Jump to content

Vänsterback

Members+
  • Posts

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vänsterback

  1. The current age-restrictions for players shouldn't really be a problem for implementing U17 squads and competitions. There would likely not be complete IRL-squads in club teams but the game could fill those up with grey players like what is already done for other squads with few players.

    Also, considering competition that run during a calendar year (such as leagues in Sweden), the 2023 U17 squads consisted mostly of players born in 2006 and 2007, meaning most of them are eligible for FM24 anyway. Those players just populate the U19 squad in the game currently.

    The youth national team squads would certainly benefit from implementing U17 squads since those selections generally are heavily based on year of birth. Having 16-year olds selected for the U19 NT is immersion breaking to me.

  2. 19 hours ago, Bahnzo said:

    Sorry, but that doesn't fly. There's no reason for a vet to be nervous coming into a game. Also, if I catch it and give him a talk beforehand which changes him to "looked inspired" or something similar with the green face, then why would he still be nervous? Ad to that he was in the game, went thru a halftime teamtalk which resulted in green faces for everyone and then STILL was "looked nervous" in the second half? Nah.....no way. 

    Edit: here's another example. I'm playing a match right now against a bottom table team. I have a CD who isn't getting much game time and is a little concerned about it so I started him. He was nervous in the pre game. I gave him a talk, and now he's "appears inspired" at the start of the game. So that seems to work. it's just this "looked nervous coming on" which doesn't seem to work. 

    Of course some experienced players are nervous as well. Google Per Mertesacker. Acting confident when the manager talks to you despite feeling on the verge of breaking is not strange at all. Not saying that the game represent this perfectly but what you describe does not contradict logic.

  3. 39 minutes ago, boey said:

    Yes, everyone who determines the potential of footballers are human and makes mistakes. Be it FM researchers, or IRL scouts/analysts.

    Shouldn't there be a feature in-game to account for this margin of error then?

    Well in most cases our guess still is better than if the game would somehow overwrite the data the researchers have put in. For every Cajuste there are 20 teammates of his in that youth team in FM16 that turned out precisely as semi-pro or amateur as I predicted back then. And hundreds more in other teams I cover. Would a random or 'dynamic' factor increase or even perfect the quality of that data in total? Simply no. It would do that only if that dynamic factor found exactly those players that would turn out better IRL than their PA suggested. And it wouldn't.

  4. 7 hours ago, boey said:

    Didn't Brighton do this with Mitoma? And probably a few others like Enciso, Buonanotte, Ferguson etc.  There are a few more examples, but the fact that this is possible in real life, should mean that it's possible in-game, even if it's incredibly difficult.

    None of them has surpassed their potential. It has just been somewhat unknown (and still is of course). Just because I as a researcher set the PA of, for example, Jens Cajuste to barely professional level when I first created him in the FM16 database didn't mean he didn't have Napoli potential at that time. It just meant that I underestimated it and didn't see that potential.

  5. A few points regarding this recurring topic:

    • Ability and performance are two different things.
    • High ability increase the likelyhood of world class performance, not the other way around.
    • Ability is not a reward or points for great performance.
    • Performance can be because of or despite of a player's ability.
    • And above all, if your player is performing that well, just don't replace him. You actually don't have to do that.
  6. 35 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

    I still play fm16 so not sure if it applies. you can criticise a player for mistakes in the post-match team talk. In addition, you can also criticise a player after the match either for the last game, form or training. the ME also recognizes the mistakes which you can see in real-time in the player performance window where it will say "A mistake led to a goal". Penalties conceded and red cards are also considered as mistakes.

    you can be very specific in the  player conversation where you can criticise a player for poor passing, finishing, or lack of chances created either in terms of a specific game or more general in terms of a period over the last five matches.

    The ME didn't however recognize standing on the ball looking around and ignoring the easy passing options until an attacker steals the ball and scores a goal as any kind of mistake.

  7. 8 hours ago, busngabb said:

    There are times when the game doesn't even recognise mistakes at all. You can see opposition goals coming a lot of the time, there will be a player in your side who keeps trying his best to give the ball away. Eventually he'll do it and they'll score, but the match rating won't go down significantly, sometimes not even at all. If you berate them, they get all shocked and surprised as they have no idea they've done anything wrong.

    Yeah since discipline, moral and squad dynamics feel more important than ever it's crucial to be able to criticize these mistakes. But we can't do that if the player gets a decent performance rating.

  8. 17 minutes ago, Draakon said:

    The game doesn't take mistakes into account when calculating match performance rating for players. Only when the mistake is directly leading to goal is it taken into account (although in my opinion match engine connects those mistakes to wrong players half of the time). In that regard match engine is rubbish, because it mostly evaluates passing accuracy (+ key passes) and won duels (tackles and headers) percentage) and disregards most of the mistakes.

    Ok, that's interesting. In the match in question these mistakes certainly caused the goals. Now I have actually changed my tactics since I'm on the brink of getting sacked and in the last match we at least kept a clean sheet and wasn't overwhelmed in our own penalty area. Meanwhile my CB:s received ratings of just 6.40 and 6.50 (the lowest I've seen all season). Very strange.

