abcdf
-
Posts
280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Issue Comments posted by abcdf
-
-
Il 11/1/2023 in 08:00 , Michael Sant ha scritto:
We're happy to look into any save game files you have where you feel this is the case with specific teams.
I already opened quite a few tickets with examples on the topic, I am sorry but I cannot do this as a full time job. The issue is so widespread that you just need to load a random save and select a random team to see it, and I think you should be already aware of it, since all my tickets are deemed as "under review" or "know issue" and literally half the forum has been complaining about this as the biggest issue in the game.
0 -
4 ore fa, Zachary Whyte ha scritto:
Hello, we apologise for the late response.
@abcdfto answer your questions:
The board objectives are all now generated from the board person as the board club vision is set by the current board.
The ones stored on the club are the supporter objectives as they are the ones who remain at the club no matter what.
Thank you Zachary, but why are there much fewer options in the supporter objectives tab than there were in the club vision's one?
For example there is no more "buy players below the age of X" while it was present in the prior versions. It would be required to have more options (at least as many as the previous versions, not less!) for what concerns the "fixed" club objectives.
0 -
6 ore fa, Zachary Whyte ha scritto:
Hello, thank you for taking the time to post.
This is a known issue we're aware of and currently investigating.
Unfortunately they're many more factors to consider not just reputation/current ability.
Rest assured we're looking into this.
Thank you, we'll wait for updates on the matter then
0 -
Yep, been noticing the same issue. Managers prefer to call up older players. Probably because their team selection criteria is too heavily based on reputation rather than actual performances/potential
0 -
I uploaded two savegames on Owncloud, one with the transfer market still open ("No loaning transfers open") and one with the market closed ("No loaning transfers closed")
As you can see Inter and Atalanta (just picked two random teams, the problem is so widespread...) have XXL first teams because they failed to loan many 19-20-21-22 year old which are clearly inadequate to play in their 1st team but would be good players (and most importantly, could get the development they need) in lower leagues or in weaker Serie A sides, instead of being left to rust on the side.
They tried to offer those players for loan, but encountered very little to no interest. I assume that the fact that the team loaning the player almost always want the wages to be payed by the other team does not help in this regard. But whatever the reason this is clearly a bug, together with the fact that often youngsters are not even OFFERED for loan by the AI, and probably a game breaking one, responsible for teams being filled with old players progressing in the game.
I hope this loan madness is going to get fixed in the next updates because it has really put me off from playing the game so far just because how bad AI prospects' management is.
Let me know if you need more info or data on the matter.
0 -
Yep, it is a problem I raised as well. Terrible squad management from the AI. Many young players that maybe are too good for the reserves team but not good enough for the first team are just left to rust on the side, without the AI trying to offer them for sale of for loan. A lot of good prospects get wasted by this absurd behaviour from the AI
0 -
Il 1/1/2023 in 01:10 , nicholas.shen ha scritto:
The loan status is set at the start the game. You can see the same happeing in your own youth team.
And AI tream will only put their best young prospects on loan list before the transfer windows starts.
I think the possible solution will be not to preset the loan status so that other clubs can make offer to players not on loan list during the transfer windows.
Yeah but as you can see some teams put none or very few of their prospects on offer for loan at the start of the window, not even the best, especially when the side has a B team
0 -
I raised the same issue, it is definetly a problematic aspect of the game as it impacts heavily the development of players in longer term saves.
0 -
Same thing here. Barca B, playing in the third division with a team full of 120-130 CA players, the entire team is unavailable for loan. As a result, those players will not develop.
0 -
Another very weird example, Liverpool making almost their entire U-21 squad unavaible for loan for no logical reason.
As you can see, players like Baturina (21 yo, 135 CA, 166 PA) will get absolutely no development by playing in the reserves league. It would be sensible to loan him as often as possible to develop him
0 -
Il 24/12/2022 in 18:04 , Zachary Whyte ha scritto:
Thank you for raising this. We'll examine further.
