What the hell is SI using for deciding who is "developing" and "developed" country.

[sangwiny]

So I got myself into fiddling with an editor and learned about nations being split into 3 groups - developed, developing and 3rd world. So western world in developed, plenty of 3rd world countries where you'd expect them too, nothing weird so far. So then I check Europe beyond "the west" - Hungary, Croatia, Czechia etc. They are labeled as "developing." Ok, this leads me to believe that "developing" is used as "not western." Alright, fair enough.

..except. WHY THE HELL IS TURKEY AND POLAND "DEVELOPED" WHEN NATION LIKE CZECHIA AND SLOVENIA ARE "DEVELOPING?" WTF?! Is this made by some ignorant American who goes "ugh, never heard of those places, must be poors, haha." Like really, WTF?! Either make them all "developing" or you are due to make a whole lot of them developed, if Turkey and Poland are supposed to have "developed" label. Both of them are significantly behind in both GDP per capita (SLO=27000€; CZE=25500€; POL=17380€; TUR=9800€)(2022 numbers) and Human Development Index (SLO=0.918; CZE=0.889; POL=0.880; TUR=0.838)(2021 numbers). Neither Poland nor (especially) Turkey have any business being above Slovenia and Czechia in development, and while Poland rates amongst top between other Slavic countries, there's probably whole bunch of them that would be above Turkey.

So what the hell SI? Are you just lazy? Are you trying to push an agenda? Why are Poland and Turkey receiving this preferential treatment above other countries that you labeled as "developing?"

[santy001]

In most instances, particularly for nations with a strong and well established footballing system, FM has its network of researchers who live in and are native to the countries they research. It's a reflective measure of the in-game economies for those countries, and so any attempt to impose a direct view from something like GDP per capita or any other measure isn't really going to fit in with the way FM is utilising this exactly. A lot of mechanics in the background interact with each other, and to best reflect things from a footballing perspective the label or numerical value assigned to something in that background info may not always look the way people think it ought to at first glance. 

[sangwiny]

4 minutes ago, santy001 said:

In most instances, particularly for nations with a strong and well established footballing system, FM has its network of researchers who live in and are native to the countries they research. It's a reflective measure of the in-game economies for those countries, and so any attempt to impose a direct view from something like GDP per capita or any other measure isn't really going to fit in with the way FM is utilising this exactly. A lot of mechanics in the background interact with each other, and to best reflect things from a footballing perspective the label or numerical value assigned to something in that background info may not always look the way people think it ought to at first glance. 

So it's a coding crutch, that's the whole reason. Peachy.

And I have yet to hear an explanation why Turkey is considered developed. Turkey who's economically deep in the toilet, btw. In past I had a player refuse a move from Turkish 2nd tier to Czech UEL level team with stated reason of "being afraid about country's poor infrastructure." At the time it struck me as weird but I shrugged it off as the player being a doofus. Now it makes more sense, with seeing these nonsensical modifiers under the hood. Doesn't your game strife for realism, ffs? A person in Turkey saying Czechia has worse infrastructure? Really? Are you not seeing the irony in that? 

[wazzaflow10]

1 hour ago, sangwiny said:

So it's a coding crutch, that's the whole reason. Peachy.

Uhh yeah its a video game. Whole thing runs on code. Shocking revelation.

[XaW]

14 minutes ago, wazzaflow10 said:

Uhh yeah its a video game. Whole thing runs on code. Shocking revelation.

In an unheard way, the game has variables to differentiate between various entities! Who could have seen that coming?!? 

[sangwiny]

23 minutes ago, wazzaflow10 said:

Uhh yeah its a video game. Whole thing runs on code. Shocking revelation.

I love how you just ignored the example of why it's wrong just below. Selective blindness for the sake of cheap snark. Shocking revelation.

[XaW]

8 minutes ago, sangwiny said:

I love how you just ignored the example of why it's wrong just below. Selective blindness for the sake of cheap snark. Shocking revelation.

And you just ignored the message above. The value is set by mostly people native to that country, so if you complain about the Czech setting, it's set by a Czech person, no one from Turkey has any input in that.

If you have an example of a player rejecting a move to Czechia from Turkey and the reason given is what you wrote, please add that in the bug tracker with a save showing it.

[forameuss]

18 minutes ago, sangwiny said:

I love how you just ignored the example of why it's wrong just below. Selective blindness for the sake of cheap snark. Shocking revelation.

It's essentially an internal number made to help model the gameworld as realistically as possible. It isn't some political statement.  You're having a cranial detachment over absolutely nothing, particularly when, if it really bothers you, you can just change it to whatever you think is right and forget all about it. 

But I'll humour it - aside from looking at the value in the editor and getting angry, what are you seeing in the actual game that is provably wrong because of this value?   

[alian62]

4 hours ago, sangwiny said:

So I got myself into fiddling with an editor and learned about nations being split into 3 groups - developed, developing and 3rd world. So western world in developed, plenty of 3rd world countries where you'd expect them too, nothing weird so far. So then I check Europe beyond "the west" - Hungary, Croatia, Czechia etc. They are labeled as "developing." Ok, this leads me to believe that "developing" is used as "not western." Alright, fair enough.

