santy001

Substantial change in circumstances really with Emre which would be a good basis for changes. He was developing a bit too consistently I felt as the researcher beforehand. At the start of the season as much of a Stoke fan as I am, I feel he would have benefited from leaving the club with a firm offer from Leeds & also a couple of Turkish clubs enquiring. Under Michael O'Neill he may well have gotten the opportunity to play a more meaningful role, Alex Neil is a very different manager and less likely to give that room for growth. In December/January I'd have still been in support of a -9 but as the season ebbs by and we're in the final stages now a -8 makes sense to me. It's not something we'd particularly factor in, but with an FM edition that has perhaps been a little more difficult to get youngsters to develop, the fact Tezgel really seemed to so consistently develop is something that really concerned me, resulted in me avoiding him in my own saves. The lad does have great potential, however, he's not a guaranteed thing. Not to mention anything 140CA+ with the right spread of attributes is still a potential 30+ goal a season striker even at the top levels.

It simply takes time, and huge upheavals within a squad can cause some substantial issues in my experience. I've found often the simplest solution is just time, but you need to hold things together and keep getting results during that period. Otherwise it just begins to unravel. With most young, non-domestic signings I typically expect there to be a 1-2 year period before I'll see that player settled. I've recently signed a batch of 18 year olds (0 homegrown players in my own team after having achieved CL qualification, so I need to manufacture some who are good enough to play) who I don't think I'll even make a serious assessment of their long term future until they're almost 21. They have attributes which suggest they're sufficient to play in the Premier League & Champions League, but their performances are often underwhelming right now and I'm generally okay with that. I use them sparingly and let them spend more time playing with the U21 side as they settle.

There can be inspiration taken from other threads, and while this one is a bit light on details hopefully it allows room for the OP to perhaps specify a bit more about what they're looking to do and can add context about their own team.

Hey @Arress your PC will be responsible for the majority of processing. Your friends PC just needs to be capable of playing their own matches.

It was a couple of years back now but discounting the players in the starting DB (who will usually retire within a couple of seasons) around 39 is the current cut off point. I don't remember the exact thread now but it was explained its just due to issues that arose without that effective cut-off point. It's not the most satisfying of situations as I tend to keep older players around and make use of them in niche roles but the explanation provided makes sense. I often think of ideas to pitch on how to change this moving forward. One was to perhaps have a randomizer attached of 1-5 years, and something like 3-12 for players who have the PPM will play as long as possible. But then that produces an output which needs to be stored & it would have to be done for every player and it would be rather wasteful for the niche of players who would endure past this point.

I think you'll find that post was written by the Jeru algorithm. Next up we might see a post about how the world is flat. It's pretty wild to go to the lengths of inventing a conspiracy theory to help cope with why you lost a game harshly a few times.

Why would the researcher who covers the Benfica players want him to be better for another team than their own (unless an increase is justified). If we're ever going to cynically overate players as a researcher makes sense to do it when they're still at our own club.

Some clubs have it allowed for 2 assistants in the data, but it still counts towards your overall staff cap. It's usually not English clubs that allow 2 assistant managers though.

There hasn't been anything changed on your account, we can see those kinds of instances and there hasn't been anything recently. What's likely happened is your post has contained a word (or part thereof) which triggers the flag for review by mods. Over the years there have been a number of spam campaigns for different things and so some words flag up on the forums.

Ultimately I'm too ignorant of the content & audience to do more than offer pertinent insights based on what I have seen established in (other) game communities alongside content creators. The conclusions you come to would ultimately be your own @doctorbenjy but you've mentioned it has gone beyond your audience. I'm comfortable taking that at face value, which you've mentioned above as being 14,500 people. That is a lot of people, but as a whole of the FM community? It's statistically a rounding errors % of the player base. There can often times be easy biases to conclude such as the core or regular player base engages with FM content, but this is rarely, if ever, true of any game. The vast majority leave no reviews, engage with no content, never see the FM Twitter page, never view these forums. If you can square away in your own mind that you've removed any potential biases then that's fine - its just often the case that people fall into those traps without realising. Being able to explain how that's addressed in any accompanying content/discussion would probably be a positive. Overall, my point is just that I don't think there is any potential for this to positively (or negatively for that matter) influence change within the game. You've since refined the purpose of the survey and that's fine. The initial advisory that it would be used to pass information back through the communication channels available to you, in addition to being something for the community to view. just means its worth pointing out in advance the data wouldn't truly mean all that much.

