santy001

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.

My point is my numbers show great performance from human managed goalkeepers. Therefore it's more likely that it's an issue with how you set up recruit players than the game. Well it is an issue for you to address as the manager as its confirmed not to be an issue.

I'd just like to point out why low crosses can work out better with a big, bruising centre forward. Because it's something I do extensively in FM. By selecting low crosses you're indicating to your team that is the preference, realistically low crosses result in higher quality/more dangerous chances more often but they are harder to get the set-up for. So by selecting it you have your team trying to create that set-up environment and many times it just isn't viable. The player is blocked off, there's too many defenders near-side to the player etc. At that point the player has to decide to either recycle possession, or hit a lofted cross into the box. Very often, they'll do the latter. It's not your teams instruction, but it has become the best route to chance creation and then because I have stuck some 6'4" physical monster up there when those defenders have to turn run and try to compete for the cross there's only one winner in the air. I've been there before and thought "well floated crosses should make more sense, if he scores X amount on low he'll score even more on floated" but its so much easier to get into positions to play a floated cross, and your crossing numbers do go up insanely. But you end up with more situations where defenders are set and ready to compete with your striker, often outnumbering them and so when using that option you have way more floated crosses at a significantly lower quality. My striker is still optimal for dealing with low crosses when the team can pull them off though: Places Shots & Tries First Time Shots with high first touch, technique, composure and anticipation mean he is picked first and foremost for feeding off those low crosses but knowing they can't always be played even with that as your crossing preference means you have to consider how else things will play out in matches. If low crosses are engineered correctly by a team in the first place though they're substantially easier to score from. Whipped and low crosses don't remove floated crosses from your teams attacking approach, it reduces their frequency but tends to mean those that are played are of a much higher quality or as a more desperate last measure to keep an attack going. A test by itself doesn't highlight the type of goals being scored from a specific instruction, so on the surface level lumbering TF scoring better from low crosses could look incorrect. You might then load it up and find actually he scored 90% of the elevated/floated crosses that were played to him. The rest were simple tap ins etc. On the other hand it may well be the case that they were all low driven balls across the box and he has been slotting them in for fun.

Some stats that involved the number 1 and number 2 teams in my save when it comes to goalkeepers (both teams are human controlled as this is a network game): Both of my goalkeepers are scoring positively on expected goals prevented there. Third placed Diogo Costa also belongs to a human manager as this is a network save. My first choice keeper got a prevented 7.72 in 29 games: At a certain point if you keep experiencing the same pattern of conceding more than you'd expect, conceding soft goals then your team building and tactical approach leave something to be desired. This is why managers get sacked in football, despite the reasoning the manager provides it simply becomes unacceptable to let them continue and performing in such a manner.

@XaWhas slightly beaten me to the punch. But I had indeed intended to highlight some of the places its listed myself... It's the largest part in the text listed at the top of GD. Given a larger font than even the promotion material for FM24: Stickied in the topics a few below this one on GD from @JordanMilly : --- In terms of actually addressing your other points though: I'm only a humble peon making my way through life and not burdened with the responsibility of assigning resources for a game development studio. However, the GD board has a miniscule percentage of bugs per 100 posts. Even generously I'd put it at <5% but I wouldn't be surprised if its <1%. To assign a QA team to comb threads looking for bugs here would be an enormous waste of time. Over on the bug tracker its practically shooting fish in a barrel. Some people post things that aren't bugs but being conservative 95% of posts over there are bugs. From time to time we moderators point out something isn't a bug or the CCE team will do so too. Those instances are few and far between. Almost like... feedback? I think people do somewhat misunderstand what the bug tracker is. It's not a place for a long form discussion with QA or CCE on issues, there are some threads which require it to get a full understanding, but most simply won't. The main issue is to expedite the process of Issue Player A has found > SI's internal infrastructure. SI have a pretty elaborate set-up that helps get issues from these forums directly to their internal resources in a reliable, reproduceable and scalable manner. People may feel sometimes issues don't get replies but looking at the "Developer posts" tab next to the bug tracker. You will see the SI staff are posting day in, day out on the forums.

While I can't speak with certainty, due to the licensing arrangements it may not even be permissible for SI to implement further updates. They aren't able to sell FM23 any more due to licensing, any availability online is based on pre-existing keycodes. Given the nature of software development, sign-off from other parties etc (eg Xbox/Sony) it's often not possible to provide a specific date for future updates.

Not at all. When it comes to computer games a number of people will feel compelled to play the game in the most optimal way possible. Even to the detriment of their own enjoyment of the game. When it comes to bugs, if it just happens out of nowhere then that's out of your control and if it ruins your game experience - of any title - that is unfortunate. It definitely happens though and many people have had many games ruined throughout their lives by encountering a bug out of nowhere. When it is a bug you can forcibly reproduce though, and in turn goes towards altering the natural difficulty or challenge in some aspect of a game it isn't necessarily fair to draw the attention to people of such an issue unnecessarily. Personally I've had issues with it in the past with other games and even with FM. Many moons ago there was a particular training exploit that involved going to specific levels in specific positions and skewing the attribute weighting system. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube for a player, its very difficult to put back in. Believe it or not, all the posts made in here about it instead on the bug tracker would attract far more attention at SI. The reason being that the QA team are monitoring the bug tracker directly, this thread isn't directly monitored by the QA team and while it does get reviewed it isn't done so at the same intensity as the bug tracker and initially starts with staff outside of the QA team. The good thing is, any posts we hide on the forums are still visible to SI staff in the exact same sequence as they were originally posted. In terms of the relevant attention being drawn to it, nothing is lost.