Thank you Zachary. Did you already notice this issue internally? Because with the fact that it is harder since FM22 to develop players, many miss the chance to do so just because they lack quality playing time as a result of the completely absurd transfer behaviour of AI teams. The impact of the issue is pretty big on the overall game world in longer saves
0 -
1 ora fa, andu1 ha scritto:
They don't loan them because they ask for their wages to be paid by the club who wants to loan them.
Just look at their salary. no club in lower leagues can afford to pay 2milion per year for Moleiro for example.
Please make the AI teams not to be so demanding with their loan fees....I agree 100% but the problem here is that they do not even try to offer them for loan. Then another side of the issue is that they're unable to loan them even when they do offer them partly because of the wage issue you outlined
0 -
2 ore fa, DominicForza ha scritto:
This was a "known issue we're currently working on" since at least November 8th and it has taken over a month for "oh yeah, we did that on purpose."
I'm not bothered by the 4231 change (I AM bothered by it not being explained), I AM bothered by all the other formations that have disappeared - for example 433 2DMs, 541 diamond WBs, and so many others.
The game has been crying out for MORE formations (Bielsa 3331 for example)
So to clarify, this is NOT an issue that is being looked into, this IS FM23 and it's going to stay that way?
If so that is DEEPLY DISAPPOINTING. And in my view a very bad regression for the game.
Compounidng this is the lack of communication. I do not blame those of you working here in the (@Zackary Whyte) I am however extremely frustrated, bordering on infuriated at the lack of interdepartment communication in SI. How can a "bug" be known and being investigate for over a month, minimum and not known that isn't a bug it's a feature.
Note I initially FEARED that that was exactly what the issue was, that it was an intentional change.
I feared this was the case, and also hopes SI would inform players.
I'm a FANBOY and I'm not at all happy with this.
I suspect that this will not be changed in February post transfer window/final patch. I would appreciate confirmation or this is my fears are accurate.
I have been holding off starting an actual game for 2 reasons - this and that I can't increase text past 100% resolution, which causes eye strain (I was able to prior to 23.2). I guess I wont hold off due to the formation "feature not a bug" but I still CANT play at currently 100% text (and in cant, not dont want to, cant).
Again, I am not blaming folks in the bugtracker threads. But...c'mon SI!
I agree, there were many formations that were perfectly in line with this new DM-CM paradigm that were still removed apparently for no reason, 433 2 dms and 5-4-1 diamond being a perfect example.
0 -
17 ore fa, Zachary Whyte ha scritto:
Hello I've checked, this issue is still being looked at by the developers. We really appreciate your patience.
Thank you Zachary, we’ll wait for updates on this then.
0 -
19 ore fa, V50 ha scritto:
To clarify - The "club" vision comes from the Chairman/owner/President, as they set it. What might be considered "Club Culture" is now under "Supporter Objectives".
Which makes sense in a way - Supporters form the club and have expectations, but if some owner comes in and wants to fundamentally change that then you will have a conflict.
Yes but there are far less options in “supporters objectives” than there were in the “club vision” panel.
just to be clear, are you sure it actually is like you are saying or is it just your idea?
thanks
0 -
22 ore fa, Jack Joyce ha scritto:
To clarify - attacking formations in the data were never used for these situations specifically.
An attacking formation is the formation a manager uses as a starting formation against teams that are perceived to be weaker than them. Part of the reason for us changing the formation list, is to avoid this kind of confusion since we don't want managers using unbalanced formations from the start of a match.
Managers changing to extreme unbalanced shapes to chase/defend a match very late in the match is something we do want to do in the future though, although currently they do switch to very aggressive roles/duties when a match gets to that point.
Well I have actually seen it happen quite a lot that AI managers do not resort to their attacking formation from the start (especially when they play against a stronger side or have not high “attacking” tactical attribute) and switch to it in the case they need to chase a match in its last portion.
Maybe an idea could be to differentiate between the “attacking” formation managers can use from the start of the game and an “extremely attacking” formation they resort to in extreme situations, that could actually include different and less balanced formations from the “starting” ones0 -
18 ore fa, Zachary Whyte ha scritto:
Hello, after a discussion with the developers. The AI managers having less formations available for selection was a intentional decision.