Disclaimer in that on the whole I'm quite ignorant of the FM content creators, and so my sentiments are more moulded by those I've seen around Total War, WoW, FF14 and a mixture of Paradox titles. I feel like any survey done by a content creator will have a rather narrow scope with certain biases. That in itself will vary from content creator to content creator as there will typically be a prevailing or common mindset usually that develops with them and their core audience. Even SI putting out a survey through their twitter would be of limited value in my opinion since it only focuses on a portion of the player base who engage with twitter for example. I feel there's going to be too much to discredit the results outside of it being a mild curiosity. Anecdotally, longer term content creation tends to become more frequently negative, or more focused on the negatives with a game. It trends better, it gets more views and so it is understandable but how you mitigate that when trying to present any kind of data that's harvested is an important question.

There's a few posts in here directing abuse at individuals which is wholly unacceptable. If people have thoughts on how things ought to be conducted for the best of the community, quite frankly embodying and being a paragon of those values would be the best starting point.

If anyone can win that game when the OP is playing, its apparently the opposition.

Senegal pressed for the first few minutes. Then they just realised they could sit 2-3 players in the line between defence and midfield. Rice & Henderson don't seem to realise they too are allowed to move either side of this line.

The problem here is you're conflating your opinion on what is enjoyable, and what you feel is enjoyable with the rest of the player base. It's perfectly valid and reasonable to advocate for the fact you're not finding the game enjoyable at the moment. The issue is when you begin trying to present this as something which encompasses far more people than you can possibly know whether it does or not.

I'll be honest I don't know if there's supposed to be a point in there somewhere, but it's not coming across. For some further information, I've been a researcher since around 2012 and there have been changes with how we regard PA over that time. I don't remember exactly when the change was but I feel it was closer to 5 than 10 years ago. Typically, there was a tendency to decrease players PA over time. So as Ronaldinho got older and his ability declined, his PA would drop as well. A line of thought which would be at age X what is the players potential, rather than what was the lifetime potential of that player. This applied to players who never hit the heights their earlier PA would have suggested they could hit either, so most players would enter the database with their PA at a high point and deteriorate across the years. Now this is generally something we wouldn't look to be the norm. Revisions down may still happen based on further watching of the player.

There shouldn't be an expectation that players will reach their potential. It's been many years now since there was a change in FM where player potentials probably should be higher than the level they attain. With real players if you get someone come to your club who has a 170 PA but has never played above the second tier and they're approaching 30 we leave that PA as it is from a research perspective. Its a reflection of failing to reach that potential but allowing for a very small chance of a player having a late career push to their peak. If you run random spot checks on player PA's over the course of 20/30 years you'll probably see some very high PA players who never make it beyond semi-professional levels. High PA players never getting the recognition and breaks at the right time in their careers isn't a failure but rather a reflection of reality. In this particular instance it could be evidence of an issue and equally it could be evidence of a somewhat poorly set-up save and then the question is whether something may need to be done on saves where there isn't perhaps the best set-up.

Young players are the most likely to have attributes left blank in cases of uncertainty or have a range prescribed without a specific number. How this could/should/would factor into analysis is not something I can put a pin on but that combined with over a thousand different individuals thoughts on how to rate players mean it may well just be something pertinent to FM2020 rather than the series as a whole. My only thoughts are, in a game where the potential of every player is available... why does someone need to have a prediction for this? Applying it to youth intakes over a number of years could potentially yield something since you're then removing the researcher variable.

You can be massively over on your XG though, its largely going to be somewhat down to luck and the players you utilise.

They're old players who will be looking to maximise their earnings at the end of their careers. Typically this behaviour would be considered quite smart - if they're still able to perform and you're still giving them game time then they get rewarded for this. If they're no longer up to the level needed you can let them drift out of the team and their contract ends at the initially agreed date.

Some things will be changed, but even with the sale of the clubs training ground/share issue & wiping out of debt it kind of needs to show in the accounts to fully contextualise it. The last set of submitted accounts show none of this revenue, for Stoke City. However, some of the associated accounts for the property side of the business do show it but again the holding accounts aren't strictly speaking the club. The holding accounts show cash in the bank at £91m in the last set of accounts. Yet at the same time Stoke certainly aren't in a position to be making use of that. I'll be checking in to see how best to represent this in game but while the club did avoid a transfer embargo this year it does seem like it could be an issue next year. At least until there's some accounts for the club which demonstrate how they will avoid it. Then some Bristol City fans can write more letters to the EFL unhappy about this.

I'll get this checked out, transfers on our side are requested by the club the player is going to so I'll need to check with the Greek research team. This deal lingered for quite a while before eventually going through and it was announced with rather little fanfare from the Stoke side as evidenced by a 3 sentence write-up.

Trying to create the balance between Peter and John is still posing some issues. I'll check it over with my head researcher some more and look to get this right in the next update.

As far as I'm aware the console edition is not available through steam and there isn't a network game option that allows one player to host on the FM23 version with another playing on the FM23 Console Edition.

There are potential logistical barriers too, getting a research team in place or expanding it to the size necessary to sustain the nations league structure can be a challenge.