Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by santy001

  1. There's a fair bit of misinformation there @FMExperiment - Player development: The game now has different ways in which this will work and you could play the first scenario a thousand times and end up with different outcomes. However, a largely almost developed player being dropped down to 20 can give a predisposition towards development because they've got high positive attributes that influence development. - Young players: Training facilities play a larger part <18 and once 18 and over then game time at a relevant level starts to come into the mix. The star ratings staff come out with are also only ever a guess by in-game staff and are relative to the squad you've got and the level you're at in football. There's massive potential for mistakes and therefore its hardly a definitive system. - - - Ultimately @WojciechZed it depends entirely on how you play. You might have a really poor player but his strong areas suit your tactic really well. If you play a deep line that counters on the break acceleration will be a far more important stat than it would in a slow methodical break down style of play. I've had players who looked on the surface to be poor players, but they had one or two things that made them useful in my tactic and even though they were 90CA players or less continue to play well in my side from the Conference up to the Championship and in one case even the Premier League itself. Additionally on FM19 I did have a thread in career updates where a player with mid-90's CA was in my CL winning team. He wasn't first choice but injuries had forced my hand and there were no issues because he was in a position that didn't compromise his weaknesses.
  2. I think the scout reports need further improvements before it can be moved away from. Right now there's still too much of an understandable scale and lack of variety/flavour in the terms to describe attributes in reports. Once that is in place it would be something I could entirely get behind.
  3. To an extent I'm in a situation where I know you're wrong @RoversRob from around some 130 seasons of this years FM, but it isn't particularly possible to prove it because first of all I'm not trundling through the saves and in those saves its only possible if its a snapshot at the right time. I've stopped playing FM19 though now as the clock ticks down to the next version so I'm happy to crack open an editor and take a look. I think the last time I did this was to point out that I had a 90-something CA player in my champions league winning squad, which feels like it might also be a point about the arbitrary determination of what is a good CA. It's an incredibly rare event for a high CA player and also high PA to come through. In life or in FM. But it does happen. It does happen an awful lot more that there are those who have little to give though, and there are some who just will never materialise. It's February 2043 so a good portion of those 17 year olds would have been 16 when they came in during the last regen cycle some 9 months earlier. There's some development time but every one of those is a player you should be thinking "he looks pretty much ready for top level football" Players who are still exclusively 15 at this point in time in the game: - - - Anyhow, its probably time to inject a bit more realism to the numbers being used. If you're using the literal figures of intake day then you're doing it very much incorrectly. It very much tends to be the case that the players who are the most notable examples in real life tend to come through at the end of the season after they've had nearly a year or so closer to the senior set-up. This is when they tend to be noticed in the wider world. FM will always have a degree of weakness on the youth intake day because its having to simulate the youth aspects of football which aren't included in the game for a number of reasons. I'd be inclined to say the real issue here is that those players CA's are far too high rather than their PA's too low.
  4. Once a team goes a man down I tend to try and make a little more space for them to push forward and drop my team off a bit but with a quick counter set-up. It becomes much easier if they do over-extend with a man down.
  5. You can feel the moon is made of cheese if you'd like. It's got about the same bearing in reality.
  6. Absolutely, the most immediate way in which it seems possible to me would be to re-use the -X PA system, lop a 0 off and instead use the same for the mental attributes. Would make a -10 consistency/professionalism/determination/important matches then 17-20. Maybe the bands could be re-worked a bit, 4 points seems more fitting for these attributes but I think anything that better allows the reflection of uncertainty beyond the use 0 which is just the full 1-20 range works better. It also adds more variance to player development in addition to what is already being done elsewhere, historically, one of the biggest factors (and still a predisposition towards success) is these attributes set and if they're all set at a good level from an early age then they appear over on the good player and team guide forum.
  7. I do recall you bringing up this point a while back so its something I'm aware of, particularly with the made-it sense but I was going more down a researcher mindset as to how we reflect - or even predict - players with such an inclination. The game does of course have it a lot easier with new players coming through as its easy to set these attributes for them, my thoughts were very much in the mind of how I judge those factors for the players I go and watch. These are the kind of things that cause the revisions between editions and databases after all where we try to zero in more and more on the players personality.