Hid a few more posts about bugs, as moderators we'll do our part and draw attention to it where we can with SI. At the end of the day it is an entirely optional thing to exploit. If you wish to post about bugs and your experiences with them we have a dedicated bug tracker on the forums where the QA team review issues directly and the CCE team look to offer further information where appropriate or possible. Football Manager 2024 Bugs Tracker - Bug Tracker - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com)

While bug reports are important and all of us on the mod team absolutely encourage making them, it isn't the case you can make a bug report then link to it in the feedback thread. A couple of posts have been removed doing that.

Posts in the bug tracker are always the best way to go. However, in regards to this specific issue I can attest to the fact SI have attempted several fixes over the last few years. Unfortunately, these have not worked. It is an area which they're aware of issues, I have experienced it myself but only when resizing my FM window. People posting bug reports does better help contextualise the scope of the issue by highlighting how many people are experiencing it, it also helps provide a better framework under which situations it is still happening.

Hid a couple of posts since the discussion points don't make any with some of the initial posts in turn having been removed by their posters. Just a general bit of guidance though when it comes to paraphrasing anything an SI employee has posted in the past keep in mind their comments are often in regards to very specific scenarios.

Mourinho can't even replicate 2012 Mourinho. Football has passed him by to an extent (like it has many managers before) and that's why he's no longer in that handful of top managers. Football in general right now favours attacking and pressing football.

CA isn't a defining guide to player quality. It has frequently been stressed that is not its intention. It is an overall calculation of a players attributes but does not account for the purpose specific quality those attributes fulfil in a game of football. When Stoke were a premier league team I frequently faced situations whereby the club would spend X million on a new player who would come in and be ill-fitted to the team and the premier league. On the other hand, you had a collection limited hardworking players who did perform well. Conventional wisdom would be that these new signings would get their CA's dropped to the 120ish mark and these stalwarts who kept performing should be raised to around 150. That didn't happen. The likes of Jon Walters, Glenn Whelan, Charlie Adam - they didn't get the CA's that would fit the "expectation" for mid-table PL team but were still extremely reliable and highly functional players compared to the higher CA's in the squad. Ryan Shawcross and Robert Huth did peak around the 150 mark, but only when they were absolute physical monsters for a couple of years before back injuries caught up with Shawcross. Huth I don't think got dropped too much and proved he wasn't past it by going to Leicester and winning the league anyway. Every moderator on these forums for goodness knows how many years have pointed out the spread of attributes is always more important than CA. I can easily knock together a 170-180 CA squad that should be ill-fitted to staying in the Premier League and I reckon I could just as easily knock together a 120-130CA squad capable of completing a clean sweep of trophies. Most researchers should probably be capable of this with the knowledge we get provided about the workings of attributes. The fact is though such players practically never emerge during normal gameplay. The amount of time it would take to create an ME that handles normal parameters but then can also handle these "extremes" people throw out in testing would probably be a multi-year project in its own right and require sacrifices elsewhere. I don't think Miles pitching the idea to the playerbase that they're gonna spend 4 years working on making sure Random Reddit Test 97 cannot happen. Meanwhile there will be no bugs fixed with the ME/features added to/iteration of the ME during that time. Realistically the solution to handle extremes being thrown at the ME would be to introduce a degree of scripting outcomes. Run sanity checks before a game and where those rules are breached impose an outcome on the match. A campaign to introduce scripting to the game would be amusing.

Lionel Messi scored 7 in 12 at the age of 39 as an Enganche in my side. Sadly I only got him for the last 6 months of his career as he could've easily kept going for a few more years.

Some logically make sense because they're compensatory attributes, acceleration - if you can get off the mark quicker you can compensate for flaws in judgements elsewhere. Anticipation and acceleration is a tremendous pairing of attributes because its reading situations and getting a quick start. Pace providing a higher top speed means players can start later and still catch up or overtake. The biggest issue for me though is this only really stands out if you forget or don't know that the difference between 1 and 20 isn't that big for any given attribute. They're used to judge professional footballers, so a score of 1 is the lowest you'd expect a professional footballer to have but still a deployment of that particular skill on a football pitch at a much higher level than the average person. While the "test" completely ignores a handful of attributes I personally put a greater importance on has anyone created a filter for this and seen how many players have 20/20 in these attributes? When you get the attributes down to 14 in each of these categories, a lone Erling Haaland appears. The game can never be expected to focus on balancing around people creating absolutely insane inputs that do not, and have never existed, in terms of team selection and player availability. It really isn't a big deal because if you vary the tactical set-up you will get different attributes that become more important. Ultimately for me the test just highlights that if you do something impossible with team selection, you get an impossible outcome. There are a handful of attributes in an actual playing of the game I would put a much higher emphasis on which players actually have.