  9. In my current save my team has been struck by a severe case of awful form. Since winning the first 6 league games we are now pushing 15 games without a win and our defensive stats are the worst in the league.

    Much is due to my pretty high risk tactics which have backfired big time (but I'm stubborn). But what is confusing me is that my players still receive decent match ratings all the time. In my last match my CB caused two goals against us by creating chaos out of nowhere as he simply contemplated the meaning of life while the opponents could steal the ball in dangerous areas and score easy goals. His rating however remained at 6.80 and the game seemingly did not recognize what he had done.

    The only thing my team succeeds at is retaining possession of the ball (around 65% in each game both home and away and against bigger teams), so I wonder if that is affecting my defender's match ratings in such a way that their horrific mistakes are hidden by it?

  10. So the perceived problem is that the game is boring because you quickly learn which players will be world class and that makes every new save predictable. How about not starting so many new saves and instead stick to one for multiple seasons until you have mostly newgens populating the squads? Or start each save with a small club because that will make a huge number of players (that you have never heard of) attractive to your club?

    Of course a very finite number of players in the starting database will be potentially useful for you if you want to play with Man City for 5 to 10 seasons. And if you start multiple saves with that objective it will get boring and repetative (duh!). But that is not a problem with the game mechanics. That's a problem with your imagination.

  11. To be able to set up some pre-defined molds would certainly decrease the need to micro manage youth development. I would love to be able to choose specific criteria or targets for positions and traits for a certain player type and then just select that mold for the youth players that I want to develop accordingly. Also that should indicate for youth and reserve team coaches that the player should be used in the specified positions regardless if he can play other positions. It's annoying to have a player who is to be retrained into a CB constantly being selected as a AMR by the youth coach just because that was his original position. All coaches of the club should use the player according to the development plan for that player ideally.

  12. 2 hours ago, lelujka said:

    I think you just have different definition of the training session, and mix it with exercises. The session usually consists of several exercises and they can be combined (shooting, passing, movement, defending + attacking) in a single 1-2 hour session. FM have sessions, not exercises.

    If you accept the definition based on FM, it is unrealistic to make 4 sessions a day (full professional have maximum 3 sessions now and 4 is unrealistic because of physiology). Therefore for semi-pro or amateur club, 4 sessions a week + match is still quite optimistic. Amateur teams usually have just 2 session after job and match. Semi-pro the same as most players work or study.

    Well, I don't really accept the LIMITATIONS of training sessions in FM. It's very weird as a manager to only have access to the players two days in a week, even if it's not a fully professional team. And also, currently you can't even choose the days yourself. You are limited to tuesdays and thursdays for some reason. That's perhaps the strangest and most arbitrary limitation in the game. Scheduling a friendly is doable though because that makes sense, or does it?

    A reasonable limitation however, related to what you are bringing up, would be to just have 1 available session per day for teams where a significant part of the squad don't reach the 'Minimum acceptable full time salary for an adult'. Because that is realistic and makes sense.

  13. 17 hours ago, janmagn said:

    This could be a great addition with my idea of making semi-professional and amateur players actually stay where they last played. As an example, I think it would be very unrealistic for a player from Stockholm just randomly move to Gällivare to play semi-pro football (used Sweden as an example as I saw you are a researcher there)

    Yes, I agree that distance should impact the likelihood of a player moving to another club where he will earn less than a full time salary. However, it would not be unrealistic for a player to move the opposite way (from Gällivare to Stockholm) and play in a lower division because the main driver behind the move might be studying. But since a city's coordinates and attraction are already in the database that should be doable to improve.

  14. I feel that contract types are an unnecessary detail (or restriction) in the game. Whether a job is considered full time, part time or amateur should only be defined by the salary in relation to certain database values of the nation in question (rich/poor country, are there competition rules regarding minimum wages etc). Maybe there is a need to add that kind of value in the database also, call it 'Minimum acceptable full time salary for an adult' or something. In lower divisions of big countries in Football Manager you can sometimes offer salaries that are several times a normal workers salary but you may be restricted to the contract type 'part time' which makes no sense to me.

    A related restriction that makes little sense is the amount of training sessions you can arrange in an amateur or semi-pro club. That status shouldn't really put a cap on training. The manager should be in full control of that. Obviously players that only make a fraction of a 'Minimum acceptable full time salary for an adult' would be furious (and likely ask to break the contract) if you schedule too much training. The amount of training sessions could also be something to add to contract talks. Four or five afternoon team sessions in a week is not uncommon for an ambitious semi-professional side in real life. But a important players in such teams should be able to have contract clauses allowing them to not attend every session.

    Also the labeling of clubs as 'professional', 'semi-professional' or 'amateur' should just be a function of its current contract situation. Like the example below.

    • Professional: 80% or more of the senior players earn at least the country's 'Minimum acceptable full time salary for an adult'.
    • Semi-professional: 50% or more of the senior players have a salary but not enough to be considered a 'professional' team.
    • Amateur: Less than 50% of the senior players have a salary
×
×
  • Create New...