Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About santy001

  • Rank
    Moderator & Stoke City Researcher

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Stoke City

Recent Profile Visitors

7,301 profile views
  1. Most teams when they haven't had to defend against it are like statues. That was pretty much the big thing Stoke exploited massively. I seem to recall one game against Arsenal with a goal in pretty much the first minute where the ball was thrown in and no one in the Arsenal defence had any idea what to do. I suspect the real limitation in FM is that it's not something of a novel strategy that works perhaps for a season or so and teams don't become wise to it. But its been quite a while now since someone had really effective long throws the like Delap had (most lack pace and the low trajectory) so a team probably could do well on the back of them again.
  2. The ME and the 3D/2D representation in game are different things, its a layer of animations attempting to represent what the ME has determined is happening in the game. So it's entirely possible. The repertoire is being improved year upon year, but you could presumably always chuck in a feature request for a niche you feel is underrepresented.
  3. I'd suggest a network game. Adding additional people to the mix brings the greatest level of challenge to FM in my mind.
  4. Yeah, just to follow up to the best of my knowledge, this money never comes back either. So if you subsequently burn through a billion and are back to much lower levels you don't get the money back. It's not the most satisfying solution to a problem, but it saves on the memory bloat that would come with taking it higher.
  5. I've never experienced relegation out of a playable league, but it does feel like its a situation where the team has gone into unplayable territory. This can possibly be due to your database, there might be enough players for an u23 Chinese team at the start of the game, but if the relevant league and such isn't active and producing regens then it could be the team is no longer open for a player to manage.
  6. Probably on hiatus/taking a break for a little while. From what I've been told its normal for him to have a bit of time off around this time of year.
  7. With a different player it can be lower. I get a much more detailed editor as a researcher. It's entirely possible to give a player a new position and the recommended CA based on his attributes to drop.
  8. I'm afraid what you have heard is in a lot of ways wrong @laurentius82 Retraining positions does not use CA. It can have an impact upon CA, however, there's no shortcut way to explain just exactly how it works. There used to be a situation in which you could retrain players to certain points in other positions and it would effectively make a players CA higher. This is no longer possible, that is all. If you want to retrain a player, retrain him. Does it limit his ability to become the worlds greatest centre half if you retrain him as a striker? Well quite likely yes, but then why are you retraining him as a striker? It genuinely costs 0 CA to learn a new position, it does have other things in the background that people may have perceived to be a CA cost. They are wrong. - - - As for footedness, Herne has covered most bases already. But training the weaker foot is to try and get that crossing ability with your weaker foot as well. If you spend 10 hours in training a week crossing with your week foot, well that's 10 hours that week in training you haven't spent improving the crossing on your stronger foot. It is a bit of a trade-off. A two footed player is more effective than a one footed however. The gap between 1-20 is not that big either, so the gap between say 15 and 17 is negligible at best. Being two footed would be far more versatile and beneficial. - - - Generally speaking, there's not much to be gained from trying to overthink CA. The best indicator for performance in FM is the way in which a player performs in games. He can have a great CA or a terrible CA, he can have good PPM's or bad PPM's, he can be horrendously one footed or a natural two footer. If a player is playing well then they're working in the set-up of the team,
  9. It's not an exact science, but it plays an important part of the equation. The point of view more would be if you have a gut feeling that a players attributes aren't right, are they playing as you would expect them to in the game? A lot of good feedback is missed here by players not necessarily reporting when there are players in the game who play nothing like their real life counterpart. I always gravitate towards the Stoke examples, since they're the players I rate. A number of years ago Peter Crouch was scoring goals for fun despite his attributes not looking at all unreasonable. He was around 130CA dominating the goalscoring charts in a lot of peoples saves. Additionally, more recently, just on FM18 in fact, I was guilty of getting Berahino horribly wrong. His CA wasn't overdone (mid 130's) and had come down quite a bit since his peak at West Brom, but other attributes were too good and he was far too effective. Players pointed it out, but more often than not their suggestions weren't what was appropriate, I made other changes to Berahino and he is far less effective in FM now without having to make tremendous cleaves to his attributes that the average person commenting on it suggested. The feedback that a player isn't as you would expect functionally can be more meaningful than what you think attributes should be, so long as you can explain it. Let's take a famous example from the past, if in the game a player like Ronaldinho is trying to beat a man by just knocking the ball 20-25 yards down the touch line and sprinting onto it, never making use of his technical footwork to best a defender then there's something wrong. It might be a PPM is needed to restrict this behaviour, or maybe looking at the spread of attributes to see why the player isn't seeing the opportunities available to them.
  10. @Brother Ben Discord is a communication platform. Generally a series of voice & text channels you can discuss people with, a bit like these forums. It is a lot less structured though as its a free for all in the text channels. It doesn't lend anything directly to the FM experience. Personally Discord is my favourite place to keep tabs on the conspiracy theorists from my previous World of Warcraft guild. However, this fits more in the community section so I've given it a little nudge that way.