  8. I can understand that perspective @SD. I actually think one of the biggest levers/mechanisms on this front is perhaps not so much with PA itself, but some of the other attributes. Professionalism for example, I don't believe any players professionalism in life can truly be tested until he's left home, old enough to be drinking and got enough money to be doing as he wishes. You can find an awful lot of model professionals among the 17 year old lads who get picked up from home and dropped off at the training ground and then go back to mum and dad at the end of the day. In fact, by definition they're almost at their most professional when your mum and dad are still sending you to bed early because you've got a game the next day. Ambition and Determination, a couple of big ones that can be massively influenced by the "I've made it" feeling. As a Stoke fan I've gotten to see half a dozen players who've come in, gotten the biggest contract of their careers that will set them up for life and have massive motivation issues since. I can see there being a massive discussion to be had in this area.
  9. Hopefully it goes well, but work permits can always be problematic. In some instances I've done the same, signed players I don't immediately need because when they did get call ups in another year or so all would be fine. Then their nation went and dropped too low in the world rankings. Shouldn't really be an issue with Colombia though.
  10. Good performances are the only real way of helping him get to the national team. There are some things you can look at which present some risk however. The wages you pay the player, and the fee you pay for the player. In some instances I have gone a bit higher on these to look at the work permit rules in place and make sure the player gets points for an appeal from these.
  11. It makes little difference to me @Smurf as to whether you accept that or not, but you're demonstrably posting factors regarding PPA as reasons that PA should be something that moves. I can only advise you that, with the information you're pumping out at the moment, its not really matching up with how the current system is designed. Therefore, as a critique of it, it lacks a lot of foundation as a result and in turn becomes less likely you're going to be able to influence the decision of those who can look to change it. It makes no difference to me either way whether you accept that or not. I just prefer to help people have the best position to provide constructive criticism. I wouldn't be the one who has to look at implementing any changes, it wouldn't be an inconvenience from a research perspective as it would all be built into the game instead of research. It's not something I need to have an emotional attachment to, so when I'm pointing out that you're missing the mark its because I'd rather see a post actually provide something that can be worked with. - - - @CFuller and @Brother Ben have picked up on the reasons as to why it in itself doesn't work, they're points I've made and many others in the past as well.
  12. You can probably still register him due to how the work permit system works. It can be appealed and depending upon when you signed the player it might be he isn't available for the first 2 group games but if you could then appeal and it gets granted you've got him from then on. It would just be a risk you're taking at that point based on whether you believe he will get a work permit or not.
  13. But @Smurf you're claiming patently untrue things as though they're truth. The potential for late bloomers already exists in FM. Not every player reaches their PA by 24, most will not reach their potential and so the game has a system in place which allows players to spike later. On to the next: You're just fundamentally wrong here. Frank Ribery is always Frank Ribery, whether hes 16, 36 or 56. His potential as a footballer has never changed, he's gotten older and his age means he can no longer live up to that potential. However, his potential is still the same. The game has other mechanisms in place that make it so Ribery won't roll back the years and at 38 be making a comeback as one of the worlds best players. It's a curve on a graph, because only his current ability would ever matter. In FM terms, his CA starts off at where he enters the game at 16, and functionally we stop tracking it when he retires as a player. - - - You have a different opinion on it, and that's fine but its just not something that most subscribe to when it comes to FM's research and seemingly from those at SI as well. To adopt your suggestion would be something akin to a system whereby premier league players get 18-20 work rate, championship players get 15-17 and so on because apparently they were either not naturally talented enough (which is why I pointed out you spending time talking about faith etc because its the same thing with a different label) or hard working enough. Ultimately, you can't expect people to respect you spouting fallacies about the game or just being wrong about the design. If you don't understand the current design, it demonstrably weakens your criticisms of it. You can still dislike aspects and that's perfectly fine. But your replies are largely shunning the information you're being given. People are perfectly fine to explain how it works better, so that you can in term criticise it better, because if something sparks and with this better knowledge you're able to provide a more refined argument then the guys like Seb can feed this back into the process. To spend your time though arguing about the semantics of the choice of words, and going down the route of irrelevant tangents about the butterfly effect, about situational factors which make no difference to FM as they largely happen before a player comes into the game or we react as we go makes no difference. It's openly been said, and we all know its a weakness, that we researchers aren't omniscient and omnipotent. That is the big flaw and everyone on our side knows this. Trust me, if I crack it and become all knowing, after I've made a few billion I'll happily spend my time sitting down with SI giving them an answer on every single player, only after having first recommended the good ones to Stoke. The fact that we aren't all knowing isn't a valid argument for a malleable PA system however. It does change with real players, but it works correctly with the new players the game generates. Just because the system we have doesn't work perfectly with real players, it doesn't mean that it being able to change on a whim or due to a low-proc event in game with real players is realistic either. In all likeliness, any kind of malleable system would just see the kind of players I rated for Stoke during the Tony Pulis years becoming one of the games most powerful squads. They were players who were incredibly hardworking but were limited by their ability, had there been any kind of system which still allowed for progression based on hard work, on being inspired etc then they would have shattered it into a thousand pieces.
