Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About russianorphan7

  • Rank

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team

Recent Profile Visitors

754 profile views
  1. You can block the first season transfer budgets... go to the advanced options when you start a game and check that option at the bottom. There are threads helping with that elsewhere on the site, as well. But actually, now that you bring that up, I have always wanted the option to block any first season transfers from taking place but still allow the option to loan out players. Again, just another wrinkle to the game setup that adds more freedom and power to the player. Also, consider adding [Suggestion] to the title of this thread to help the devs when they look for feature ideas in this forum.
  2. It would be really great if the Editor had support for saving filters. I find that I reuse a lot of the same filters (same as the game... go figure) and so it would save some time and effort if we could have those templates handy to pull up from previous sessions.
  3. It would be really awesome if the developers provided some automation tools that allowed for editing certain fields in the FM Editor database across multiple specified records (based on whatever search criteria) at the same time (could be players, staff, clubs, competitions, nations, etc.). You could specify how you want to 'map' the edits onto the records based on certain formulas, if/then statements, etc., as well. A analogous feature would be something like what MS Excel has with if/then conditions and formulas. I feel like the idea is fairly intuitive, right? If not, here's a concrete example. Something I like to do this year as a challenge/twist is to change the potential abilities for notable young players (say all players under 21 with CA and World Rep above 100) from hard coded positive integers to the corresponding negative integer range e.g. 166 PA => -9 PA (150-180). The problem is that it gets quite tedious to do for a lot of players, and so it would be really helpful if I could just specify the appropriate formula to map all the specified players' positive integer CAs to the appropiate negative integer based on those easily formulated 'binning' rules. Anyway, i think this is fairly fleshed out as an suggestion. The tricky part is to actually implement a user-friendly GUI around what I imagine to just be SQL Queries that change records/fields in the database. Any other feedback and input is welcome I'll try to update the post with good content so it doesn't get buried (if this thread were to be so lucky).
  4. I would like if they had an option to have the winter updates take place 'retroactively' at the start of the season like they do now, an option to have them scripted to take place at the date that it actually occurred, as well as an option to not have them take place at all so you can start the season as it actually happened. I mean, they already have someone updating the database. Why not have them add some of the extra details to different versions of the database? Then just add the basic interface options to the start of the game. Perhaps this type of feature could also just be added to the scenarios (which I don't think I've ever actually used tbh).
  5. I agree that FM needs to head in a more visually appealing direction. The game engine/graphics have steadily improved, but the rest of the game is glorified database hunting and barely-interactive email scrolling. It'd be cool to have some visual of training sessions where you can choose drills, press conferences where you and the media are shown in a room somewhere (the dialogue experience is a whole other thread...), a visual when talking to the owner, and more. Hell, I wouldn't mind if they at least just put up an image and a basic video/background thing like Civ has for its leaders.
  6. I often like to switch young players' potentials from the fixed integer to the corresponding random integer range to add variability to my game saves (so I don't know which players are future stars as I do with the default database), but I found the 30 digit range to be a bit too broad in many cases. For players with very little professional experience, that broad of a range is suitable since it is hard to know how good a player can be until he's actually played some at the professional level. But for young players who have actually played some professionally but can still develop a fair amount (e.g. the Marcus Rashfords of the world), I think a range of, say, 150-180 is just too large. To give an example, sometimes I think a range of 165-180 is the most realistic for players who clearly have the potential to be good players in top leagues (165+) and may become world class players (~180), but not likely to be just decent (~150) or total world-beaters (~190). Regardless of the scenario, it would be much better if the editor allowed us to set the min and max to whatever values we deem appropriate. It would enable a lot more flexibility for those of us who like messing around in the editor, and it doesn't seem like a particularly difficult feature to implement in a database, either. I think the easiest solution would be to change the editor interface to have two fill in boxes that allow you to specify the minimum number and maximum number of the range. --- I know this is a stretch, but I think it would be even more awesome if the editor allowed us to set weights to the range of PA values. For example, we could set a player's PA range to be 165-180, but weight the random number generator to skew towards the 165 or 180 end, or just the mean of the range. This could be implemented in the editor by having another drop down option with three options: a skewed left, skewed right, and non-skewed normal distribution over the specified range (the lower and upper limits being the third standard deviatIon). Ideally, you could also set the mean of the skewed curves.
  7. I know you can use -7 (110-140), -8 (130-160), -95 (160-190), etc., but can you also use numbers that aren't divisible by 5 and 10? For example -73 (116-146), -86 (142-172), etc.?
  8. Yeah, Nelson is the heir apparent to Alexis this game (and maybe IRL, in addition to The Jeff and Iwobi). Check out Nelson's youtube highlights, though. Dude can ball.
  9. This happens in my saves, it seems. I played two Arsenal saves and he was transfer listed both games.