But having less formations doesn't necessarily mean less tactical diversity though, as we've greatly improved the way AI managers choose their roles and team instructions.
We apologise for the confusion. In the link below, you can find a detailed comment talking about this decision, thank you.
I understand the reasoning behind it, with the whole DM CM thing that makes perfect sense. still I would appreciate to see more variety in formations, especially I don’t understand the reasoning behind attacking and defensive formations being the same as regular ones. I mean, when teams try to take the lead in the last portions of a game they often tend to try very offensive tactics and do not care about being balanced (like 2/3 attackers, offensive midfielders and no DM’s) and with things being this way I do not see that happening. Managers can only among the same set of formations they did at the start of the game.
the same with defensive ones. It is not rare to see managers throw in 6 defenders in an attempt to maintain the lead in important games.
i do not think the current system is able to reproduce this
2 -
Il 10/12/2022 in 14:28 , tom25194 ha scritto:
I am having the same problem, just downloaded the game and the pre-game editor, and there are a handful of formations available, and the 'defending' and 'attacking' formations are identical to the preferred and second preferred ones, which was never the case before! How can a game be marketed on offering great tactical variety and AI managerial intelligence and then do the exact opposite in reality. The situation was better 10 years ago when you could select 3-4-3 as a starting formation for a new staff member in the pre-game editor for example, in recent FMs it hasn't been available except as an 'attacking' option, now it and about 30 other formations have been entirely excluded.
A normal 4-2-3-1 isn't even available! There are literally 0 tactical options that don't include a defensive midfielder, except 4-4-2 - again, even on the attacking option. Only 2 formations do not involve playing 2 defensive midfielders. This is clearly a pretty massive thing that has been missed and needs fixing quickly.
Has anyone checked whether all the other formations are there in the in-game editor when you try and change a manager's tactics through that channel, please? Thanks
They are not in the in-game editor either
1 -
3 ore fa, Zachary Whyte ha scritto:
Hello, I can confirm that we're still looking into this. We're sorry for the inconvenience.
Hello, thank you for your response! Any idea if it could be corrected in the next updates?
0 -
-
Il 4/11/2022 in 20:26 , TheAwesomeGem ha scritto:
FM21 had the perfect player development that made long-term save very viable. AI manager either needs to take account of PA more or youth players needs a better reputation boost.
Agreed, I think it was just the fact that players developed their CA at a quicker rate. Which goes back to issue number 3) of the post I made above
1 -
I think this is a huge issue and in my opinion there are several reasons for this:
1) Not enough good prospects in the original database.
There are really few "good" wonderkids with 160+ potential at the start of the game. Not enough to replace current star players. I always have to manually improve the PA of some to make it more realistic.
However, this is by far the least concerning of the three.
2) Loan market is broken.
Many AI teams do not loan their talents and let them rot in 2nd/B team forever. Even when they do offer them for loan, often nobody (other AI teams) makes a move for them. As a result, even wonderkids with good potential do not manage to reach it.
3) Player development is broken and too slow.
Since FM 2022, it became too slow and difficult to grow players CA. It simply grows too slowly even under ideal conditions. If the player has below perfect Ambition and Professionalism, the CA simply does not move at all. If it plays in a B team, it does not grow beyond like 120-130. This is completely unrealistic. Many big teams, especially in Spain and Germany, develop their players trough B teams and those players DO manage to become first team regulars. This does not happen in the game. If you combine this with point number 2), it becomes a mess and you end up with a database full of 30+ years old.
3 -
I really do not understand how can something like this happen "by accident" and not get fixed with a major update. Incredible.
3 -
Any updates on this? Is it going to be resolved? Is it gone forever?
Give us some answers please.
If it was removed intentionally, it was a god awful move, let me tell you that.
1
"Club vision" disappeared
in Pre-Game and In-Game Editor
Posted
@Zachary Whyte?