Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

santy001

Members
  • Content count

    4,748
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About santy001

  • Rank
    Stoke City Researcher

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Stoke City

Recent Profile Visitors

4,987 profile views
  1. Well bear in mind that was just my idle speculation on factors that could prevent something seemingly quite costly based on what I saw from a little nose on company checker/the beta of companies house. Posting a loss is never really the preferred thing, but SI is from the outward appearance a subsidiary of Sega, that paid a pretty big dividend out to Sega the year before (£12m I think) but there can be so many reasons, agreements etc it's not something you can necessarily make heads nor tails of. It was very much a case of me making a use of my understanding from my role with the business I work and the decisions I make about things going forward, the way in which they're made etc and looking at those figures and projecting my thoughts in the discussion. Idle discussions that try to refine peoples thinking or to get a deeper insight into what they're wanting is fine, but I'm really in no position for you to be taking my views on it as gospel as something negative could happen. There can be an enormous amount of positive things that can lead to some serious expenses in business, new hardware, taking on new staff, acquiring new property/offices etc.
  2. Mother of all newgens

    The jumping attribute was rebranded in light of this still on-going confusion. Height didn't used to be factor in, but now height determines whether or not a player will need to jump for a ball. So it is used contesting aerial balls when the player keeps his feet on the floor. Jumping reach is the height the player can reach with his feet off the ground. There is a huge chart we get given with approximate values. There is indeed the issue of tall players having an undercooked jumping stat. I can't speak with certainty on the matter, but I have made use of this myself in one instance. Marko Arnautovic when first joining Stoke would not jump for the ball, he would back into his man and try to bring it down, if it was too high he would try to stretch his foot up or adjust his position to bring it down, even if a header seemed much easier. By setting is below the parameters for his height, it essentially meant he would be far less likely to jump because the AI logic would be that he'd be better off standing and using his height rather than jumping. It would need someone from SI to explain the 200cm+ players having single figure jumping reach, but I can say a 200cm+ player should not have a jumping below 17 according to our guidelines.
  3. The thing is @Samaroy while there is a difference between 150 and 160, its not much of a difference. We do set numbers we feel comfortable with, but if we could narrow it down to a 10-15PA window anyway, we'd probably be more likely to pick a number in that window. The bigger bands are a catch-weight, that degree of unknown in life that is especially true for younger players. It would also lead to the rise of endless potential discussions that researchers may feel compelled to have to explain themselves in as to why they gave a player a -83 instead of a -84 and a lot of people don't realise coming into research discussions that researchers haven't just arbitrarily thrown darts at a board. Usually by the time players get to see any numbers they've gone past the researcher, usually most of the leagues other researchers have been able to have a little nose at the numbers too, the head researcher, some others of SI's staff (I've had comments from Miles on Bojan forwarded to me in the past), SI's testing staff, and any external testers along the way also get a go at looking at the numbers. With all that in place, someone would still say its wrong and that -83 should be a -84. - To go off at a slight tangent, and hopefully to demonstrate ultimately just how little these numbers can mean to an extent. A couple of years back there was a discussion about Mangala compared to Smalling. Mangala had the higher CA and higher PA subsequently. Quite a few were in disagreement with this so I tried to help people then understand a bit more about the numbers. Mangala is/was rated physically as a very strong, very fast player. Smalling was more in the middle of the park on this front, so I completely ignored the physicals. If you imposed the mental and technical abilities of Mangala onto Smalling, Smalling would drop from a high 140's CA player, to the mid 120's. An over 20CA drop, so everything that technically and mentally comprised of being a defender for Mangala was a massive CA drop from Smalling. If you imposed the mental and technical attributes of Smalling onto Mangala, then Mangala needed a CA in the high 160's or low 170's. That was up from mid 150's CA, and a PA capped somewhere in the low 160 to mid 160's range if memory serves. This was done in the researchers editor, so while I don't know the differences to the exact editor you get on the player side, its a case of getting to see all the information. So despite the cries of unfairness, incorrectness etc on behalf of players, Smalling was by far the better defender. No matter how well Mangala developed in any players game, he was never going to be as good a defender as Smalling. He was always going to be more physically imposing than Smalling, which at that time (haven't seen anything of Mangala in the last 18 months or so) was definitely the case and was right. Those attributes ate up a lot of the CA and his defensive toolkit suffered massively for that as a result. It did mean for Mangala to be an out and out better defender than Smalling, a better all-round defender, he would have needed a CA into the 180's. That's 30 more than where he was at, and would've been nearly 40 more to be a better player than a defender in the 140-150CA range.
  4. Attribute Ranges - Researchers

