santy001

Overall the chance of getting a Tycoon is rather rare, I've not had one takeover a club I've owned for a number of FM's now. Some clubs also don't seem to get them, I think the ownership structures like Real Madrid & Barcelona (elections) prevent it happening.

Would keeping them in the Senior Team and making available for the B Team work? It's a bit more management but usually it's what I do with players who are on the cusp of the first team or getting some first team action from time to time as I can leave them available and then only remove it when a gaming is coming up I want to use them in for the seniors.

PoE is one game I've often heard good things about (only ever got about 7-8 hours in myself and found level up system to be way more involved than I had any interest in learning). But I know there are still people out there who criticise GGG at times because again, it doesn't align with the stuff they want communication on. There's also a rather simple reality with games that when you absolutely smash it out of the park with a game (eg BG3) or with a season in a game like PoE you get so much more leeway from players. Sports based titles often can't ever really expect to hit that same high (or indeed some of the lows other games have managed) because of their nature. If wanting more dev communication is becoming the barrier to an individuals enjoyment of the game then that does need challenging because whatever that person has in mind likely isn't what the studio has in mind even if they are planning changes in that area. On the other hand you have the likes of Mobius who can quote a post and still somehow get it spectacularly wrong on the next line. When people will just invent pure fiction when a pretty open ended question is asked, not even SI specific to somehow try and associate it with SI policy. It's disingenuous and were it not for the fact it demonstrated my point again, I'd have just hidden the post.

I quoted your post because it had the sentiments I've seen across the broader gaming industry which I said, so while I picked up on your thoughts, it's not to say you're obsessed personally or you're expecting too much personally but it's something that is rampant and symptomatic through the wider space. I probably shouldn't have quoted your post, but I felt it gave a link to the context of the post better. You're not the only one who has made such posts in this thread alone, and I'm far too lazy to go and manually quote segments of all of them. Or as it turns in this case, even more than one of them. Yet your post had a number of the same threads wound together which made it seem appropriate at the time. Roadmaps don't mean anything because there is no consequence for failing to deliver on them in a tangible way. If a roadmap isn't delivered on, you don't get a refund. If a roadmap isn't delivered on, the developer doesn't face fines etc. Anthem had a roadmap it couldn't deliver on, so came up with a new roadmap for Anthem 2.0 - the whole game was then scrapped. With how many poorly thought out examples in the wider games industry, it's a toss up between roadmaps and Peter Molyneux as to which has a worse reputation. When it comes to bugs like with the interface , there being a whole new UI can be interpreted in different ways. If you've got code already existing which can be moved across just fine why go through the trouble of doing the same thing a different way? The presentation of the information/screen and how it's generated in the background are separate. Reporting issues always has merit because despite all the thousands of bugs reported, there will still be more unknown in the game and the more SI are aware of the more than can be checked moving forward into the future. There is a point at which SI determine no more bug reporting would be beneficial. Take a look at the FM23 bug tracker: Not at all, one of the big things I try to do is offer people something to think about that hopefully helps stop people getting wound up and agitated by a game that is supposed to be a source of fun. It's a consistent sentiment I express ranging from advising people to step away when they stop enjoying it to a post like my previous one. At the end of the day I'm very happy with my FM experience, I don't need to defend it, I don't need to explain it. In the most brutally honest manner, if other people aren't enjoying it then it's of no consequence to my own enjoyment. The best I can hope for is that with such a post it prompts a few people to reflect and make a positive change in their mindset that doesn't increase the risk of their future experiences being negatively impacted. This is because even though it has no impact on me, I still would rather people do find a place where they're happier with a game which they've purchased and put time into. They weren't gripes, but they were that little dangling hook of bait to prove a point. There is no empathy for the other side in a discussion online, and when that's not there why would developers of any game feel comfortable increasing community engagement further when it in turn could only expose the game/individuals to further criticism?

