santy001
-
Posts
7,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by santy001
-
-
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.
4 -
7 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:
Getting more out of players than their attributes is part of the game and your duty as manager but that should only take you so far. You don't have to have world class players at every position but certainly players that meet the minimum threshold of what's considered league standard. Maybe what I expect the standard to be is too high. It's not that your guy is a bad player, just one I would expect to be exposed at a certain level.
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):
Spoiler
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.
3 -
5 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:
Question about this - when doing research for Stoke are there guidelines (in a similar vein as jumping reach) for where attributes should fit in based on league level? Obviously some physical attributes would be unbounded.
Also along those lines though - it seems somewhat counterproductive for the difference between values to be so minuscule. I think this is where maybe some people feel that attributes don't matter.
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:
Spoiler
0 -
6 hours ago, Kane10 said:
Honestly why not update the rosters and attributes more frequently?
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.
0 -
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.
1 -
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.
0 -
2 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:
I think you're pretty much right there. From the tests I've done, going and watching the goals scored by my giant, I noticed that the amount of low crosses he scores is about 1/4 the amount of high crosses, despite the low crossing team instruction.
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.
0 -
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.
1 -
7 hours ago, alian62 said:
Would it not be a good idea then to monitor this forum just as intensely as the bug forum ? It really is just another click or two and your here ? Or redo this page to include bugs as well or have a direct link on this page . This has become the place to have a whinge and post grievances about the game so it would make sense to have a bug section linked to it . I think also it becomes a chore to log bugs these days . I know we need to upload files etc but urrrgh it's aggravating. The response times are not great either . I know its frustrating from both sides and personally think it needs a better system .
@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:
7 hours ago, alian62 said:Would it not be a good idea then to monitor this forum just as intensely as the bug forum ?
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.
7 hours ago, alian62 said:This has become the place to have a whinge and post grievances about the game
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.
2 -
1 minute ago, kevaggel said:
Excellent... hide it under the carpet 😷
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.
4 -
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)
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
4 -
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.
2 -
1 hour ago, scythian12 said:
If you try to replicate 2012 Mourinho, it ain't gonna work.
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.
2 -
- Popular Post
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.
9 -
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.
0 -
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.
6 -
Frozen morale, frozen condition/jadedness, frozen CA, normalising player stats, normalising coach stats. Some formations test reasonably well when you have a Day 1 of the season squad all year long. Also strips out player development/regression and often times negates the huge differences between squads and what they have in terms of support structure.
Often times the particular testing method used is unclear so its not particularly informative to see the results since you then don't know how they got from point A to point B. It isn't necessarily cynical (although there can be situations you highlight where it may be) but rather just operating from such a flawed base point it has little semblance to an actual average played experience.
It also means there are very few who actually produce effective tactics that your side can utilise when weary on game 3 of the week or game 10 of the month. A lot of users who download or follow these metas then get frustrated when middle of the season they're playing some lower end team who have less fixtures who end up beating them on the counter because they're fresher later in the game.
2 -
Do people actually find tactics they download are anywhere near as effective in their own gameplay as they are in the "testing" that pops up? A lot of the tactic testing methodologies leave an awful lot to be desired. It's partly why they're of so little use to SI overall I feel.
Any game that has thousands of minds throwing their collective effort at it will have a meta emerge though. FM isn't some rare exception, games just can't stand up to that level of scrutiny and not fold in some way.
5 -
To the best of my knowledge, it's not confirmed that there is anything hard coded to do with Mason Greenwood. The idea seems to have come about because someone who did use the editor to already change those things and have it so Mason Greenwood could return to Manchester United, is then upset that he's not in the England team.
0 -
1 hour ago, CAE82 said:
They are predicting the future
1 hour ago, CAE82 said:No one, not even SI, can predict the future)
Yet for the sake of the game every year the researchers have to do this in their assessments of players. The whole concept of player ratings and potential is based upon a flawed human perception of what individual researchers feel the future could hold.
1 -
By changing so much it reminds me of those posts about classic databases where its like "I wanted George Best, so I put his natural fitness at 20 and his professionalism at 15" as though setting him up to be able to play at a top level until late 30's is realistic. At a certain point you don't really have a representation of that individual. Still we're all free to do as we please and if its that important to you to just get something called Mason Greenwood in the Man Utd team and in turn England team making changes until it happens will probably pay off in the end.
The England manager could also have a dislike of the player in their settings whoever that may be, but there's a lot of reasons why a player may not get called up.
3 -
PA can decrease in some rare circumstances, but increases are not a part of the game. Third party tools aren't something that would be troubleshooted or reviewed from an SI perspective.
0
Football Manager 2024 Official Feedback Thread
in Football Manager General Discussion
Posted
I'd open a support ticket, in some cases SI can provide some troubleshooting steps to remove such a manager from the game.