  14. You put an awful lot of time into missing the point @Smurf. You spend an awful lot of your post just going on about faith, luck etc. It was being used as a catch-all to be entirely inclusive of any perspective because whatever it is you believe is the process for a players potential is what FM is replicating. If you want to believe its all down to the luck of who you meet in life, then FM is still emulating that process. - - - What makes it more bizarre is then you go and talk about natural talent. Which comes under the whole first part you seemingly spent arguing against. Players aren't either where they are due to natural talent or hard work, that would suggest that merely the 99% of players just haven't worked hard enough. It's also very dismissive of other talents who are at the top seemingly just due to natural talent. The game has other frameworks in place to emulate hard work. - - - I don't mean to come across too harsh, but you wrote an awfully large post that doesn't really say much. FM does already have rare events in the background that influence player development, Seb has mentioned these on the forums in the past they're just very subtle. Not really like say a CK2 "You've killed so many prisoners now you've got the Impaler trait" approach.
  15. I can appreciate the thoughts and agree it is something that on paper sounds quite nice. As one of those who would be tasked with making it viable though on the research front, I'd have no interest at all. SI would have an absolute ton of work to do, but from the research perspective having to set youth intakes for X amount of years for Stoke to make sure the database is accurate and then trying to rate those players etc would just be a nightmare. It would just be never-ending. - - - Its generally best left to the fantasy realms of those who make the legends databases and so on. They tend to be quite poor if you reflect on player ratings though. The amount of early 30's retirees, or players who declined harshly in their late 20's/early 30's who have attribute set ups which would keep them at the top of the game into their mid-30's is one of the easiest to spot.
  16. I brought up the suggestion a while back of it being encrypted in some way, or even just not shown and simply for those who wish to change it in their game to have a field which simply writes over the current value. Ultimately because the information is stored locally, it would still be accessible one way or another and so would mostly be wasted effort which makes sense. If it was something similar to how an MMO works then it could be more feasible, but even then people would no doubt look at one way or another how to get the information and it would just be a pain making FM a persistent online game just for that. - - - Coming back to the matter in the OP though, my previous point about how human players would just overwhelm any kind of incremental gains system through objectives would undermine the game very quickly.
  17. @simual the answer is quite simply a blunt and straight forward one. As researchers, we aren't all knowing. That is always going to be the biggest flaw in the system, but that flaw doesn't change with an approach where it can later change. It just increases the margin of errors even more as players can begin getting higher potentials that were much less likely attainable. My argument isn't predicated on the fact researchers like me are always right, ultimately it comes down to the fact that any system in which potential can be shaped by in-game events only ends up one way. An ever escalating PA for players under a human manager because it would quickly be pushed to breaking point. In addition to this, it is deemed to be the limit for a footballer and while that may increase over time where we feel it is appropriate the figure is still supposed to be representative of a limit.
  18. Wouldn't playing well and consistently scoring over 7.6 be evidence itself that the player is performing well enough? Why would performing well now guarantee that there is more room to improve? Let's imagine a beam, this beam is capable of supporting 100kg. That's its limit. After a couple of years of having rested 100kg on this beam its still working fine, its been an outstanding performer. In fact, if you were to rate it out of 10 maybe you'd go as far as an 8. Would you then deem it appropriate to say the beam should be able to support 125kg? It's an abstract analogy but its what PA is supposed to represent, a limitation for something. That hypothetical beams potential ability for its task is 100kg. Whereas with a footballer it might just be 100. Beyond a certain point you can't will yourself, train yourself or push yourself to be a better footballer any more than you can will yourself, train yourself or push yourself to be a taller person.