I don't know if FM is the only game you play, if it's one of a few or one of hundreds, but it's a weird sentiment you're expressing that seems common across games these days. An obsession with roadmaps (they don't really mean anything) and a ceaseless call for devs to acknowledge they don't communicate well enough. There's rarely a level of communication that actually satisfies players, there's rarely a roadmap detailed or nuanced enough that it satisfies players. There's rarely a developer that can actually deliver on its roadmap in a meaningful manner. The communication is briefly good enough in the eyes of people when it comes to the niche they're interested in. When it moves away from that or there's nothing to share suddenly it is dreadful again and horribly lacking. So far I've been able to play Anno 1800, Baldur's Gate 3, Brotato, Crusader Kings 2 & 3, Cyberpunk 2077, FM24, The Golf Club, Helldivers 2, Kenshi, Mini Metro, RDR2, Timberborn, Undisputed, Vampire Survivors and Victoria 3. That's just covering January -> today. All those games aside from FM have been competing with FM for my time and attention, while for some people FM is the only game they play it's not a universal rule there is no competition. However, the reality is none of them offer any meaningful communication. Never have in some of the cases of games gone by. The studios who do this self-flagellation in the public eye like CDProjektRed with Cyberpunk 2077 (and Blizzard before some of the truly awful stuff came out) seem to suffer more reputational damage and player-loss than those who do not (EA, Activision and Ubisoft among others) . For quite a simple reason, if all you do is spend your time telling people how bad you are at something and how poor a job, they'll likely take your word for it. It also becomes a never-expiring argument to throw at a company. If as developers a big part of what you do is sitting around sating those people in the community who like to be told they're right and what you're doing isn't good enough - how long before that mentality sets in and just becomes a contributing factor to a toxic workplace? Even if its not developers, if Miles is taking to Twitter at 5pm every Friday to do "apology of the week" how long until you start to think "I should probably go work somewhere else" as it's not conducive to a good work place at all. It's announced FM25 is transitioning to Unity, while there's a lot of people getting way too carried away with what they expect that means, there seems to be a complete lack of logical thinking when people discuss issues. When you raise an issue right now on FM24, what do you think SI has to do? They need to reproduce the issue internally, then see if its also present on the future Unity version. Unless something had to be recreated entirely from scratch in Unity or Unity has some feature which resolves the issue compared to the current game engine (not match engine) it's likely to manifest there too. Resources then have to be allocated into finding a fix, if the fix works in the new Unity version but not the existing version then that puts a very serious question about the allocation of resources. SI will have been working on the Unity transition for years and some issues are likely going to be fixed in the Unity version but could not be fixed either due to staffing constraints or time constraints in the version we've been playing these last few years. I'm not a game developer, I have no hidden insight, it's just applying a bit of logic to the situation that seems likely to me. As someone who also puts a lot of time in for free and has a passion for the game, evidenced through my years moderating these forums and over a decade of doing research, next year will see us mods dealing with those people who have let expectations carry them away about what Unity means. We'll also have people outraged that the transition to Unity hasn't fixed their issues. Then we'll likely have those few who are impacted by the recurrence of some previously fixed issues. As someone who's been bowling around for a number of years now with every major software transition I've seen in the workplace some old, previously fixed issues have reoccurred. As substantial a change as Unity is it seems logical to me that could happen with FM too.

So is your assertion then that you've never actually won a match on FM? You've never been able to achieve anything in the game? You've only ever won when the script determines you should win, every promotion you've ever had, every cup win or top flight trophy has been because someone at SI scripted it for that to happen to you? I'd have to use the term playing in the loosest sense, but why are you playing something that you believe you're just an unwitting observer to? Just for the avoidance of doubt, your previous post was hidden for the way in which you wrote it. I would genuinely be interested in why you in turn play a game if you genuinely feel you have absolutely zero influence on what happens in it however.

Just to dig a little deeper into this, if these "9" but actually 13 are the meta and so strong, they should be performative at lower levels, not as strong but if its all that matters is being strong in these areas then I figured I should check. With player filters as mentioned in the last post I had to drop all the attributes to 13 to find any results. The likes of Haaland, Tammy Abraham, Victor Osihem were some of the top results. That's the attributes I went with and put them on all players at Crystal Palace. You can acquire a team full of players with 13's in each of those so its actually attainable in game. Crystal Palace got relegated on 7 points with a -97 GD. But they have all the meta attributes still at the strongest attainable level players have them set to in the game. Surely if they're a collection of "meta" attributes and set at what is still a strong level, because 13 is a strong rating for any individual attribute, that shouldn't amount to the weakest ever PL team should it?