  10. Yes, jazzyboy essentially has the right idea with basing scout reports on CA, personality, and character traits. I don't necessarily think they need to scrap the PA star system entirely, just make it far more imprecise and unreliable. Right now, if you get a good scout to get 100% knowledge on a young player, you can be pretty confident that player will turn out as expected. Under my proposal, that PA star system would, on average, have something like 2 stars blacked out to indicate uncertainty, and the number of stars would vary more or less based on the number of games they played and how competitive those games are. In addition, the personality/character traits would maybe dictate how likely that player is to reach his potential, or at least be one of the major factors in his ability to grow. Regarding the competitiveness of games, how much knowledge of a player's real potential do you get when he's playing against mediocre youth talent? Not a ton IMO. Plenty of players tear it up at lower levels only to become average when they play against real professional competition. Even if a player plays well in a mildly competitive pro league, it's still not certain that their ability will translate to stiffer competition. This should be reflected more in scouting.
  11. For some time now, the scouting of potential ability has been far too precise IMO, particularly for younger players with less game experience. This translates to forward thinking FM players just scouting the hell out of young players and buying guaranteed future stars for pennies on the dollar in terms of their actual value. This is an incredibly OP strategy since developing players to their PAs is a pretty sure thing (this is an issue I've critiqued in another PA-related thread). I mean, think if this was the case in real life: if you knew a 16-18 year old player had the guaranteed potential to become world class if only given enough playing time, pretty much every big club would come running looking to purchase them and so his price would more closely reflect that of a world class player, albeit less since there is still risk of setbacks and time needed for development. I mean, sometimes this is indeed the case in FM, but I'd argue that they are often under-priced given the relatively unambiguous PA and certainty of growth. Nonetheless, this isn't how it works in real life at all. Even the best scouts and coaches can't predict who is going to be world class and who isn't. Sure, some of the more precocious players have expectations of future greatness, but even then there is a lot of variability as to which players actually realize that potential. Hence, why there are still players who become busts and many unknown players go on to be world class. So, what would a more realistic, challenging system look like? I think the solution is to have a system where scouting of PA is far less precise in general, and the degree of precision be more a function of age and game experience (which can be viewed by scouts) than it is now. This would mean that scouting young players only gives a very crude approximation of their potential; and that approximation can be only be honed gradually as a player grows (both in age and ability) and/or plays more games that can be scouted (the more competitive the game, the better). As a player matures and starts to reach that potential through professional experience, then you might be able to hone in on a more accurate PA assessment, perhaps within a star or so. This contrasts with the current system where you can predict within a star whether a player will be a 4-5 star player pretty much from the time he enters the game. That's just not how it works in real life and it results in abuse. The final result would be that it becomes very hard to just pluck young, world class talent, and attempts at doing so would result in far more "busts" than the current system (where that is pretty rare). At the end of the day, the focus should be on developing (or scouting) a player's CA, with only a vague idea of their true potential. This more shrouded PA scouting system would allow for young players with low initial CA and high PA to be "discovered" or just be late-bloomers, and inversely players with high initial CA and lower PA might have high expectations but ultimately become relative busts. That is ideally how the system would work, at least until they scrap the hard PA cap for a more flexible, organic growth system (my personal wish). P.S. if anyone suggests good ideas, tweaks, or refinements to this concept, I'll try my best to add them to this initial post (with credit, of course) for a more convenient, summarized view. I know it's easy for good discussion and fleshed out ideas to become buried deep in threads.
  12. I think you're oversimplifyng my position, or perhaps I didn't phrase it as clearly and completely as I had hoped. My general argument is that the growth system as it is now is far too predictable, particularly for us intelligent human folk (as opposed to the AI) who can optimize everything for surefire outcomes. Therefore, I think SI should find ways to make the growth system more dynamic, with one of the principle problems being the hard PA cap IMO, in addition to the far too precise scouting star system (a suggestion I pose in another thread). I advocate that, instead of a hard PA cap, they switch to a more fluid PA system, which can actually change based on things like personality, team quality, competition, playing time, facilities, and coaching. Yes, all of those things already influence growth, as they should, but I'm arguing that they should also have an actual effect on potential, as well. Maybe not radically, but at least some drift effect on PA, both in the positive and negative direction. Now, obviously you would have to optimize it to ensure players don't all become OP. Nonetheless, it would make the growth process more flexible and realistic IMO. In real life, players don't have a hard potential cap, it's more of a range that can fluctuate based on experiences and the environment they grow in.
  13. I agree, it would be nice to have some added options to take into account important events in the game that pop up from time to time that you would like to specifically address e.g. staff hires, transfers, losing streaks, etc..
  14. I think what many people are asking, at least in the relative short term (next few cycles of FM), is to loosen the hard PA cap system by providing a mechanism for players to exceed it when they reach it too early or significantly outperform their CA. If a young player reaches his PA cap years before he naturally would stop growing, then he shouldn't just abruptly stop growing. That doesn't seem realistic. Instead, there should be some mechanism for the PA to self-adjust to reflect that extra time that he could grow. Also, say a player is between 24-27 years old and has reached his PA, but is significantly outperforming his CA on the pitch for an extended period of time (say, a season or longer). There should be a mechanism for his CA to slowly grow to reflect the fact that he is still at an age where he can still tangibly develop his abilities, but just not as quickly or significantly as when he was younger. Obviously, they would have to do simulations and testing to make sure this isn't overpowered, but I think these added mechanisms would make the growth system more flexible and realistic.
  • Create New...