    To an extent I agree, but one issue is that the game normalises in line with CA on weighted attributes. The biggest problem would be the possibility of setting a player at his current CA, building most of his attributes in towards this and then the range set may well be above what that value could normalise to and may impact other attributes. While I'm sure it could be worked out, it'd be an immediate barrier to something like this. In addition to this, there are some attributes that, relative to player position, can range from 12-18 and maybe only increase CA by 1-2 points. There are others which would probably be a 10 CA difference, if not more. It's not a reason for SI not to, but it definitely adds extra layers of hurdles.
  5. (Suggest) Womens Leagues

    If its so straight forward, and you've got inside knowledge of the market really, you should be looking to do it yourself then? Take out a loan from the bank, and make a success out of it. If its going to be a resounding success and bring in money, then you'd be stupid not to do so. Women's football in FM may happen, it may not, but its not on the agenda at present until its pulling in Championship level attendances from what I'm sure others have attributed to Miles saying. All of FM's researchers are unpaid (at least for their FM research work, some are SI employees who I imagine have a main job role with SI that isn't to do a clubs research) but you've mentioned 7 leagues that need to be correctly implemented and then put through a Q&A process. Now lets assume each league has 1000 hours of Q&A (probably a gross underestimate, but my days of working at Sega are hazy and long long ago) 25 people testing it for a week solid. Or less, across multiple weeks. Let's say 5 people for 5 weeks. You suddenly need 35 more Q&A staff to test it. Now, even if you go down the route of temporary contracts, in order to get this done and its paid at what would be a reasonably low-endish guess of a London hourly wage for these staff temporarily of like £10 an hour. Before national insurance contributions for the employer etc the Q&A staff for 5 weeks of testing would come to £70,000. To cover the cost of some Q&A staff alone, it would need approximately 2500 sales where all the unit sale is profit and goes to SI. Now, I don't know what fees steam take, what the cut is after shops have had their end etc but its probably closer to £20 than £30. But SI likely have to pay VAT to the government, there will inevitably be other fees as well just general costs of doing business. It really wouldn't be all that difficult to envisage a situation where profit per unit is around £5 or less. Which dramatically increases the sales count. In all likeliness, there just isn't the sheer physical man-hours in the budget (the total number of SI staff multiplied by the hours they work) to do this and the things already planned/in place for an FM release. So odds are they would have to take on more full time staff as well. Low balling salaries again considering SI are based in London, let's assume it means 5 more development staff are needed to maintain the whole women's side of the game. Their salaries would probably be low-balling again around £30k each. So you'd be looking at £150k per year extra permanent staff, and £70k per year Q&A staff and now in addition to national insurance contributions, work place pensions come into play too. You'd be looking at around needing 15,000 extra sales assuming SI clear £20 profit per sale but if I were to work it out at around £5 per unit being profit, to break even this would need around 50,000 more sales. A little bit of digging suggests the average attendance of 7 of the top women's teams (in the UK) in the last season was 8,380 combined. Now working out crossover for those who also enjoy the men's game and working out what percentage already purchased FM and what percentage are never going to be interested and you're rapidly losing this number and 50,000 sales is beginning to look like a pipe dream. When you start to sit down and look at the numbers, it just doesn't make a huge amount of sense. I expect my figures are somewhat low-balling the reality, but asking any business to risk a quarter of a million pounds is a huge gamble. Especially when all is said and done, and you get the final sales figures, even if sales did grow enough to offset it - you wouldn't be able to 100% accurately attribute whether or not it was down to that, or just down to growth from other areas. I couldn't even hazard a guess at the costs of getting a research team in place but I actually expect in truth the closer cost to the business of getting this would all set up would be pushing closer to 500k than the 250k figures I'm playing around with. Further to this, SI posted a considerable loss in its last accounts, with a note mentioning the expectation to make another loss in the next set of accounts. In the strictest sense, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be considering taking on extra financial burdens at present for features that may be of limited use in increasing profitability.
  6. @Seb Wassell is the limit based on their starting point? For example, can a natural 20/10 go higher than a 20/1 or is it just a hard limit? I ask because I've noticed the option is still there to push it further, despite having a player up to "reasonable" on their weaker foot, which I would assume is somewhere between 8-12 (never paid enough attention to what label gets applied to footedness).
  7. (Suggest) Womens Leagues

