when he was still a mod, I don’t remember. 
 

EDIT: Just seen that @XaW has beat me to it. 

Edited March 21 by Socerer 01

[Robbie Hood]

On 18/03/2024 at 10:39, RDF Tactics said:

Miles also promised us a roadmap for game updates this year, similar to how they did feature releases. I don't believe we're getting that either. The previous update post doesn't mention anything about future update/plans. We've had one Content Update change list which was on November 10th (I believe).

I agree with a lot of things @RDF Tactics, but i´m just curious where/when Miles promised a roadmap for game updates this year?

[RDF Tactics]

1 hour ago, Robbie Hood said:

I agree with a lot of things @RDF Tactics, but i´m just curious where/when Miles promised a roadmap for game updates this year?

It was in a post from November 10th, with information about future updates. I should change my wording though because it wasn't a promise.

November 21st seemed like the first of it (which are the same notes from the November 10th post). There's an update in the coming weeks covering transfers and player data changes from later closing transfer windows which I believe is the last one before FM25. So maybe a similar post to come

[b2khn]

Is there something of with "passive" offside?
Not giving a "issue report" here, Iam just asking a question.

[kiwityke1983]

2 hours ago, XaW said:

Sigh, this old "the mods dont' criticize the game" schtick is getting old. Why on earth would we not want the best game we can get? We are spending a lot of our free time in here because of the game, why would we not speak up?

So let me show a few of my posts then...

And those are the ones I remember from the top of my head.

And if I need to repeat myself, then fine. I think SI should be much more open in their communication with its users, the silence that many experience when reporting issues or feedback is not good. I thought it looked like it would improve around the release of FM24, as there were signs of improvement, but it has been lacking since. I think the game would benefit focusing much more on fixing and tuning older systems before implementing new ones, as I think there are a lot of technical debt in the game that really needs to be sorted. Having so many small niggles that has been present for many years is not a good look, and some focus on the polish would really be worth a lot to me.

There, happy now? Or are my constructive critique not enough, and you need me to shout out accusations or call SI names before you think a mod can give critical feedback?

The Improving facilities one is something that has for years consistently felt so "gamey".

Clubs often don't make incremental improvements IRL they build massive new facilities that are state of the art for when the build them.

Or are as good as the club can afford at the time.

Whereas in FM you have to go field, field with a hut, field with a hut and gym equipment in the corner etc all the way upto state of the art facilities.

The board should be able to just build whatever they are willing/able to if they want.

Same with youth recruitment and coaching etc.

[Preveza]

4 hours ago, XaW said:

Sigh, this old "the mods dont' criticize the game" schtick is getting old. Why on earth would we not want the best game we can get? We are spending a lot of our free time in here because of the game, why would we not speak up?

So let me show a few of my posts then...

And those are the ones I remember from the top of my head.

And if I need to repeat myself, then fine. I think SI should be much more open in their communication with its users, the silence that many experience when reporting issues or feedback is not good. I thought it looked like it would improve around the release of FM24, as there were signs of improvement, but it has been lacking since. I think the game would benefit focusing much more on fixing and tuning older systems before implementing new ones, as I think there are a lot of technical debt in the game that really needs to be sorted. Having so many small niggles that has been present for many years is not a good look, and some focus on the polish would really be worth a lot to me.

There, happy now? Or are my constructive critique not enough, and you need me to shout out accusations or call SI names before you think a mod can give critical feedback?

Should have mentioned @XaW is the exception... from my experience and from what I have seen over the years, many of the mods I have encountered defend the game, unnecessarily so ( and defend and moderate appropriately of course when its required)  but if there is a choice to provide constructive feedback or defend the game, the former needs to be first priority. Simple.

Edited March 21 by Preveza
spelling

[thewalking187]

I wonder if there will be another update?

[XaW]

1 hour ago, Preveza said:

Should have mentioned @XaW is the exception... from my experience and from what I have seen over the years, many of the mods I have encountered defend the game, unnecessarily so ( and defend and moderate appropriately of course when its required)  but if there is a choice to provide constructive feedback or defend the game, the former needs to be first priority. Simple.

I disagree, but I'll only speak for myself and let others link to their if they want. I will say that most mods do give critical feedback though.

My main point is that we are not told to walk any company line, nor are we told what to say about the game or how good we think it is. We are not paid by SI, we are doing this on a volunteer basis on our spare time, so we have no reason to lie.

What we do, well do, here, that I some times feel are taken out of context, is refer people to the right place for their issues. I've told several people in here to report bugs in the bug tracker and not here, for example. And that's not to shut down the critique of the game, but to get it to the place where it's most likely to get the attention it require to have a chance at being fixed. And as I said, I understand why it can sometimes feel like you are reporting and nothing is done, but SI do log every bug report in their internal bug fixing system (I don't know what they use, but I would imagine something like Jira or the like) that is linked back to the forum. And they at least set the status of it based on that. Sadly not if it's fixed or not, as I would have liked, but at least you would know it's logged.

