santy001

The in-game editor that you can purchase through steam for FM works once the save has been started, if you've allowed its use in the pre-game options. Discussing third party editors on the forums isn't something that's allowed on the forums. It falls into a category of very much use at your own peril. If you have a reasonably decent PC there is no reason not to host the game yourself if cheating is a concern.

The official in-game editor works. I haven't had it for a number of years now but I will always start a network game with it allowed just in case there is some issue that impacts one of us that the editor can resolve. Only ever needed to use it once and that was to bump up facilities after the option to request improvements had endured across 15 or so years. The official in-game editor toggles an option to yes if it has been used on Game Status. If its a genuine concern you have going into a network game, I would recommend instead trying to find someone you trust - or even hosting the game yourself.

You have to remember with set pieces, unpredictability can yield tremendous results. Yes in theory a 20 technique, 20 free kick taking player should score more. But being able to hit it well, but perhaps not exactly as well as you wanted may well result in more goals. A simple example would be aiming for the top right corner of the goal, a "better" free kick taker could get the ball quite reliably within a couple of foot in that area. It's the best spot to go for with that players footedness, on that side, it negates the wall in a more meaningful manner etc etc. A "worse" player could still have the ability to get it up, over the wall and back down again but instead of it going to the top right corner its more left of centre. A keeper is off footed/less prepared and it results in a goal. You always have to remember, the gap between 1-20 isn't that great. The "struck it too well" is very much a thing in football, if you strike a ball exactly as you intended as is generally best for that position its more predictable.

Well being a researcher I can definitely attest to learning more about the game does impart some regrets. Although I have to mention learning about CA & PA is not at all an issue - I'd go as far to say as focusing on the CA & PA as though they're all that important probably means there's some substantial gaps in understanding. Focusing on player CA's & PA's and taking the time to uncover them in some way, or spoil that for yourself (whether it be through the pre-game editor, in-game editor, third party sites listing players, or the good player section) then delving into those is something you should always think twice about. Once you know what's under the hood for a player you can't meaningfully remove that. That wonderkid you find and felt obscure might be really well known amongst the community, but if you came across them by virtue of events in your game, it looks a little ropey but the scouting network you assembled recommend them then its still a perfectly valid played experience. If the second that guys scout report came in you knew he was X CA and Y PA it removes an element. It isn't wrong, it just removes a playing experience. For me the regret is that I know how to make a 115CA player who can be a bit part Premier League squad filler. I know how to make a 140 CA championship flop (sometimes players come out a little unexpected and that just further the learning experience). It means when it does come to assessing players in game I can process them ridiculously fast and I can identify players who will over-perform in a niche role that will in turn bring in great profits.

Hidden a couple of posts. If anyone is in a spot where they don't want to offer their feedback on options... Just don't. No need to take it anywhere else.

Where did you purchase from? Typically you'd need to check with the retailer directly.

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.