Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Brentford Alan

Members+
  • Content Count

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Brentford Alan

  • Rank
    Brentford Researcher

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Josh McEachran, about to be released by Brentford. Predicted to be a future England star when coming through the ranks at Chelsea but well on a downward spiral now and it's hard to see where his career goes after 4 seasons of producing nothing with us.
  2. I'd mentally list him as a nephew if it was my save, assuming 'uncle' isn't available.
  3. As previously answered. This isnt something we set in the database. Afaik the game mechanics mean each team in a country has to have the same reserve/b/u23 (call it what you will) system. Perhaps you could do a feature request to allow 'nicknames' or similar to be set for u23/u18s, along the lines of what can be set in game for players.
  4. It's only this season we've become, erm, more cynical.... Maupay is already noted as needing those attributes reconsidered (3 match ban awaits one suspects). As for the rest of the team it's an interesting case study on the pressure of a relegation battle on a usually well behaved group of players.
  5. As far as I'm aware all scouts are part-time on FM, I may be wrong. Either way it's not something we set in the database as a club guideline from memory. There were no scouts set for Brentford either, although Romjet's post (thanks for that info!) means we should have some in for the winter update. Are you using the beta database? As per Gripper's post Barbet should have a slightly higher LB rating in the full release database. The U23s can not be renamed. I think it's been suggested on this forum before although not neccessarily about Brentford.
  6. Thanks for those links romjet, appreciated. I'll check Mephams pace for the winter update, I would say that Burnley player is over rated there but thats the Burnley researchers call to make. With Watkins a pace increase will demand reductions on other attributes to keep his CA balanced and on his current form I'd struggle to make an argument that his CA deserves any increase! Any thoughts on that will be considered.
  7. Yes, this is the thinking behind the 'low' starting figure. Josh, we know through what we read on the GPG etc that the money will be there if we're in a strong position in January, however aside from knowing who on there is ITK so to speak in my head I can't really 'prove' that the money is there to be spent until we spend it! The best way is to play it as swansongs says, start with a mid-table expectation and then increase it in January (when the Woods money comes in as well which should be added to your transfer kitty) and you should have a nice pot to play with, I've not got that far in a save yet. I also agree with swansongs, as we've discussed before, that transfer fees in game are not particularly helpful indicators of a players real value to a team. Again 'knowing' the data I don't tend to take much notice of our players in game valuations (although I think I saw McEachran's was showing at £1.9m at the start of my save - which is wildly over the top for a player with his recent record and out of contract in the summer).
  8. Thanks for the feedback Josh, will try and work through everything; As you've seen the Odubajo wage was set with a large wage increase as I felt it was unlikely we'd take a risk paying him a large wage before he'd proved his fitness. His appearance fees are higher than any other squad member as well as the increase after x games. He certainly has an extension clause added in the database, this may be a bug that needs reporting in the contracts forum. Barbet's rating in the database at LB is 16, I really can't say he's better than that. I guess the in-game coaches are recommending CD as he's fittest natural LB at the start of the game (CD wasn't rated by me for the most part), in all honesty knowing the BFC data inside out means I don't usually look at their recommendations but will have a look at some point this weekend. Mads Bech has been requested for a LB rating downgrade for the full release database. Mepham - Jeanvier was rated by his previous researcher and I've left him more or less as is as he hasn't featured much for us. his CA is only marginally better than Mepham's. FM19 Mepham has the highest PA of any Brentford player I've edited in the database over the past 4 (I think) iterations of the game! He is of course one of my main focus points for the winter update as he continues to grow as a player irl, My take on it is a lot of the high bids we've received are for his potential rather than his current ability, which the game reflects. It might even be worth logging that attempt to sell him as a bug as he certainly has the PA that should be interesting AI managers/staff to take a punt on him at such a low price. Konsa as per Jeanvier for the most part but I have actually boosted him up bit over his previous researchers rating for him. Again one to monitor for the winter update. Watkins is our joint highest CA player in the database, as you say I can't do much about other teams players! He also has a good PA (higher than Saiz according to the last figures I have) rating and will grow as the season progresses in game. Media predictions are out of my hands, and I don't really pay much attention to them irl so not sure how 12th figures against what was in the papers pre-season. I'll have a look and see what it gives me on my save when I get a chance. IIRC correctly we discussed Watkins at the start of the FM18 release, the majority of tests and full saves I played he turned out fine unless he was injured. He's had a CA boost for FM19, plus a small PA boost as well from memory. I dont see the other researchers work before the game is released so it's difficult to do a full comparison of individual players as we go through the various phases. We do get certain CA guidelines and (again iirc) Brentford are slightly above the level I was asked to work to - apologies in advance if I'm wrong there. The input is, as ever, appreciated even where we disagree
  9. You aren't 'hated' for raising the issue, you had posts deleted (and edited?) due to the insults you posted towards the Forest researcher.
  10. Afaik the game doesn't allow for 'joint' managers. At Brentford last season we had joint assistant managers, for example, so the newer of the two went in to the FM database as a standard coach ( with a salary matching the other assistant).
  11. In steam go to the library, right click on FM18 and select properties, go to the local files tab and then select verify local files. Once its run it should start the patch.
  12. from a researchers POV I would say it's extremely unlikely. Whilst the vast majority of attributes remain the same each year, elements such as the weighting effect of attributes to CA can change, each edition of the game sees new info added like player debuts etc. Ultimately a researcher would have to update the 'new' FM19 data set, as well as the 'old' FM18 data set, and however many other 'old' versions were being kept updated for example. That's not to say it's impossible for us to do, but I would have thought the extra time spent on top of the current workload we're fitting in around real life jobs etc would just simply be too much for many researchers (let alone SI staff). Purely my own opinion of course, and I say it from the viewpoint of someone who would actually like to see yearly data update options with a new full FM version (and FIFA/PES for that matter) every 3 years if it were financially viable for SI, which I don't believe it would be.
  13. Really good idea that. It could also be interesting to allow the game to generate a history for you to randomise things a bit. I think it would lead to more press questions on how you feel about your 'old' team's performance, or going up against them with your new team which would freshen that area of the game up a little as well.
  14. Yes, it's simple enough. No PA limit anymore, very straight forward. So now the limit of a players CA (assuming Raptor and yourself are not suggesting every player has the opportunity to hit a 200 CA, no matter how remote?) is determined by several growth factors which may or may not be flexible in terms of their own growth. If those growth factors, no matter how many you use, are set by researchers as a hard limit (ie Natural Talent 15, Ambition 10 etc) that cannot be improved as a player ages you have still effectively set a PA that cannot be beaten, whether it's a simple viewable figure like now or one calculated by the game without being shown. If those growth factors can be improved (ie Natural Talent can go from 12 to 20, Ambition can go 8 to 20) as a player ages where (other than injuries) does the limitation come from that stops an unrealistic number of players becoming world class once managers have worked out the 'correct' formula of training, game time and tutoring?
×
×
  • Create New...