Sunstrikuuu
-
Posts
1,491 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by Sunstrikuuu
-
-
1 hour ago, XaW said:
I love these "from the training ground" moments on set pieces!
My favorite part about these is the multiple bug reports spanning the entire lifespan of FM24! For example, this one, which for bonus funsies also features the keeper looking off down the tunnel as the unmarked player on the edge of the six-yard box shoots!
1 -
I'm fine with it being a thing if you're, like, Real Madrid and you're bringing Mbappe off the bench up 3-0 in an early-round Copa del Rey game. When it's a youth player? Or a guy who wants more playing time? Or a forward coming off the bench at 0-0 in the Champions League final? Seriously?
5 -
2 hours ago, Svenc said:
Well, they certainly took the opposite approach to Owlcat with their Pathfinder games. Enemies are too easy to hit? Just inflate their stats to kingdom come. Mind you, some of that is actually necessary (optionally either way), as Pathfinder is a rather unbalanced system. Allowing completely OP character builds even if playing by the official rules 1:1. Speaking of which, the mere notion that you would even NEED to rig the dice here is silly. All any developer of RPGs needs to do is simply giving enemies better stats. They'll be harder to hit. They'll hit you more. THey'll do you more damage, they'll be harder to kill, etc. And this can be made transparent, which is important. It's the difference between perceived "unfairness" (secretly fiddling with hit dice) or "fairness" (optionally giving enemies better stats to make the game harder). Any dev who'd still opt for going with "unfairness" is either (pardon me) an ass, an idiot or both.
Naturally, FM is a bit more opaque. To put it that'aways.
Yeah, Pathfinder generally was built on the 3E chassis, which doesn't have bounded accuracy. Owlcat's build their game for more of a high-op rules-focused specialized audience rather than a general gaming one, and it shows.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Svenc said:
It's more like the opposite, as certainly was the main motivation of it being in: making hits more likely with every streak of miss. It's an option mainly to avoid player frustration. To pretty much quote Larian's CEO: "Missing isn't fun. If you miss tons of times, you're going to give the game a bad review." D&D tabletop players are used to streaks. However, the game was meant to appeal to more than just D&D players.That was probably the motivation but the 5E rules aren't that complicated in cRPG terms. You make the number go up. 5E is designed around bounded accuracy, so even small increases to static numbers have large effects. And Larian missed the memo when they started tinkering with items and at what level they're available; the enemies are basically balanced to tabletop rules but players are given something like 10x the magic items, both in number and in amplitude, that they should. Player characters are enormously more powerful than they ought to be, so I struggle to believe that avoiding miss strings is the actual effect of Karmic Dice. When the game is balanced around a +3 bonus but obtaining a +8 or +10 is trivial, misses pretty much stop being an issue.
2 -
5 hours ago, Svenc said:
BG3 even implemented optional "karmic dice" so that streaks were less likely to happen. The D&D faithful were furious. How could they? That's how. And did it do anything? Hell it did...
Karmic dice annoyed people (and the standard, correct advice is to turn it off) for reasons that specifically have to do with D&D rules. There's not a clear parallel to FM.
In D&D 5E, the ruleset BG3 is based on, skill checks -- what you'd use to persuade people or pick a lock or identify something -- are handled by picking a random number from 1-20 and adding a modifier. Generally speaking, the threshold that the number plus modifier needs to reach is between 5, for a very easy task, and 25, for an extremely difficult task. In some cases, a player can have Advantage or Disadvantage; with Advantage, they roll two 20-sided dice and use the higher of the two numbers. Disadvantage uses the lower of the two. Because the d20 roll's range is so large compared to most static modifiers, skill checks are approached in two ways: either avoid making the roll at all or boost your modifier to such a high level that failure is impossible.
BG3 implements a very bad variant rule that screws up the math. In combat, d20 rolls are used for a bunch of things, and a roll of 20 is an automatic success while a 1 is an automatic failure. This rule does not exist for skill checks. Larian, in their oh so infinite wisdom, decided that it should. That means every character, no matter how skillful at a particular task, fails that task 5% of the time on a roll of 1. Karmic dice are outcome-based dice; they exist to prevent strings of successes or failures. So if you build a character who happens to be Johnny Persuadesalot, a guy who's so persuasive and convincing that he can argue night into day and lions into lambs, and you go through dialogue trees convincing people to help you or not oppose you, talking your way out of combats and into rewards, you'll be succeeding at a lot of checks. And as you do, karmic dice increases the chances that you'll roll a 1 to balance your successes and failures. The FM equivalent might be doing a youth-only save and having your regens' PA artificially deflated because you were sending too many youth products into the first team. Karmic dice also does in-combat balancing, which hurts people who know how to use the rules to build characters. See, Larian don't understand the 5E rules and, in particular, the principle of bounded accuracy they're built upon. They've added a lot of ways to increase defensive and offensive modifiers, and it turns out that without some monkeying in the backend it's possible to just build a character that's only hit 5% of the time. Karmic dice flattens out some but not all of the differences between highly-optimized and poorly-optimized character builds, meaning people who don't use the rules well can still progress through the game and people who do still face some jeopardy.