As for this thread and feedback, I don't think we needlessly defend the game, but we try to encourage everyone to be constructive in their critique. I try to say "if you don't think it works as it should, then what would you see changed?". Because that's what is needed to influence SI to change it.

We mods very rarely removes posts from this thread, the most are when there's profanity or the rules are broken. I'm not going into too much detail, but I've removed posts here calling for SI staff to be fired, for example, that's clearly not ok. And while I understand that posting anonymously on the internet brings out toxicity and hyperbole in pretty much every community, this forum is not a place for it. These are the posts we will remove, nothing more. If you say "I don't like this and that" that's fine, no one will remove it unless you spam it again and again, then we might have a word. And that word is not to defend the game, but to keep the threads readable.

Where we do sometimes defend the game, is when people write stuff that are factually wrong. Then we will chime in and refer to what SI have written or our own experience.

Anyway, I've written too much here now that's clearly not feedback, so if anyone wants to continue discussing moderating on this forum, my inbox is open.

[fc.cadoni]

6 hours ago, thewalking187 said:

I wonder if there will be another update?

End March - early April. Will be database update, no Match Engine.

[kiwityke1983]

Two more things that grind my gears about FM and pull me out of the game just happened to me.

Cup ties where you are drawn against someone who you are playing in the league the very next match! How many times does this happen IRL? In the 37 years I've been watching Barnsley I can't ever remember it happening. But on FM its a semi-annual occurrence.

I just played Vasco da Gama 4 times in a row! Okay two of the matches were the Copa do Brasil final but I doubt any team has ever played another 4 times in a row.

In fact I'm only 4 seasons into this save and this has happened to me twice already.

Then the final went to penalties and you know what's coming yes its the endless penalty shootout! This one was 15 rounds. Again it happens IRL but nowhere near as often as it does in FM.

Edited March 22 by kiwityke1983

[tezcatlipoca665]

1 hour ago, kiwityke1983 said:

Two more things that grind my gears about FM and pull me out of the game just happened to me.

Cup ties where you are drawn against someone who you are playing in the league the very next match! How many times does this happen IRL? In the 37 years I've been watching Barnsley I can't ever remember it happening. But on FM its a semi-annual occurrence.

I just played Vasco da Gama 4 times in a row! Okay two of the matches were the Copa do Brasil final but I doubt any team has ever played another 4 times in a row.

In fact I'm only 4 seasons into this save and this has happened to me twice already.

Then the final went to penalties and you know what's coming yes its the endless penalty shootout! This one was 15 rounds. Again it happens IRL but nowhere near as often as it does in FM.

I thought it was just a weird coincidence, but this happens to me a lot too. In my current save, I'm about to play Arsenal in the FA Cup Final after playing them on the final league game of the season. Happened to me a lot in my Milan save in FM23 with cup games and league games being scheduled so I'd play the same team twice in a row too. There's no way it happens because of some design oversight - idk how that'd even be possible.

[RDF Tactics]

2 hours ago, kiwityke1983 said:

Cup ties where you are drawn against someone who you are playing in the league the very next match! How many times does this happen IRL? In the 37 years I've been watching Barnsley I can't ever remember it happening. But on FM its a semi-annual occurrence.

I just played Vasco da Gama 4 times in a row! Okay two of the matches were the Copa do Brasil final but I doubt any team has ever played another 4 times in a row.

In fact I'm only 4 seasons into this save and this has happened to me twice already.

Then the final went to penalties and you know what's coming yes its the endless penalty shootout! This one was 15 rounds. Again it happens IRL but nowhere near as often as it does in FM.

 

Yeah this has been an FM feature for too long now 

I reported a schedule thing a couple of years back but it wasn't exactly this. It was how different teams had the same fixtures. So example, I play United, City, and Chelsea in a row and there will be other team(s) in the same league with the same fixtures lol 

[Rashidi]

17 hours ago, Preveza said:

Should have mentioned @XaW is the exception... from my experience and from what I have seen over the years, many of the mods I have encountered defend the game, unnecessarily so ( and defend and moderate appropriately of course when its required)  but if there is a choice to provide constructive feedback or defend the game, the former needs to be first priority. Simple.

Defend the game, go ask Miles himself. He’ll tell you the mods are some of the most critical out there. I for one have stirred the hornets nest more than once. Were you not around when I called the new headline features “lacking” and in some cases like the Data Hub useless? How about match engine issues, just cos you don’t see me openly vocally complaining like the rest doesn’t mean it never happens. If there is a match engine bug I am one of the most vocal. Why do you think some of the player instructions from the Ball Winning Midfielder were removed? 
 

