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

7,047 profile views
  1. Would have to get it verified by someone from SI, but I believe another element of the star rating system is what is expected for a club of a certain size/reputation or level in accordance with the more universal element which comes across in scout reports as a "decent X player", or "top X player" I might be wrong on that front however, but I seem to recall it covered a number of aspects to provide better context.
  2. I think the big thing many people need to realise is that 2 stars and above is absolutely fine for an option for your team at the level you are at, especially if coupled with good attributes. If you're wanting a cheap backup then maybe even a stretch as far as a 1.5 star. People are getting too hung up on the minute differences at the top end of the star spectrum and not even realising most of their best players may not even grace that end of the star chart. I don't mean to use this as a humble brag, because its not, I get a massive advantage on attributes thanks to the massive dossier SI send me every year for research. There's a thread detailing my save with Stoke over on the FM Career Updates forum if you've got any interest in how I came to put this squad together. Since I'm largely done with FM19 at the moment due to work, I've just bought an editor, mainly because this topic keeps coming up and I need to see figures myself for some better understanding I think and since I won't be playing this save again I can check the players information.Here's the CA's & PA's of my Champions League winning squad: Then look at the squad ratings: Some massive standout issues, Adam Idah, Mitchel McClellan, Daramy, Eladio, Rogic, their star ratings are all over done but I can understand why. They've played well at the highest level in football and are young, it seems like they should have more room in the tank, plenty in some cases. This is an essential part of what stars do in their inclusion, they are replicating that taking a look at the "thus far" element and forming a prediction that may or may not be accurate for the player. Iker Pozo played perfectly fine in a champions league final at 96 CA. The star system isn't perfect but it really is only a loose guide if you don't trust yourself to judge a player. Relatively speaking, for the competence within a team the game between 2 and 5 stars is of far less impact than the right spread of attributes than the gap between 0.5 and up to 2 stars. If you absolutely find someone bang on at 1.5 even they can perform well as a backup, but its only below this point where you really ought to be thinking "this player likely won't ever be of use to me". To be considering ditching players because of them having a 3.5 or a 4, or a 4 instead of a 5 is pure folly. It's rough estimations about players with a degree of uncertainty, but one thing you can be certain of is that there is some potential and that if they get the opportunity you should see how they actually perform before deciding whether to eject them or not.
  3. @forameuss it's not always public, because there are times when points are raised on the forums seen by someone else that gets back to a HR and comes to me in email and in a number of those exchanges I've looked at others perspective. Sadly the Stoke thread doesn't get much interest, there was Berahino last year whom I feel is now in a good spot but even then a lot of the calls were just arbitrarily on CA. I instead went down the route of significantly lowering professionalism, ambition and consistency which does mean there is something there but its incredibly difficult to bring out now. I don't usually directly attribute things to specific posters when it does trigger a change in my thinking, or adds an extra facet to it. There have been instances for sure, but given we have the annual purge of the data forums it makes it hard to remember where some really good contributions came in. FM20 promises to be an interesting one, after all, how do you rate what should be one of the best squads on paper, and is almost certainly the most expensive team assembled in world football to finish so far down the table in the second tier of a country? That's the real challenge, because there's a very real risk that signing for Stoke at the moment just becomes a CA tax on players. I think every player bought this season got a hefty CA cut in January. That was in large replicating the lack of pace that has been evident however, I know McClean got raised somewhere down the line at SI and the only two attributes I cut in January were acceleration and pace.
  4. I had already catered to that, simply leave the box blank and allow people to enter their own desired figure. Philosophically its a very weak argument to make that something isn't good enough and should be something else because of what it is right now. My thinking is that when someone comes with a suggestion to the table in regards to data they should have their idea on what it should be first of all. Mainly because of the nature of any discussion such as this thread, where one person clearly thinks De Jong deserves a higher PA, but clearly the researcher doesn't. It's not to come across as too harsh on someone making such a thread, as the general discussion board is a great place to actually have this discussion. But to change a researchers thinking, well a transfer fee doesn't do that, nor does telling them what a -X PA band is because we already know. My thinking has always been that without that crutch to lean upon, people would have to offer up what they think and back it up without being able to to cite what is already the case in the game as though that's a point. In terms of discussion itself though, PA and CA are certainly the most boring of attributes to discuss. Going through how attributes are utilised to create how a certain player reads the games or makes defence splitting passes has the potential for a lot more engaging a conversation. - - - In regards to scouting itself, its improving and it still could do with perhaps another major overhaul but I'd say its heading in the right way. It's a fine line to tread between keeping scout reports easily readable and understandable across the spectrum of players.