There are also a whole bunch of bugs related to sources of Advantage incorrectly applying and rolls of 1 not being discarded correctly in Advantage situations, but those are, at least, bugs and not deliberate, shortsighted design decisions. (They're the root of some of the conspiracy theories about rigged RNG, too, because players see a Critical Fail on a roll with Advantage and think "that's the third time this particular event has happened in an hour, I am suspicious", when what's actually happening is that the source of Advantage isn't being correctly applied, so it's a 5% chance not a 0.25% chance, as it should be.)
Unrelated to FM, I know, but worth clarifying here because Karmic Dice is actually a situation where the developer is putting their thumb on the scale. It's not entirely unlike the Super-Keeper conspiracy -- if you build a great attacking team in FM and the AI can't handle you, the keeper will get some insane boost and yadda yadda yadda. Karmic Dice in BG3 is like the keeper getting a little boost, not huge, just enough that your 5-0 win becomes 2-0.
1 -
16 hours ago, RDF Tactics said:
I mentioned this happens before and it happened to me today on stream again. Raheem Sterling, who was a free agent, asked for £220k a week. We couldn't offer that so offered a little lower. He then asked for £500k lool
And that's not due to him missing out on any bonuses. But he for some reason asked for £500k after asking for £220k and also added crazy bonuses
Lotta negotiations like "I would like 5." "Well, how about 3?" "Actually I would like 10." "Wait why not 4?" "I'm never speaking to you again."
5 -
wallace asks for a new contract, wallace's agent asks for a specific wage, i agree to that wage, wallace's agent asks for more money than what we agreed on two seconds ago in the negotiations, wallace rejects a contract offer, wallace's agent will not come to the table again, promise reminder: wallace is expecting to be offered a new contract, can't offer him a new contract the option doesn't even exist in the menu, can't tell him his agent is preventing talks because managers aren't allowed to talk to their players i guess, please dear sweet mother of god KILL THIS WHOLE SYSTEM WITH FIRE. Agents are bad and pointless, promises are bad and actively damaging to your game, just get rid of all of this garbage.
6 -
Hell of a month. 26-0 aggregate score in a three-games-in-six-days run.
0 -
5 hours ago, santy001 said:
Over the course of the summer bids kept getting higher
With my luck they'd keep being the same.
0 -
4 hours ago, WelshMourinho said:
Find it strange there's no option to tell an agent something along the lines of "sorry mate, but £170M for your player is obscene." Just something that explains that your budget just won't allow for you to progress with a deal. You currently have options to disagree with everything on the players side such as their wage, their playing time, any promises they want made, but nothing that can just end negotiations with "that's too big a transfer fee."
I'd also like to see clubs more open to deals where clauses are involved. The transfer value guides are clearly all upfront money, and adding in clauses tends to stump up the deal to excessive amounts.
That's also how wage negotiation works. The agent says £30,000/week, but what he means is £30kpw, plus a 10% annual wage increase plus kicker clauses that double his wage at 5 and 15 club appearances, and if you tell him you'll pay £30kpw he'll close negotiations.
3 -
In the screenshot above, my right attacking midfielder is assigned to tightly mark the right of two DMs. As Atletico play out from the back, you can see that he's there. Nice. My CAM, though, is wide right, but is assigned to tightly mark the left of the two DMs, so he's on the wrong side of the pitch. The LAM is assigned to mark tightly the left of the two centerbacks, and he's way too deep, marking another player entirely. And then we get that classic passing move where the ball goes tap-tap-tap down the pitch as players 'mark' their assignments by standing behind them. When the ball gets into the final third, the Atletico attacker turns into an idiot and trips over the ball, letting a defender take it away.
3 -
Even the way the game has you speaking with coaches is over-aggressive. If you ask a coach to teach a player a PPM that's critical to your tactic -- let's say a technical DM/CM with high passing, and you want to teach them to come deep to get the ball and to dictate tempo -- and the coach doesn't think it will work, your options are 'don't start the training', 'what do you think we should do?' or 'shut your absolute hole you complete incompetent, just do what i tell you'. Seriously, imagine being a manager with, like, Daniele de Rossi as your coach and saying "I have much greater experience of what benefits a player's game". And then imagine that coach saying 'ok but it's going to be a waste of time'.
2 -
6 hours ago, tezcatlipoca665 said:
Here's an example of a normal (albeit blunt) interaction:
'I'm not happy with my current contract and would like to discuss a new one'.
