scythian12

A bit of shameless self-promotion

You already get to renegotiate the loan if you actively seek the loan extension as the parent club. I guess your request is for this to be the case also in case the taker club wants to extend the loan on their initiative

No, this is not about a single match - every player with a headband in the match engine has one with the RGB triplet 0/255/0. It seems SI have taken all green headbands out there to put them into FM.

They are a neat easter egg idea, but when you play a couple of saves and you encounter one with the name you know is 'faceinthegame', and you already know they will be an outstanding regen - it's just boring / repetitive / removes a bit of interest from scouting. Would there be an option or an editor file to turn them off?

I do wonder, what realistic transfer value can we expect of a 22yo 125 CA, 135 PA, 6030 CR, 5670 HR, 4300 WR player who has 3 years remaining on a 300k € pa contract at a 4612 rep club in a 108 (on the 200 scale) reputation league? What should the range be?

Not sure whether bug report, or feature request - but could the offside lines in the ME replays have a colour so that it could be logically deduced which one belongs to which team? Maybe using their primary kit colours or something similar?

Please read the suggestion again, more carefully this time.

I would like to have the option to have to scouting priority lists, one priority, one long-term / background. This would help with getting in quick results on focus areas (players for immediately vacant position, players just under 19 for getting them club-grown) and your 'general' background scouting of players who may be interesting, but have no such urgency in signing them. I guess recruitment focuses should in theory do this, but unfortunately they are just unusable / produce nowhere near the results what manual scouting can.

Having the option of setting highlight level pre-game. I switch it between key for run-of-the-mill and extended for important matches. Hate it that I cannot then have the important matches on extended straight away, as the highlights give early indication about how the players and the tactic is doing in general.

Also once to the US, all of them mid-July instead on the 1st

Yup, happens to me all the time as well. Seems to be for transfers where the player's contract end is not aligned with the start of his new contract. Happened three times to Brazil, this time to Norway. No messages at all in the inbox at either the contract being offered, it being accepted, no status on the player either.

I may get a stoning for this, but I imagine using a LLM (both for questions and answers) for press conferences and any hooman interactions could improve them massively.

I am not quite certain myself, but it should use the underlying 'standard' kits for kit clash calculations.

It is really tricky and easy to miss, and there is no tooltips or explanation for this, but when you change kits in the IGE, the program automatically unticks the "allow licenced kits" option when you click the pencil on the club page. If you re-allow it, the external graphics appear again for the kits. (But any changes made to the kits, e. g. the kit numbers are saved)

I had not had this issue as of yet, but I always filter in the filters menu with selecting a drop-down option, not on the pitch, may be an approach you can go with.

4-2-3-1 preferred formation and propensity to gegenpress.

Cheers; maybe some further info: the division 1 has its centres set up so that they are within the country, division 2 has them put far far away so to "stretch the cords", really put some weight on the allocation of the clubs. In the latter case it can be clearly seen under "Regional division calculation" that this works, and that the score the clubs get assigned to wonderfully match their latitude - but you still end up with the previous year's division in the "Scoring" bit, if they were on this level. The numbers for division 1, with the group centre cities within Luxembourg produce a less clear-cut picture where the numbers jump back and forth for which I have no real explanation - although on the large scale they do seem to roughly follow the latitude. However, it seems clear that the only task for here would be to include an option for regional sorting which would just take the results of the "Regional division calculation" without anything applied to it in a second step. Also it baffles me why there are two entries under the "calculation" bit, maybe have to do with two different sub-divisions? (So would be three for three subs?)

This would be good I think with hinging it on the chairman. We do have the issue in the Hungary db, that there a few clubs that do this irl Paks and Vasas most prominently), but it is nowhere near engrained in their club identity as is the case with Bilbao, so hard coading it would not feel right either. There are even examples like my Honvéd who have switched to an all-Hungarian signing policy after getting relegated (not least due to financial reasons), but they may switch again in a few years' time depeding on sporting success.

When offering out I use Clubs to propose to --> from Luxembourg to increase domestic bids. Does not probably play a role, but I also add 'can play against own team' in the loan options. Could be interesting to see whether excluding foreign clubs on top makes a difference.

