santy001

Regens who are currently regulars in my squad:

Some regens I've had in a single save, starting firstly with the one's I had to sell because I've had so many I couldn't fit them into my team:

@wazzaflow10 the game already has this in place, for the AI at least. I regularly lure the AI into overpaying for youngsters who are in a hot streak or have played adequately in a handful of games that don't have the potential or are less likely to fulfil their potential. I've also made it something of an expected pattern I can bring in mid 20's players who have under-performed at their last club and quickly turn them around and get a profit from them. This is from a network game with a friend and so there is a bit more pressure on me to buy players at their peak as well to ensure I remain competitive. But across the duration of our save I'm up £1.6 billion in the transfer market. There's only been 1 player I've sold against my wishes in that time and it was a player I agreed to sell if a £200m bid came in. Giving game time to players at a point they can make an impact and in a system that suits them will yield results in terms of how they're perceived by the AI. Players make the same judgements but for very different reasons. We all have our own criteria by which we judge players. For many this will be attribute based as its the easiest place to start, but you can identify players under-performing/over-performing their attributes and such through a whole lot of methods in game. I don't think the game needs are artificial construct which ultimately would only serve to add confusion for players who couldn't get to grips with it or would feel cheated when players dropped to their actual levels.

I don't know the best way I have to admit, but some considerations. If you play a high intensity tactic and have your team locked in at 100% match fitness/condition - you're heavily skewing the results by omitting what happens when players are going into games at 90% or with fatigue levels rising. If you normalise opposition squads in some way you're testing how your tactic performs against teams who may well use different formations but following a similar logic. So if every team in a league is given the same reputation, they're treating you as a comparable opponent rather than what the reality may be for your team. Realistically I can only think that you'd need to play the same season through hundreds of times to flatten out the impact of injuries, good form/bad form and other variables. No one will typically have the time for that though. But there are a lot of caveats.

I mean the answer is rather straight forward in one sense, you can't answer whether a final product that is not yet available will be compatible until you get to access the final product. Whatever is specifically triggering the issue may well be resolved by the final release of iOS at the time. There may well be a different issue come the final release. Whatever the situation is, SI will have to assess it at the time and make a judgement.

It's just using the team set-up as you wish. By having the same role/mentality on either side of the dividing line you can create a similar threat no matter which way your team is building up. Yet often times it comes with the drawback of lacking alternatives if the opposition is set up well to defend against this. Often times there's a lot of murkiness surrounding the real effectiveness of tactics. Some people share the success of their tactics when its been put through a battery of tests where the team is always at 100% fitness or with players set to a certain CA/attribute spread and it can result in a lot overperforming in these sterile conditions.

There are people who put in tremendous effort in the community to create a wide variety of changes. Legends DB's, updating clubs youngsters etc. The biggest problem is more often than not they get 2 major things wrong. One is not understanding most attributes, and the other is massively over-estimating new youngsters. There are so many years of legends DB's knocking about and my litmus test is to check George Best. He was in decline physically by 25/26. Finished as a top level player by 27/28. Natural fitness is how well a player maintains their physical attributes past their prime, how quick their recovery is etc. While most of this was down to lifestyle for Best it is still something you should replicate - particularly with hindsight. I'd probably check in with my head researcher before setting it for a player but I'd definitely put someone past their best at 27/28 in the low single digits for natural fitness. When there are screenshots of it knocking around at 15+ then it is little more than the fantasy ratings you see players given in FUT to shift a few more packs.

I'm not "resigning" myself to anything. It's a rather objective realisation that the collective mass of the FM playerbase that engages with forums, engages with youtube content etc are incredibly well educated about the game. People probe the limits of systems. One solution is a dynamic system is entirely random, and therefore completely devalued. Or it has underlying mechanics, rules and criteria which given enough time the playerbase will figure out. Maybe it stands the test of time for 1 or 2 editions of FM. Maybe people spreading misinformation claiming to have figured it out muddies the waters a bit. Maybe a youtuber gets it completely wrong by running 1 year tests with different starting points and misses how development works over multiple years. Given enough time though players will solve it and the game will not be able to stand up to what becomes a solved problem. But this in turn is the problem, you've got a top goalkeeper, already playing well and in a fantastic position. So what if he cannot develop any further? At a 154 CA in any position you can be playing as one of the best in the world if your attribute spread permits it. As someone who rates players for the game, we do rate players differently to how the game generates players. There is something of an obvious reason behind this however. We are humans guessing to the best of our ability what a players potential is likely to be. The game, when it generates a new player, knows that players potential.