  11. The nature of FM is that as soon as you get the data, it's already a question of us looking forward as researchers. It's why I often try to encourage people to present information about how players are in the game, because its an ever shifting process behind the scenes. Of course attributes don't get updated weekly/monthly etc because that would just be a bit of a joke to impose on a voluntary research team but our thoughts on players do evolve as the season passes. So a researcher can say a player won't be like X or Y the next time there is an update, but you will have to respect the fact we cannot disclose what the player will be like. Partially due to perhaps not having fully decided yet, and then partially due to the fact we all have non-disclosure agreements in place covering specifics. When you get to see this information is of course at SI's discretion. Based on previous years though, most likely it would be the next edition of FM now.
  12. I appreciate where you're coming from with your posts Samaroy, but this is meaningless fluff. Interest from other clubs is speculation and part of an ever shifting, lacking foundation aspect of the game. Pundits, well there's massive variance in both quality and consistency. Rating websites, well they're people with their own opinion just like ourselves (how they interpret statistics, how they determine relevant statistics are just in their opinion what is relevant) and if SI wanted their ratings then presumably they would have them providing them. Fellow researchers don't tend to be too prescriptive about each others players. It is entirely possible for us to create 2 players, with identical CA's in the same position that are nothing alike. In fact, that is perhaps what we spend more of our time doing than anything else. It's really worth reinforcing that there's next to no value in comparing a selection of a players values with another because its an incomplete view of the entire package. A vision attribute of X can be very different for a 2 footed player, than 1 footed. If a player has great anticipation and off the ball, well he's in better positions and that vision becomes more useful than a significantly higher vision for a player with inferior attributes in those areas. There are pulleys and levers all over the place with how attributes work, if someone can create an absolutely absurd looking profile for a defender where he somehow has tackling and marking of 1, yet is just as effective in the game as he is in real life at defending then they've done their job. You can have your opinion and that's fine, but you have to remember that all it boils down to at this point: "Hey researcher, here is my opinion of X" and the researcher is basically in the position of "Well my opinion of Y is in the game" You're falling into a massive trap here, that you're looking at the attributes of a player, and the attributes of others and making suggestions based on that. However, I can't seem to find anything about you saying the players don't seem to be able to play in FM as they do in real life. The aim of the research isn't to create a series of numbers everyone agrees on. It is to create accurate representations of the players within the game. There are some confines of the game, the ME is a complex beast which doesn't always do what you'd expect (had my own problems on this front when Peter Crouch started scoring goals for fun one year). Getting the managers ratings right to deploy the players in the correct way is by far the biggest challenge. Player ratings are very superficial and the gap between 1 and 20 is nowhere near as big as most imagine it to be. Ultimately if you load up FM, play the game and find player X is playing exactly in your team as you expect him to based on real life, does it matter whether his CA is 1 or 200? Does it matter if a clubs top goalscorer who has a knack for placed shots from the edge of the box has a finishing of 1 or 20 if he's regularly scoring placed shots from the edge of the box? I'd argue it doesn't.
  13. The odds are that despite all the animations added, despite all the things updated on the graphical side of the ME representation, it still doesn't quite have everything fleshed out. Perhaps a little generous, but I tend to look on some of the more absurd touches, mis-controls etc as a lack of animation depth and so the visual element simply does the best it can to represent what the underlying ME has determined what will happen. I remember reading something that a lot of gambling sites now offer virtual sports, I think its regularly been put on here at times in the past with the fairly high resolution football highlights. They have something similar though, that an outcome is determined, and it then selects footage that is closest to what it needs. In that situation it can result in some very wrong visual results compared to the actual result (the example I read in depth about was a guy raging against a bookies because he watched one horse win, but the software determined another had won, and what he was getting to watch was just a superficial display that had no meaning) ultimately I think its probably beneficial to SI to have more numerous, lower quality animations and set-ups for the game rather than fewer, high quality. FM has a similar underlying concept though, the ME determines what will actually happen, the visual layer on top then tries to recreate it with the animations available to it. FIFA does suffer this problem as well, there have been numerous instances of where there is a missing animation and so a tackle happens despite not visually happening, or a ball ghosts through a keepers hand, or through a defenders foot etc. It's the nature of the beast for games, but FIFA tends to be more what you're seeing happen is actually what is happening. Whereas in FM, what you're seeing happen is a reconstruction.
  14. Stop winning! In reality, complacency will creep in if you keep winning, and keep winning well. You just have to keep demanding more, keeping expectations in check, putting a downer on things when its appropriate. That is the actual way to manage such a situation.
  15. The problem lies in the fact that FM is a game. Players will figure out the stresses and weaknesses of such a system, and eventually it becomes Poster X's guide to 200CA players. Even that aside, while we don't know an individuals true potential and have to hazard a guess at best, the reality is potential is limited. Whether that's your ability to lift weight, how fast you can run 100m or how well you can play football. There are limits. The current PA system is representative of that fact.
  • Create New...