Here's what we get as a normal interaction instead from a player with unremarkable hidden attributes:
The game can clearly tell I've just joined the club and the interaction makes a point of it, so what's with the unnecessary aggression? Why are almost all interactions like this? This isn't a bug, it's a design choice.They sound like children. Not like 'teenagers are children' but like five or six year olds. And you're right, it's not just player interactions. Your board will deny you something tiny -- an extra scout, say -- then tell you they'll listen if you 'put forward a compelling case', then whatever you say they'll tell you not to waste their time in the future. Waste your time? I've won the first European trophy in the history of the club! I've gotten you promoted five times! I built your stadium! What the fork do you mean, don't waste my time? You shouldn't be wasting my time!
6 -
On 15/01/2024 at 05:03, andu1 said:
Im on the verge of deleting my save. I understand 1 or 2 games it might happen , but 4 in a row it's next to impossible IRL. I ve scored 4 goals from a total xg of 9.08...
In Arsenal's last three matches IRL, they've conceded six goals from 2.5 xGA and scored 1 from 6.47 xG. It's super frustrating but does happen.
3 -
"I'd rather get what I want without much of a discussion about it" yeah that's cool, that's nice, my player is a six year old. Who thought this was a good idea?
0 -
6 hours ago, andu1 said:
Is there any method to stop Ultradefesiv AI team to stack up passes between defenders? I tried every combination possible, man marking defenders, DM's , ultra high pressing, defensive line.
Nothing works. This is a bug of the current ME i assume
I haven't found one.
0 -
4 hours ago, Ein said:
I don't have FM23/24 but I've seen it happen in previous editions. Normally, I offer a non-negotiable offer that I consider reasonable but below their asking price. This can unsettle the player if refused and he may then end up transfer listed for a reduced asking price.
What I always get is the player being transfer-listed for the same asking price, then the player and the manager kiss and make up six months later and they're removed from the transfer list.
0 -
2 hours ago, Ein said:
If you manage to unsettle a player, the asking price can drop to a more realistic value.
I'll be honest: I have never seen this happen. I've seen unhappy players get transfer-listed, but I've never tapped up a player and had their price drop as a result.
2 -
3 hours ago, fc.cadoni said:
Nice!
So reputation, contract wage plays a role here; and player E earns the most. What about contract length and player performance?
All of those players are on contracts to 2030 or 2031, so 4 or 5 years. It's not obvious to me which way it's contributing to valuation. In terms of performance... who knows? It hasn't seemed to affect things in the past with the AI being interested in buying players who outperform their CA/PA.
0 -
21 hours ago, fc.cadoni said:
There multiple factors which being connected with transfer value; like current ability, player performance, player reputation, league and so on. Transfer Values comes in range, but the most up to date is Ask the Agent or with full scouting.
Are there really? Or is it uh kind of swamped by one factor in particular?
Let's look at a few players, all of whom play LAM or RAM.
Player A is CA 178 and PA 180. He makes £400kpw and has Important Player squad status; his contract expires in 2031. He plays in the highest-reputation league in the world for the second-highest reputation team worldwide. He's 25 years old. Player B is 178 CA and 178 PA. He makes £350kpw and has Regular Starter squad status; his contract expires in 2030. He plays in the second-highest reputation league in the world for the highest reputation team worldwide. He's also 25 years old. Player A and Player B have similar Home and Current reputations, but Player B has 1400 more World Reputation.
Player C plays for #2 rep worldwide in the #1 league. He's under contract through 2030 at £275kpw. He's 25, with 186 CA/PA. Here's his Reputation:
Player D plays for #1 rep worldwide in the #2 league. He's under contract through 2031 at £450kpw. He's 26, with 184/184 CA/PA. Here's his Reputation:
Player E plays for what I think is the #3 reputation worldwide team, in the #1 league. He's under contract through 2031 at £525kpw. He's 23, with 185 CA/PA. Here's his Reputation:
Player F plays for a top-10 reputation team in the #2 league. He's under contract through 2031 at £325kpw. He's 19 with 175 CA/183 PA. Here's his Reputation:
Player G plays for a top 20 reputation team (maybe towards the bottom of the top 10? Not sure) in the #3 league. He's under contract through 2031 at £200kpw. He's 25 with 171 CA and 177 PA. Here's his Reputation:
Player H plays for the #3 reputation worldwide team in the #1 league. He's under contract through 2031 at £325kpw. He's 23 with 175 CA/PA. Here's his reputation:
OK so. In terms of ability, pure CA/PA, all of these players are stars, but players A-E are a small step above, with 180+ CA/PA. All of the players are in a similar contractual situation, with C and G making significantly less money and E making significantly more. A and B are in similar World Reputation positions to players E and C respectively, and we can see that B, C and D are all absolute creme de la creme superstars from a reputational standpoint. Player F is the outlier in age, as he's only 19.