I don't understand the argument that knowing which players are good in the starting database means there should be an alternative system under which all players you sign as the human will become good. While there isn't much worry that the content creators figure out a dynamic PA system as they focus far too much on single season results, even on aspects which require at least 5+ years to demonstrate such as Head of Youth Development. The wider community whether he, on Reddit or someone committed to putting together serious numbers would. Any dynamic PA system that isn't just randomised (and that would be truly dreadful) would be figured out by players within months. There is already too many people who focus solely on personality, on CA/PA and on specific training regimes. People dislike playing a game sub-optimally and to introduce extra vectors where players think this is the case is only a negative.

SI Staff (outside of a head researcher and the few who are also doubling up as researchers) will have zero input on a player at any club. There is a researcher for Man Utd (who isn't SI staff the last time I checked) who does the player ratings. Most of the players in the Manchester United squad typically come from other teams where they have been rated strongly by other researchers. It is a problem I've often had myself with the Stoke research. The biggest limitation right now is to create the kind of mentality that has leeched into football at its top levels. Where there are squads of very good players who don't play to their ability. Chelsea had it this season where their players were just going through the motions most weeks. Manchester United have had that for a number of years now. Recreating the disengaged aspect of players relationship with football is something very difficult. Whether that be lost faith in a manager, whether its because the rest of the dressing room is poor. It's becoming increasingly common for mental health to be playing an impact and that is something that is going to be very difficult to accurately portray and understand through the game.

If you play in windowed mode then this doesn't happen as far as I'm aware.

@grega94 the tool you were asking for advice for is provided by a third party and not compliant with the EULA for the Football Manager game. These are the official forums for the game, hosted by SI. There is an existing pre-game editor available, and an official in-game editor which can be purchased through Steam and other storefronts.

There's no guarantee that were Usain Bolt to be a professional footballer, even at his peak sprinting prowess, he would be a 20 pace. The reason for this is the attribute is being rated among professional footballers and how well they deploy that on the pitch. Football doesn't necessarily allow for a clear, open run at things. If he doesn't have the ability to get into spaces to ever meaningfully utilise the speed you knew he had on the pitch then the pace attribute being 20 might not be the correct line of thinking. There are other attributes to consider to how best represent players, but nothing is ever really a given when looking at examples outside of the sphere of professional football. Attributes are within the scope of the higher levels of the game (professional/semi-professional) and how well they are actually utilised on the pitch. Pace is one of the perfect examples because there are so many players who look lightning fast in youth football and set blistering speeds in training tests which measure speed then get onto a pitch with senior pros and look lethargic, slow and often get accused of being lazy because all that previously hyped speed is no where to be found.

This was something I had long been a supporter of myself. There was a discussion from someone at SI and while there are positive merits to the idea, functionally it would mean each possible combination of settings would need to be tested extensively to the extent that it would be the equivalent to sustaining additional versions of the game. Bugs would have to be categorised on which settings they do/do not impact etc. It's possibly something to hope for in the future, but would be a substantial challenge to implement with how the game works in more recent times.

Such clauses have largely been replaced by the "buy back" clause. I'm not too sure why it changed. Probably owing to how transfers are structured, fees are paid, agent fees are involved etc these days mean there needs to be a specific price for the player.

Well in the first quoted post, your point is bemoaning the resources used on areas away from the match engine. The key little part there being "maybe the match engine would be in a better place" Then in the next quoted post you're bemoaning that by the 150th match day you've seen it all. It's possible I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to by that, but what plays out in the match engine definitely is a big part of the match day for me. I presume this because based on your claimed understanding of coding, it wouldn't have made sense to conflate a few screens and presentation of information on the day as somehow being at the expense of the match engine.

It probably helps if you can hold a somewhat consistent point in your posts... at least for an hour or so.

The biggest flaw with that argument though is by the time you emerge in football you've had 16/17 years. With all the other events of life influencing the current point you're at. From that point give or take you've got 5-15 years to hit your peak. Another tremendous flaw with the 1000 year argument is its presumably assuming you spend a 1000 years at your peak. You don't. For some players their "peak" will be a 3-4 month period where physically they're fine, mentally they're doing well and at the best of their ability. For other players their "peak" will be across years. When you take a step back to think about it, then it's a rather concerning assertion to make that the only reason the rest of us aren't as good as Messi is because we didn't work as hard or put as much time in. I also don't think the argument that the system needs to change because if humans weren't humans and could do these non-human things, you'd get different outcomes is the silver bullet that leaves PA with a mortal wound.