How did you account for Consistency, Important Matches, Adaptability, Ambition, Controversy, Eccentricity, Loyalty, Pressure, Professionalism, Sportsmanship and Temperament in this test? By using Man City you're using a team that typically would score quite strongly in these areas. Missing 11 attributes out means its difficult to gauge. Anyone attempting to replicate it would be fumbling in the dark. Also discounting 4 attributes being set to 13 could well mean that actually somewhere between 13 and 24 attributes are the "meta" which weakens any point considerably. What happens when these attributes are instead 18, or at levels which players actually exist in the game? When running a filter with these 13 specific attributes in the game I have to drop them all to 13 to find any players who meet all of them. That means its the first actually attainable point in the game to get players who score strongly in these. What happens at that point? To what extent is the manager and backroom staff accounted for within the test? Did your tests with different manager attributes and tactical approaches yield different results? In what way does club reputation influence this? Have you isolated that its a quirk of a high reputation team and that's why only the outcomes with Man City are included? How does it pan out with teams expected more to finish around 5th-8th, 9th-15th and 16th-20th in that league?

The linked provided above would be the best way to proceed.

To the best of my knowledge players have their own development bell curves and so to what extent this can be mitigated by attributes which offset decline like professionalism, like natural fitness is not something we'll ever have a clear answer to and justifiably so I believe. It's meant to be an unknown that varies from player to player. No one would invest the time to reproduce it hundreds of times monitoring the same batch of players, trained and utilised in the same way. A player may decline faster if used too much, or too little in a team. They may decline faster if their other mental attributes see them step away from the highest level they could still compete at too early. The coaching staff of the team and their facilities. Considering most of the test community relies on holiday mode and freezing attributes, morale etc it's likely to be too far out of the scope of their understanding to even build a semi-meaningful test for - never mind actually complete.

When it comes to player decline, as the manual mentions its only impacting physical attributes. I wouldn't expect there to be much in the way of meaningful tests done on it because even at a glance its going to be difficult to ever come up with a meaningful test. Not to mention natural fitness is only a small piece of a larger system when it comes to the areas it does influence.

Potential Ability is merely the reflection of the fact we all have a ceiling. In terms of actual players in the game its simply the best estimation we researchers can give. Therefore it has that inherent flaw of being human judgement, at least until SI roll out some omniscience juice for us. When it comes to regens however it is then a categorical statement of that players limitations. There is no mistake, no room for error. Whatever idea you subscribe to as the determining factor of an individuals potential, that is it.

Feels like you're weeks late to this one. It has already been on these forums and in a reddit thread from around a month ago that SI are already aware of so there isn't going to be much of anything to respond to for the QA team here. If you want to get information on testing that others in the community have done, you're likely going to have to reach out to those creators.

It's hardly worth the effort for SI to have staff constantly just having to go through putting the time and effort into it though. Especially given the proclivity for most will be to either believe the test and not believe what an SI staff member then posts in response or the opposite way around. Maybe you could find a test that does categorically prove that if you set the attributes going from 1-20 just by increasing by 1 for each attribute as you scroll down the columns in the pre-game editor that you create some super player who scores 100 goals a season. It'd raise some questions but it would be kind of irrelevant since such players don't exist in the game. The simple reality is that spending the time of staff involved with the development of the game refuting little billy's test 9238 today for several hours only to have to do it tomorrow with little billy's test 9239 tomorrow or the day after is not a productive use of time. You have to save that kind of time wasting for studios who have quadruple A games like Skull and Bones where the developers had like 9 years to kill before releasing a game.

Yet someone posts they do find some positives, with the clear implication being its in their point of view with a general statement of surely they can't be the only one and you get multiple posts rounding on them for it quoting the post and then reiterating previously made points. Presumably trying to convince others to change their opinion on their experience of the game, because if its just to repeat the same thing from a few posts previously then that's kind of pointless too. If you genuinely aren't finding enjoyment in any game the best thing to always do is to step away from that game for a while. Even if only to preserve your long term enjoyment. If you don't like the latest update and changes made then of course everyone realises just how disappointing that will be, and the feedback is welcome. Just keep in mind you can take a break from the game, because the way some posts are worded it gives the impression some are forcing themselves to play through something they're not enjoying.

The game has had a number of years now accommodating leagues with different transfer window periods so I don't expect the J League will have taken anyone by surprise. Given its the first year though and what has been mentioned previously with licensing its perhaps best to wait and see what happens as my understanding is there may be careful consideration and checks required regarding international player movements in/out of the J League structure.