I would like to have all 20 levels of attributes given individual colours, and I have very good reasons for this. This would not be a feature that is incredibly difficult to implement, yet would provide a whole world of UI improvements. I have made a very uninspired feature request about this last year, this year I roll in the cavalry. I know SI love their mysteriousness of the inner workings and the hiding mechanical bits of the game to conjure more of a sense of football and less excel table, however I would argue that when forcing the use of an overly simplistic - and plainly misleading way of presenting player attributes, they achieve exactly the opposite. Whenever one looks at a player profile, one does not actually look at the values of attributes individually and parse them, that would be insane, one automatically makes a "mind map" of the player like this: Whenever you scout, select your team, look at the opposition players before and during a match, you do this all the time, which is I'd hazard at least a good 40-50 % of game time, if not more. You cannot and will not memorize every of your player's attributes, but you still want to make informed judgements whenever you want to sign, sell, substitute etc a player and compare it to his peers. It is a mental pain to do this every time. Just because something is cumbersome in the UI does not more "realistic", it just means more time lost and further frustration for the players. What about supporting players in actually using the data given to them in a meaningful way, and help them to better judge players AT A GLANCE. This is not lifting any of the mystique or inner workings of the game, just giving you data you have access to already in a neater way? What if your mental glance at a player suddenly would look like this Or even this Or maybe this Or this if you prefer a monochrome aesthetic If you can set colourmaps like this, there are quite a few things that become a lot easier: - Comparison of two - or more players at a glance - at the moment, if you want to actually accurately do this, you have to click 4-5 times and look for one other player to compare in a small menu after one of the clicks. UI hell. For a detailed comparison you would still need that, but your decisions would be much better informed without the need for these steps in the first place. - Finer differentiation at attribute levels (8-)10-15(-17): The vast majority of players you encounter in your saves will have attributes in these areas with the Gauss distributions working out thusly, where there is no support from the current system for accurate and nuanced differentiation between players. - More accurate visual representation of players' skills especially when on the step of an attribute block colour: you do not have to do mental juggling to try to convince yourself that the 15 is indeed that much better than the 12 of the other player, or that the 11 is actually not that excellent compared to the 10. - Scales on all levels of within the game. - Let me reiterate: this is not revealing any hidden information, just presenting known one miles better Let’s have a look at comparing three players, which works better, where can you more easily and quickly distinguish where these players are better and worse? Default SI colourmap Continuous colourmap based on the SI default 4-step Viridis colourmap for improved data visualization / perceptual uniformity (uniform hue and lightness shift with rising values) and colourblind-friendliness Continuous viridis colourmap Helix colourmap with stronger hue differentiation The player search screen players will look at the same time more uniform as averages for a more vague skill range will look closer together, but also easier to see nuanced differences between them. I would argue that this should actually enhance realism due to the fact that unknown players will look vaguely similar. Vanilla player search Player search with continuous colourmap with current colouring logic Player search with continuous colourmap with colours of average of guessed attribute levels Player search with 4-step viridis Player search with continuous viridis As for negative opinions: anyone bothered by this, or who likes the current 4-step system, can still recreate it, just sets the same colours for 5 attribute levels each. Or create a 5-step system. Or a 7-step one. Whatever you like, as much or as little obtrusion you want. As a slightly related matter, the system could be a catalyst for more people using ’perma’ attribute masking - blocking numbers altogether as now you do get the info that you need about the player, but a hue is more subtle way of presenting it and less calculations / spreadsheet-like than a number. The differently-stepped systems would serve as a „difficulty setting” for such a case. When designing the colourmaps, one has to pay attention to background and highlight colours – these could be a tad darker in the skin, to allow for a larger brightness scale to be used on the colourmaps, but this is a point that could be addressed in custom skins. I for instance did not change the key and good attributes highlighting (blue and green stripes) for these visualizations, even though they will introduce some subjective colour shift in the (crucial) turquoise ranges of the continuous colormaps used. However, I think it can be clearly seen that there is enough depth even above the lightness of the current skin settings that allow for good legibility and distinctiveness between neighbouring values. Colourmaps can also be adjusted to bright skins. The colourmaps can stay monochrome, exhibit a larger hue variety for more distinguishable blocks for instance on the player search screen, use more or less chromacity. I challenge the SI staff to spend at least as much time on this idea as I have spent preparing this post. I would also like some feedback on feasibility or any design reason why this is not deemed important enough to assign coding time for.