    I don't understand what there is or isn't to buy on this front. It's been mentioned years before this was even in peoples minds, for a whole host of leagues around the world. I'll use an example for the company I work for, we recently invested £12,000 in a new camera set-up for product photos. We've just been quoted €14,000 for a piece of software that will help us with listing on Polish website Allegro. The first, we said yes to and the second we said no to, because it's not financially viable. Financially viable doesn't mean "don't have the money for" it means more along the lines of "the investment won't be repaid in a timely manner" because we would have to have profits on sales of more than €14,000 to offset it on that site. When it starts getting up towards sums of money that you could hire more staff with, or money that may well be your actual profits after all is said and done then it's not a good idea to be generally careless with that money. - - - - Back to FM though, what you perhaps don't realise is there's already research infrastructure in place for say level 10 of England, but its not an active league in the game. Yet SI has information on players, has player data, team data and such already in place. It's presumably not financially viable to use that data to make an active league at this time, because the investment in that side wouldn't be repaid either. But, the data is already there. There's researchers in the Caribbean, in Africa, in South America, in the UK and everywhere else, providing information on inactive leagues. As long as the scientists down in Antarctica don't start up a league of football tomorrow, there's pretty good odds SI is getting some information about it already to some extent. Bear in mind what this information is, players names, appearances as best as they can be, stadiums, stadium locations, an assessment on facilities, club history, player history, backroom staff, player ratings, potential abilities, current abilities and so on. There is nothing at all on the women's front at this time to my knowledge. In addition to this, there's no in-game infrastructure for women's leagues. There's no attribute weighting profiles for a female defender, a female forward etc. There's no spread in the regen system to reflect where the best female footballers tend to emerge. There's no regen system for the type of players that countries more frequently produce. There's nothing that reflects the physiological differences that exist, the average height and weights would need to be lower for example. I mean, it'd be incredibly easy to half ass and put something in that paid lip service to women's football. But that doesn't tend to be what SI are about.
  8. @SoulBackUp it seems we've hit the crux of the issue now. You've got a set narrative and don't want to believe otherwise. I mean, the fact you talk about the game being scripted against you in cup games immediately waters down your point. You've just gone from trying to make an interesting point and people looking to discuss that, to you not liking the discussion based response (instead of an overwhelming "Oh god soulbackup, you're the hero we needed!") and immediately just being like "Yea the world is flat, its a conspiracy" for all intents and purposes. I've read it mentioned about logging this in several posts, yet you've seemingly ignored that and gone on this silly little rant at the end and aren't actually going to do anything useful with it. @Svenc I can't say too much about refs, as I just don't pay enough attention to them. But on the attribute front, I agree they are the attributes that will have the biggest effect (aggression and dirtiness) but, of course its still very much within the sphere of influence of the rest of the attributes. Skilled defenders will not see too many, I don't keep enormous tabs on Robert Huth, but traditionally he's been very high on both fronts but hasn't been a walking red-card machine. There's a degree of cleverness to it. There is also again the tendency of FM players to gravitate towards extreme specialists, I expect most players won't be playing a Paul Scholes type player deeper in midfield. A great passer but limited in his tackling, and in later stages pace. Instead it will be a fast, strong, well suited to tackling player. A role which should naturally probably see more bookings picked up, becomes something that will see less because of such a specialised and all-round player being there. Put a striker in there, well out of position, who lacks the anticipation, positioning and is middle of the ground pace-wise and he'll probably be struggling to keep himself on the pitch. Of course, that goes without saying, but extreme specialists like these 2 in my holding midfield role: While neither is especially aggressive or dirty, they've had a handful of cards because their role necessitates it, but these players just getting sent off in general is such a hard thing to have happen, because they're so well suited to breaking up play.
  9. He's a little shorter than I'd like for a DM, CM, or AMC, lacks the physical presence which while its not vital, definitely helps or adds an extra dimension. Or at least stops opponents with tall opponents dominating him in any aerial situations through the middle. Marking is already 13, tackling could reasonably get there as well, anticipation, decisions, work rate and positioning are in a good ball park, good movement in terms of pace, acceleration, balance and agility. It'd be straight forward to make him a right back, and with his passing, technique and first touch he would make such a double-edged threat able to provide high quality balls of all manners from the right.
  10. I'd make him a fullback. If you use attacking fullbacks the passing is already in place for him to contribute high up the pitch, looks like he could quite easily get some tackling and a bit of crossing (both 2-3 points higher) would be fantastic.
  11. The first thing would be what do you think each of these attributes does? Do you think these attributes override player/team instructions in all situations? The answers to those 2 questions will probably provide the answers. In reality though, there's no combination of attributes that are set to seek out red cards. In fact, players are designed more in mind with avoiding red cards, so taking it easy when they pick up a yellow etc. The PPM to dive into tackles and setting team tackling to harder and then opposition instructions to harder make it a little more likely, but with an especially good defender, it might just mean he's flying in at break neck speeds smashing the opposition fairly and leaving crumpled players in his wake.
  12. SI is Cheating