I'd open a support ticket, in some cases SI can provide some troubleshooting steps to remove such a manager from the game.

After career mode was promised by a certain date with Undisputed I fired up the game about a month after then and found it wasn't there. I then did a quick internet search and the top result was for the inclusion of career mode on that now elapsed date, from their own website. As someone not particularly immersed in the Undisputed community it meant I had to then go trawling to find some old steam thread where it was announced it was delayed. Most people will find dev communication to be great when there is a communication about the aspect they care about, and not so when it covers other areas. If you only play FM then to an extent I can understand some of the viewpoints, but if you're someone who plays other games you know a load of communication and promises of X and Y by Z time are generally the hallmarks of a terrible game dev looking to buy time and keep people playing in the promise tomorrow will be better. Anthem being one of the best examples with the promised "Anthem 2.0" after the release game was awful, Ubisoft with their games and live service elements often times falling flat on their face. The things some companies promise these days make Peter Molyneux look relatively restrained.

Most people I expect wouldn't consider purchasing Tchamadeu for right back in the Championship. He starts at Stoke and was very effective so I saw no reason to replace him, he would average around a 7.00 for my side and would get 5-10 assists in all competitions. So he wasn't excelling but rather he was functional and in a team that just needs the right back to offer a safe passing option and provide some additional support on the wing without ever needing to be too involved in attacks. The aggression, anticipation, decisions, positioning and work rate of Tchamadeu and Arnold are within a couple of points of each other. Strength aside, their physicals are also within a couple of points of each other. How often are you asking a player in that position to do something actually difficult for a footballer? It does change though, I was having some struggles with the team elsewhere and @XaW was kind enough to share his formation with me which I took some heavy inspiration from. It didn't have an AMC so I needed to find a new creative role, I ended up settling on the RB as being my main creative force as I had a player who looked like he would become an absolute monster in that position. He gets on the end of crosses from the left and scores headers, poses a threat from set pieces while just getting an absolute hatful of assists (19 goals & 21 assists in 45 games): There is no other player in my save that could do what this particular RB does I feel at this time. When he begins to decline it will necessitate an adjustment in tactics because even if I retrain other players to have the knock balls past opponents & crosses early PPM they can't do it to the same level. Perhaps counter-intuitively with my previous tactic this RB would have been a waste. He may have gotten a few more assists than Tchamadeu in a season, had some better performance indicators but it wouldn't have changed anything in the team overall because it wasn't a role designated to have substantial impact on the team. Sometimes the issue is you're just asking a world class player to fulfil a fairly basic and functional role in your team. So they don't seem particularly outstanding yet it creates a bias that you need such a good player to just attain that level of performance. Whereas actually it just needs a competent player to deliver that level of performance. When you task players with an actually difficult function within the team you then start to see the world class attributes and high scoring attributes make a difference.

There are no guidelines for individual attributes outside of jumping reach, because jumping reach is inclusive of a players height. There's a loose framework in the background for where overall teams would be expected to be in the hierarchy of football (if I submit my Stoke squad in a comparable position to a top PL side then clearly I've gone wrong somewhere) but we're free to make any submission we wish. These are then subjected to the scrutiny of our head researcher, if the head researcher has no objections then the QA team get to see that data and after that any additional testers. When it comes to actual attributes though, many people are perhaps guilty of thinking more along the lines of a Finishing of 1 = only get a shot on target <5% of the time and a Finishing of 20 would be like 80% of the time. Higher attributes help of course, but the overall spread is where things are more important and crucially how you set your team up. I often times create a role in my sides where there is a deep lying playmaker who has to do nothing other than distribute the ball usually the two CM's ahead will be the shield and have far less involvement in the attacking set up. In that specific role no one competes with Toni Kroos in that position. I've kept him ambling along in previous saves right until he calls it quits and often times face a serious struggle to replace him to the point I will usually change my tactical approach there (or sign Neymar and put him there for a couple more years if he's available as late career DLP Neymar is also a favourite of mine) In a very specialised role those high scoring attributes can be the defining aspect, but outside of that it has far less impact. When the creativity and chance creation came from elsewhere in my team this was my first choice right back in my Stoke team that won the PL & CL:

We give our time up freely as researchers for the rating of player attributes and changes that go into them, along with submitting transfer requests etc. When it then comes to testing data etc as well, I imagine this forms a couple of substantial reasons why there aren't more frequent attribute changes.