I will not speak for the others, but to imply that we toe the line is insulting. Just cos we don’t come in here and turn this into an echo chamber doesn’t mean we “toe the line”. 
 

Personally I hate it when people go around using the term “meta” and “exploit” and in the same breadth say you need specific players for them.  I believe in filing a bug report and if the issue persists I file another, if it isn’t addressed I believe SI may not see that as an issue, which means I might be doing something  wrong. I do feel that perhaps SI can engage a bit more especially with regards to the current bug reports for FM24. If assets have been moved to FM25 then maybe they should identify the current issues for FM24 they wish to receive reports on, that way everyone’s time can be better utilised. 

[RDF Tactics]

18 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I believe in filing a bug report and if the issue persists I file another, if it isn’t addressed I believe SI may not see that as an issue, which means I might be doing something  wrong. I do feel that perhaps SI can engage a bit more especially with regards to the current bug reports for FM24. If assets have been moved to FM25 then maybe should identify the current issues for FM24 they wish to receive reports on, that way everyone’s time can be better utilised. 

This, this and this!!!

everyones time can be utilised better. One of my main points when it comes to the lack of SI communication.

[El Payaso]

1 hour ago, RDF Tactics said:

This, this and this!!!

everyones time can be utilised better. One of my main points when it comes to the lack of SI communication.

I'm totally on your side here but also have to ask: why are you guys so willing to do free work for someone that doesn't even bother to give a reply for all the hard work that you have done for them? I certainly wouldn't, no matter how much I like the game itself. 

[Preveza]

16 hours ago, XaW said:

I disagree, but I'll only speak for myself and let others link to their if they want. I will say that most mods do give critical feedback though.

My main point is that we are not told to walk any company line, nor are we told what to say about the game or how good we think it is. We are not paid by SI, we are doing this on a volunteer basis on our spare time, so we have no reason to lie.

What we do, well do, here, that I some times feel are taken out of context, is refer people to the right place for their issues. I've told several people in here to report bugs in the bug tracker and not here, for example. And that's not to shut down the critique of the game, but to get it to the place where it's most likely to get the attention it require to have a chance at being fixed. And as I said, I understand why it can sometimes feel like you are reporting and nothing is done, but SI do log every bug report in their internal bug fixing system (I don't know what they use, but I would imagine something like Jira or the like) that is linked back to the forum. And they at least set the status of it based on that. Sadly not if it's fixed or not, as I would have liked, but at least you would know it's logged.

As for this thread and feedback, I don't think we needlessly defend the game, but we try to encourage everyone to be constructive in their critique. I try to say "if you don't think it works as it should, then what would you see changed?". Because that's what is needed to influence SI to change it.

We mods very rarely removes posts from this thread, the most are when there's profanity or the rules are broken. I'm not going into too much detail, but I've removed posts here calling for SI staff to be fired, for example, that's clearly not ok. And while I understand that posting anonymously on the internet brings out toxicity and hyperbole in pretty much every community, this forum is not a place for it. These are the posts we will remove, nothing more. If you say "I don't like this and that" that's fine, no one will remove it unless you spam it again and again, then we might have a word. And that word is not to defend the game, but to keep the threads readable.

Where we do sometimes defend the game, is when people write stuff that are factually wrong. Then we will chime in and refer to what SI have written or our own experience.

Anyway, I've written too much here now that's clearly not feedback, so if anyone wants to continue discussing moderating on this forum, my inbox is open.

What can I say to such a fabulously written post. Well said, and respect to you mate. Sometimes the passion (For the game) comes out in a construed or rude way, and they weren't my intentions

 

[Rashidi]

32 minutes ago, Litmanen 10 said:

I'm totally on your side here but also have to ask: why are you guys so willing to do free work for someone that doesn't even bother to give a reply for all the hard work that you have done for them? I certainly wouldn't, no matter how much I like the game itself. 

That's entirely your choice, but historically the developers have engaged actively with the community as attested by the list of features that were were user recommendations that ended up being in the game. Some of us will continue to engage with them, and they do engage when they can. They just don't come in on each post they are tagged on.

[El Payaso]

46 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

That's entirely your choice, but historically the developers have engaged actively with the community as attested by the list of features that were were user recommendations that ended up being in the game. Some of us will continue to engage with them, and they do engage when they can. They just don't come in on each post they are tagged on.

Well, duh. History is history and I also once had the desire to do this but not anymore. 

I just wanted to point out to those still actively doing the same thing that it might be wise to just leave and get back to it when the bug reporters are treated with a little bit more respect. 

Even some of the mods, have been criticising SI for the lack of communication, so it is definitely an issue at the moment.