Some of the ideas in your post constitute a good basis for a feature request if you want to put it in there instead @Renyy. That would also give it a chance at consideration and iteration moving forward. Ideas start on these forums in the features requests section get logged internally by SI and over time SI staff will even expand and add further thoughts to these and how it can be implemented. More broadly, this thread is from a moderator perspective in quite a precarious position just because it's somewhat combining feature requests and the feedback thread. However, its main downside is that it is without any meaningful conduit to SI for the ideas people are sharing. Then it's got people giving feedback on the current game outside of the feedback thread, again negating the utility of it. This thread is essentially, I want to post my gripes/thoughts/ideas somewhere else to make them more unique and stand-out, without realising that it's just going to fall by the wayside and have a minimal chance of being picked up by anyone in development. That's fine if you just want to vent or bounce a few thoughts out there. It should be realised that there is pretty much a zero percent chance of it doing anything meaningful outside of the catharsis it brings you as a poster.

A number of posts irrelevant to this thread have been removed. Any further posts within this thread about that removal, which are also irrelevant to this thread will also be removed.

There are too many variations to post and a lot of it is stuff I've borrowed from far more illustrious tactical minds than my own so I'm not too comfortable sharing it when I couldn't accurately give credit to the big influences behind it. It is by no way original on my behalf. In reality any back 4 with a DM in the centre will function more like a 5 in defence. In midfield there are a number of permutations. DM + 2 CM's with the right instructions, either play a wide front 3 and have the CM's making the narrow runs forward. Or you set them up to get wider & run into the wings. Use wide midfielders & then have the runs from midfield down the flanks and a narrow front 3. 3 DM's with 2 Segundo Volante's on attack and an AML/AMR.

I'm far from the best person to explain it, but various things change based on your mentality. On Attacking Mentality: On Defensive Mentality: The instructions, Mid Block and Standard Defensive Line are the same. However, the point at which the team engages changes. The natural defensive line is augmented. By switching to Defensive I'm giving the opponent more space in their half to have possession. I'm also better mitigating that long ball over the top for two reasons. One my own defensive line is deeper, and secondly they're more likely to have a better/more sensible passing option available. In any given situation, with the ball what is the worst thing you can do with it? You give it away carelessly that results in a goal. If a team is worse than yours, give them the ball. Let them maximise the number of worst possible instances. Let these inferior players make mistakes, let them push players forward to try and attack you and create space at the back. It's the best possible thing to do. So I went defensive and won 8-1. When you press a team relentlessly you're forcing them to keep 8/9/10 players back and defend in numbers. It restricts space and often times negates your own teams speed because there isn't enough room to open up the taps. More attacking mindsets can fall into this trap against weaker teams.

Limited information to work with when there's no tactics, or screenshots from matches etc. If its such a persistent issue then it seems like you're mismanaging your squad going into these games and indeed bringing about complacency. I use a formation that defends like a 5-2-3, switches to a 4-3-3 and eventually attacks as a 4-1-5. So for very aggressive games the average position tends to have my front line quite even in a line. I can make a quick assessment about 20 minutes into a game. Based on the average position, adjust the mentality. That would be the thing I'd suggest at least taking a look at in your games. This is from my match against 20th placed Sunderland, I got an early goal 4 minutes in so I wasn't paying too much attention as I was already winning. However, you can clearly see the average position has my team way too far up the pitch. I got a second just after half time though and saw out a 2-1 win. A couple games later I had 19th placed Leicester, and I noticed things were following a similar trend so I dropped my mentality from Balanced to Defensive: It allowed Leicester to push up a bit more, my team were a little deeper. Not hugely, but having that extra 10-15 yards to work with is often times the difference maker. Especially with the best players. This game was a much more comfortable 8-1 win. Should the average position for the defensive line reach the point where its on the half way line that is an entirely negative scenario in my mind. It means you're pushing the opposition back so much they've got little hope other than a long ball out and turning it into a straight up sprint between their forward & your defender.

If you're using the in-game editor then I believe you can see the hidden asking price value, which is what a club would take to agree to a transfer as it stands. However, I don't believe that has much in the way of exceptions for clauses/staggered deals etc. In terms of the games display, there isn't any real benefit to the way it used to be displayed. Often times it was even further afield from how a club valued their players than the current system. So it kind of comes down to what it is you're wanting to understand/know.

Bad Tackle is listed in the Serious Offence section. So 2 games for it being a second red of the season + 2 games for a bad tackle would be the likely reason.