  19. I know you've edited your previous post to say not specific to Pepe, but we're going down a route of whereby I'd have to start envisaging scenarios in which things can change. Pretty much the only times I've made changes involving players I do the research for is when testing feedback throws up something bizarre, or is bordering on a little game-breaking. Pre-season is largely an irrelevance other than for getting in better condition, next to no team in the world takes them seriously as a competitive football event. 10 league games is hardly enough for most attributes because even the consistency attribute alone is predicated on 25 games. A player might have had 10 absolutely amazing games, and only played 10 but you can't justify upping his consistency rating on the basis of 10 games. - - - So here's my situation with players that Stoke have signed. I've got the likes of Nick Powell who has spent 3 years at Wigan, racked up over 100 games no doubt. I know what his attributes are but lets say I'm of a different opinion or even have an inkling of a different opinion. It would be a very bold, bordering on an arrogant move, for me to suggest there ought to be sweeping changes to his profile come the end of next month. I'd be taking someone who has spent the last 3 years watching him, rating him, having seen how he's performed in real life and if that is translating well into the game and setting fire to it. There wouldn't be much point in +1 here, -1 there because the scope between attributes is generally that small that it would just be changing stuff for the sake of changing it for any tangible difference in game. Cynically, were you to be looking at PA and making sizeable changes the most immediate accusation would be one of two things, either that "signed for a big club, gets a boost" or "just trying to make your own team better in the game than they really are" and neither of those are situations you want to be embracing with open arms.
  20. Typically if we'd be looking at an almost knee-jerk reaction to ratings based on early season performance then it would suggest something has gone very wrong elsewhere before the release of the game. That's not impossible, we're all human after all, but generally its not something that gets looked at too much because it is very difficult to be categorically sure about a player come late September/early October.
  21. @danielgear I can see he hasn't been on the forums for a while, but it depends very much on the situation. If the takeover goes ahead then it will depend on what's reported at the time as we're always going to be playing catch-up with financial information given club accounts lag behind quite a bit. At this stage though it does just come back to wait and see what happens.
  22. @Earnie is God! I can see symptoms there of something I feel is familiar with FM, that the decision making process leads to multiple AI clubs making essentially the same offer. There's a little bit of give based upon their financial situation but not much. In that situation though the teams who've bid are ones who you suspect would struggle to justify paying out a larger deal and are asking for help on the wages. He has requested to leave and you've accepted the request, so it seems like he's pretty unwanted so the three bids you've got largely seem to be from teams who are chancing their luck on a bargain signing whereas if you were just open to offers they wouldn't be interested. Transfer listing with a price can help deter a lot of this, a lot of AI clubs tend to go way over (also a bit of a criticism) on the value for players they transfer list by request but typically you can see the desperation sink in 6/12 months later and they start looking for some money as opposed to more than the players value.
  23. There can't ever be some kind of feature in the game that comes under "Why did I lose this game?" because while FM could re-run the match a thousand times to find you a tactic that would've worked against the opponents, there shouldn't be that sureness. The game needs to (and is improving upon) the in-game guidance. The new tactical approach shows how effective basic formations have always been in FM. In prior iterations the game has very much come under "here's what seems to be going wrong" with reflecting on how easy the opposition is controlling midfield etc. It's getting better with the suggestions of what formations fit your team, but what should happen in theory and what actually happens can be two very different things once an opposing team are factored in. - - - - - I feel like a meeting with your assistant manager of "How do you want to play? How do you want to defend? Where do you want overloads to form or do you want it more rigid?" etc could be a good way to guide players towards a formation that works but then you're still very much at the mercy of the AI powering your assistant manager who isn't infallible.
  24. Considering FM's pretence that the human player is just slotting into a world with all the other things an AI can also do this would mean hypothetically it would be included for human and AI. It wouldn't make the improvement of the game any easier over time because you could just upload your save to SI and they would be like "yeah 6 of your players/the ref have been bribed for this game, tough luck" - - - Aside from that, the level of AI needed to actually, effectively implement such a process doesn't exist. It would all boil down to arbitrary instance by instance decisions, there would have to be a cooldown because otherwise you could just pay your way to success. There has to be a dud level of getting caught, there needs to be some kind of facilitation etc. Once you start identifying which managers are open to being bribed, or which owners are willing to participate in bribery it quickly becomes a mess. However, by making a game you literally get to cherry pick the features and aspects you want. If we were still in the 90's there likely would be a lot more things included that wouldn't be today. That seems to be where most of the other games that included things like this originated.
  • Create New...