As mentioned, you can just not sell players. But when it comes to selling players you have to be open to the fact you need to sell when in a position of power. I sold Joao Veloso to Man City for £196m all-in. A good player but I don't quite think worth that much, he has improved further since as here he is at 29, and this is six years after I sold him. Here's the transfer history that shows it, and below I'll explain how you put yourself in that position of power. Veloso signed a 5 year + 1 optional year when joining, that's my standard approach. Season 2 he was doing quite well, some clubs were interested around the £40m mark. Knocked them back, knock back his requests for a new contract but going into 27/28 I offered him a new 5 year + 1 optional deal on £125k per week to start the end of the season. So he has a brilliant year and a new contract at the end of it prevents any unhappiness from his contract. So his contract starts in 28/29 and Man City come knocking that summer. Veloso is on £125k a week so that wage isn't going to put Man City off at all, in fact its rather an enticing prospect for a top club as they can beat it easily. Veloso is now only 1 year into a 6 year contract, so the AI with Man City now starts at a little over £100m. Rejected the first couple of bids, in part to find out if Veloso is going to kick up a stink or not about me not letting the move go ahead. He did and we agreed a price at which he could go. If Man City can't meet that, then there's no issue with player happiness. Over the course of the summer bids kept getting higher, I would reject and once the total package was around £150m that's the point where I started to negotiate (and I mean with the negotiate option rather than suggest terms). Through monthly instalments and appearances I put it to Man City that £200m would be enough, they came back with £196m so I accepted. A player who at the time £60m probably would've been a good fee for sold for £196m. In fact, I had an improvement upon him lined up in my mind in Cher NDour who was transfer listed for around £60m (and then sold on for £105m the next summer to AC Milan) If you're letting key players, or even high value players you do want to cash in on, get to 2 years left on their contract you're making a huge mistake. My approach is you're only ever safe for the first 2 years of a 5 year contract, after that you have to consider facilitating wage increase demands, transfer market value etc.

Here is the thing with xG, it is an informative guide. However, it is a guide only and not a definitive outcome. The game isn't bound by this in any way, just as real life football is not bound by it in any way. You can finish a match with an xG of 5 and score 0 in real life, you can finish a game with an xG of less than 1 and score a handful of goals. You're conceding soft/poor goals in your games, that is all the numbers show. That's your failing as a manager. There's no real reason to lock this thread from a moderating perspective, but for your own benefit really I just want to highlight that this particular issue has been reviewed and it has been flagged as information has been provided by SI. Which it has through the confirmation its not an issue. You're welcome to keep posting but unless you provide anything substantially different in material terms to what you have done previously then the position for SI is almost absolutely certain to remain unchanged.

If you're referring to the thread you linked from 2019. It's still the same case as then. Retraining positions has no CA cost. It will alter the weightings of existing attributes, that may result in the calculated CA for a player decreasing, increasing or remaining largely the same. Weird thread to bring back after over 2 years of no discussion, even weirder to bring it back without anything actually proving your point.

This is an example all tests face. There can be an output in the data that on the surface gives an interpretation of "low crosses work best with big forwards" and people may try to argue that point but as you've then noticed looking past the headline figure - there's an awful lot of headed goals in there. Moving past that initial point there is then a question about how low crosses functions in the game with myriad outcomes such as: - Actually working correctly - Incorrectly teams are giving up a little too early on trying to create space/beat a player for a low cross - Incorrectly teams are not recycling possession and attempting to build again - The players selected aren't up to it against the current level of opponents - The players selected are capable but have attributes more likely to cause them to deviate from what you're asking - In X amount of games the opposition actively working against the team instructions make it unviable so the team correctly tries something else without a managers input There could be countless other reasons too. There have been many examples in the past though of people getting to that first point and proclaiming it as fact with little further analysis. Most testing that tends to be useful to SI longterm is its "I found X is happening when you do Y. Here are all the examples" then SI can start digging in with more control on their side. There are many instances where the community does indeed find something with their testing that is amiss but more often than not its something else several layers deeper that ends up being something SI have to zero in on. With testing its much like feedback and with idea suggestions. There isn't an expectation on folk in the community to figure out the correct way to implement a feature or fix a bug. It can often be more advantageous to avoid that is it often strips out what is useful at the beginning sometimes by focusing on the wrong thing.