    I'll have to take a little nibble of this bait. What would be the desired outcome for making it this way? If there's a conspiracy theory at play, then the deceiver usually has to benefit in some way. How do SI benefit from giving the AI better quality animations? You'd either have to believe SI are phenomenal coders, yet are somehow unaware their game isn't sentient and are just working in pursuit of trying to get positive feedback from the in-game AI about animations being used in AI vs AI games. Or, the game actually is sentient, and it has nothing more than a desire for better quality animation lest it begin running its Skynet subroutine. - - - - - However, the real conspiracy is that if you send a bag of bon bons to SI HQ, with your steam username on, they will flick a switch that will enable your team to go completely unbeaten in the next season no matter how you play. There is an unquenchable thirst for bon bons in that building. I imagine a box would allow you to choose player stats, club transfer budgets, and a crate load probably gets you some input on game design.
  13. If the board are forcing through sales then there must be a reason why, along the lines of unbelievable amount of money for a player never worth it, or the club is in financial meltdown. I haven't seen forced transfers since I took over a team already in administration, perhaps look at the other reasons that might be causing it and address them instead.
  14. To shine a bit of light on transfer budgets, quite early in the process we set the budgets we believe each club is willing to spend (willing, not capable of) and any transfers that then happen are deducted from this pool. So if Real Madrid spent around €30m as @Cougar2010 mentions then it suggests Real Madrid had an initial budget of €50m set by researchers. We don't include the sums of money that a club might look to spend on one particular marquee signing. So even if Neymar hadn't joined PSG, it wouldn't have made sense to put up PSG's transfer budget by another €200m, there was the money to spend on Neymar, but that money wasn't really there to be spending on squad players to bolster the rest of the team.
  15. Continuing Saves from Previous FM

    There's a whole host of reasons, but one of the biggest from the research side is that things change from year to year in terms of improvements. There are years in which there's something behind the scenes you don't see on the front end of the game are added, that just weren't there the previous year. While that could be worked around, as the match engine changes and attributes are used in other ways it does mean that it'd really throw your players out as well. There have been some big changes as to how we treat players for example in the AMR/MR positions, we have widened a lot of players to be more capable of playing at both positions and the way attributes work around those 2 positions were changed accordingly. It would mean you'd load your game into the new FM, and players who had always been a certain way, and perhaps now in their late 20's or even early 30's could undergo massive changes. Unless FM were to reach a point where it was just transfer updates between editions it'd be unlikely this could ever work.
×