  5. I made this suggestion to SI a while back, the response was due to the data being localised on each players system, and in turn the game needing someway to also access the actual figures it wouldn't be likely/worthwhile which is understandable. Even if they did it, odds are someone would figure out the process and it would be rendered redundant. Let's make no mistake about what the star rating system is, its a system implemented to help players. If you are already a good judge of players, if you already have a good understanding of attributes you don't need it. Personally I don't bother to use star ratings, I ignore the new number rating system as well. It got too predictable and too accurate, or rather too indicative of a sure thing in certain scenarios so it got changed to remove that element of certainty and bring an aspect of risk back to scouting. It is unlikely it was ever meant to be as effective as it reached at one point. It's a loose guide to help people who either find their expertise in the game lies elsewhere (say tactically) or are just outright new to the game. It's functional and serves a purpose. When the dials and knobs start getting twisted in weird ways, you will see some inconsistencies, you will see that something that is programmed is ultimately programmed with a list of rules and therefore there's always going to be room for this behaviour. So what's the solution? Well you go with one of two things, either a system has to be implemented that instead gives scouts a divine understanding of a players potential with a % chance of accuracy for every individual (likely to be a killer on processing time having to calculate how accurately your scout will judge the next player they scout) or it has to be a completely randomised judgement with some guiding factors. That'd just make it bizarre when you get a model professional through the youth ranks, who is developing well and already first team material at 18 and has 200PA but your scout just keeps telling you he's never going to make it because this time his dice roll said this player isn't going to be good.
  6. There's quite a few SI staff and others in the game. I know researchers get a form to fill out if we want to be added to the regen pool each year. Never seen my regen version of myself amount to anything sadly. Having done a quick forum search it seems I peaked back in 2013.
  7. Realistically in England if you approach a player without a contract who is under 18, but part of another clubs youth system, you'd probably just be facing a transfer ban whether he accepted or not. If I recall correctly Liverpool got off very luckily that just around that same time as they paid the enormous fee for Van Dijk and Southampton decided not to push the report of them tapping him up after they already got caught doing it with a young player from Stoke. The game is having to emulate something it doesn't include, rightly or wrongly, because its rather distasteful in its nature how clubs tend have gone about touting themselves to youngsters with various tuition promises, private schools etc. Youth football is a poorly regulated, poorly documented area of the game. A lot of people are just trying to make some money out of it, whether its agents or even sometimes parents themselves. Coming back to the Liverpool example, while most clubs aren't as naive about it as Liverpool seemed to be around that time, when a player is caught up in it they tend not to be able to represent anyone in the professional game. I know that nearly 2 years later, the lad in question between Stoke and Liverpool couldn't play for either and couldn't be registered with any club. Personally, I don't think its worth SI taking the time to implement the various mechanisms involved that usually end up just negatively impacting upon a young lad. - - - Also @enigmatic at what age and level are you at respectively? I only ask because one of my saves this year is in Sweden. I tend to find that 16-18 year old African players with potential are very easy signings. At one point I think I had 5 or 6 squad members signed this way.
  8. In their last set of accounts SI posted a loss of £3.3m Now while that doesn't mean anything massive in and of itself, as there can be a whole host of factors involved. SI lost money with the expenditure for the game they currently have. FM is not priced as an AAA title. In addition to this, it has resisted the tropes of season passes for content updates, it has avoided lootbox mechanics. It also happens to be on steam, which recent information shows that Steam are getting a pretty hefty cut of that in most cases. The reality of making a game isn't matching up to what your expectations are. In an era of gaming where companies keep making massive promises about the extra revenue that will be brought in from extra features, it's quite nice SI aren't doing that because the only real cost at the end tends to be low level developers who lose their jobs in massive numbers.
  9. It's literally about money. In order to develop more for the game than they do now they need to do one of two things, either one find a way to get more work from people (so more hours, less holidays and maybe some innovative advances in working practice) or get more people. Both cost money. Ideally a league included will be licensed which costs money. It has to be tested, which costs money. Researching the rules for all the competitions and implementing them would cost money.
  10. I mean that's already a world class PA. On the merit of a transfer however, that would never be factored into the decision to changing a players stats. Maybe he will warrant a higher PA at some point in the future, but you're going to struggle to make the argument that its too low.
  11. Get it logged as a bug, if the AI is picking clearly the wrong players or very unsuited players then there's something amiss and it should be investigated. Whether its a problem for all teams or not is almost an irrelevance, its clearly impacting your game and doesn't sound like intended behaviour.
  12. @enigmatic purely in the context of Tottenham, I'd have to say that's expected behaviour. Any other team and its a definite bug.
  13. Can't say for certainty, but given the sheer amount of information FM utilises you'd be looking at some pretty hefty server costs and it is likely there would be downtime during peak hours unless overkill was used on server capacity. Has any game with servers had a smooth launch? Some games have launch issues that last weeks, if not longer. Legacy support would be an absolute nightmare, and SI would likely have to recruit a fair few more people just for the server side. - - - Google's Stadia might be the solution, but wasn't it OnLive or something that pitched the same idea many years ago now and fell by the wayside. It's starting to feel a bit like the TV's equivalent of 3D viewing.
  14. Hopefully there is some clarification, but I've always understood it as you need to be in the running until the final handful of games.
  15. Herne has provided enough guidance on posting mannerisms. For a mod like this to have a long term impact you would likely need to make other changes to youth development in England and various other stats if you truly believe this is the case. Otherwise, at best you're just offsetting what you feel the problem is by around 5-10 years at best.
  • Create New...