In valuation, though, one of these players is valued at £300m. Four are valued between £200-299m. One is valued between £150-199m. Two are valued between £100-149m. Can anyone guess which is which, and what the common factor is for the players with the lowest valuation? Answer is in the spoiler.
SpoilerPlayer E is valued at £300m. Players D, F, G and H are valued in the £200m range; the low value is £217m for Player G and the high value is £263m for Player D. Player B is valued in the £150-200m range, with an actual asking price of £191m. Players A and C are the two low men on the totem pole -- their highest valuations are nearly £50m below Player B's. And what links them? They play for the user team, of course.
Other than the factor I've identified in the spoiler, any clear trends to explain the valuations?
1 -
On 08/01/2024 at 19:08, Arnar said:
It seems to happen to me when the player isnt very interested in joining the club.
It happens to me pretty frequently when dealing with renewals.
3 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:Press conferences shouldn't be a focus IMO. At the moment media interaction is irrelevant, and I'd say 99% of players are happy for it to stay that way.
Every effort should go towards improving the match engine.
The match engine definitely needs improvement, but as it's been for a while now the major focus needs to be on all the other stuff. Scouting, player development and regression models, transfers and negotiations, and especially player interaction and promises ought to be the primary focus.
59 minutes ago, XaW said:Knowing how... unwise it is to give hard dates or time frames for bugs to end users in my day job, I can understand why they won't give those details out beforehand, but I would have liked to see the issues get a "fixed in 24.2" or something like that after 24.2 is released. This is an example, of course. Just would add to the transparency of things.
I'd also love that, and I'd love a public list of everything that's been tagged as 'known issue'. And even just hitting the thumbs-up reaction to show that a bug report has been read would be a nice change. It is very demoralizing putting an hour or so into a bug report and having it go without acknowledgement for weeks or more,
3 -
There are a lot of kind of strange design decisions. For example:
Why does not being part of the media coverage also mean making an affirmative announcement that I will not make sales or signings? Why are these two things linked at all, and if they aren't actually, why is it phrased this way in the inbox?
7 -
On 05/01/2024 at 16:31, wazzaflow10 said:
Isn't this kind of your role as manager though? If you were playing as PSG or Barca with Messi you'd set him up so that pressing isn't expected. That's kind of the point of the Treq/Raum role. Putting Messi in a pressing tactic with a pressing role would set you up for failure. And I disagree with the premise that you generally want more pressing. Its one philosophy on how to play, its a popular one but its not the only way. If you're counter attacking you might want to wait so there's more space in behind the defense. Or you might be trying to play more positional defense. France did this quite well in 2018 to create space for Mbappe to run into once they recovered the ball.
Its semantics at this point we're arguing they weren't good enough. If you put that front line on team with a competent midfield and defense its not an issue. You said it yourself the only technical midfielder they had was Veratti.
Again, what we're talking about is why star signings succeed in FM more reliably than they do in real life. Yes, in real life if you had Lionel Messi you'd want to set your system up so he doesn't have to press. You'd need to, because he doesn't press no matter what instructions you as the manager give him. You'd do that by surrounding him with players who press for him, and as you noted France do this for Mbappe. He gets a big physical target forward to take the duels with the centerbacks, and he gets to play in free space. The lesson of PSG and Barcelona is that when you have too many of those stars your defense breaks. And the whole point of this conversation is that that doesn't happen in FM. You can have as many non-pressing stars as you want and they'll obey the instructions they are given in the tactics screen. You actually can play Messi, Mbappe, Neymar and, I dunno, Ronaldo together, even though that would be suicide IRL.
And no, it's not semantics. There are very few midfield players capable of the defensive workrate and quality required by a low-workrate front three plus the sort of technical level necessary to supply that forward group and control games at the sharp end of the Champions League. They're not freely available resources. PSG had a perfectly competent midfield within the constraints they imposed upon themselves, and that's the point! Real-life squadbuilding involves tradeoffs and compromises that FM squadbuilding does not, making it easier to fit stars into existing structures without difficulty.
0 -
11 hours ago, Wizard boy said:
One thing that needs removing is I would’ve preferred staying on the bench because no player is ever gonna say that. No idea why that’s even in.
"Uninterested after team talk" my brother in christ you are the captain of a team that is playing in a champions league semifinal, get it together.
1
Football Manager 2024 Official Feedback Thread
in Football Manager General Discussion
Posted
Taking away the ability to look at certain analysis screen mid-match is pretty annoying, I agree.
Another thing that's a bit annoying is the number of roles that have hard-coded behaviors that are not transparent to the user. PIs generally tend towards 'do this thing more often or less often', but roles don't tell you how often they do that thing. So there's often a second step to the analysis: once you've decided on the tweak you want, you need to determine which button you can press to actually get the thing you want to do implemented. Sometimes that's not trivial.