..except. WHY THE HELL IS TURKEY AND POLAND "DEVELOPED" WHEN NATION LIKE CZECHIA AND SLOVENIA ARE "DEVELOPING?" WTF?! Is this made by some ignorant American who goes "ugh, never heard of those places, must be poors, haha." Like really, WTF?! Either make them all "developing" or you are due to make a whole lot of them developed, if Turkey and Poland are supposed to have "developed" label. Both of them are significantly behind in both GDP per capita (SLO=27000€; CZE=25500€; POL=17380€; TUR=9800€)(2022 numbers) and Human Development Index (SLO=0.918; CZE=0.889; POL=0.880; TUR=0.838)(2021 numbers). Neither Poland nor (especially) Turkey have any business being above Slovenia and Czechia in development, and while Poland rates amongst top between other Slavic countries, there's probably whole bunch of them that would be above Turkey.

So what the hell SI? Are you just lazy? Are you trying to push an agenda? Why are Poland and Turkey receiving this preferential treatment above other countries that you labeled as "developing?"

You have an editor "Right"

[Ein]

Having things done by individual researchers without any form of oversight or standardisation is not ideal. The player database has this issue as well. Some clubs tend to have overpowered players, both in terms of attributes and personalities e.g. one particular Italian club is always filled with model citizens, model pros and perfectionists and does much better in FM than in real life.

[santy001]

34 minutes ago, Ein said:

Having things done by individual researchers without any form of oversight or standardisation is not ideal. The player database has this issue as well. Some clubs tend to have overpowered players, both in terms of attributes and personalities e.g. one particular Italian club is always filled with model citizens, model pros and perfectionists and does much better in FM than in real life.

Yet you're misguided because there is oversight. I can't just set whatever I want for Stoke players. I can make submissions of whatever I wish, but these get reviewed by my head researcher. The research team does make comparisons across the leagues and there are times when discrepancies will be addressed through a variety of measures. 

[Ein]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

Yet you're misguided because there is oversight. I can't just set whatever I want for Stoke players. I can make submissions of whatever I wish, but these get reviewed by my head researcher. The research team does make comparisons across the leagues and there are times when discrepancies will be addressed through a variety of measures. 

Then you just contradicted what you said earlier (native people setting their own values, which is bound to be subjective). If there is oversight, it doesn't show in the case brought about by the OP and in a number of other examples.

[forameuss]

3 minutes ago, Ein said:

Then you just contradicted what you said earlier (native people setting their own values, which is bound to be subjective). If there is oversight, it doesn't show in the case brought about by the OP and in a number of other examples.

Oversight only really steps in if they believe that something is wrong.  They clearly don't believe this is.  Probably because it's only one variable meant to make the game work how they want, not an economic statement.

[santy001]

It's not really contradictory though. Data is set by the appropriate people, so I set the data for Stoke. It just doesn't mean I can set anything for Stoke without it being questioned. If I rate a Stoke youth player as a -7 PA and 80 CA that is certainly a reasonable expectation at surface level. If I drop a -10 PA and 140 CA on a player who hasn't played a senior match then that is something that would stand out. 

What you're also not considering is that the person who has oversight also tends to be in a well informed position about those things. The person who has direct oversight of what I do has direct oversight over the EFL. 

[JamieTC13]

There is a fm24 editor data file that someone done and it massively corrects everything like that 

[enigmatic]

Well... it makes a change from people complaining about Youth Rating, I guess....

I assume the actual reason is because setting Turkey as 'developing' would deter the sort of players that actually move to the Super Lig from moving there in game, and setting the richer Czechia/Slovenia as "developed" would make their top tier hoover up players from neighbouring nations. (Less obvious how Poland breaks that pattern, but it's quite international for what is rated as a really poor league offering low wages in game)

The ratings aren't supposed to be seen and are used in conjunction with a lot of other figures to do with finances, city attractiveness, reputation, national transfer preferences etc (and whilst that message isn't great, a second tier Turk quite possibly would turn down a move because nothing he's heard about Czechia makes him want to live there. Footballers are more interested in 'infrastructure' like foreign language schools, shiny new villas and stadia than good roads and industry and more Czechs move to Turkey to play football than vice versa)

[Nacaw]

It's about being developed as a football economy. GDP, Human Development Index, democracy, or whatever else doesn't factor into the rating. Why would it, when the game is about football?

Developed countries in FM context generally offer higher wages for footballers. Where exactly the line cuts off between developed and developing, and if Poland is on one side and Czechia on the other, I don't think anyone can answer. It's possible things like that haven't been reviewed for a while, and both should be developed. In the greater context, it doesn't matter though. If you can manage in Czechia and have a realistic experience, then whatever background stat is assigned is fine. 

If you feel really strongly about getting this changed, I suggest contacting the head researcher for the country in question. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

Never ceases to amaze me the things people find to moan about in this game. 

Developing nations??? Give yer head a shake, man.