Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

russianorphan7

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by russianorphan7

  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.
  15. Players should not have to mess around with the editor to correct the rigid, oversimplified mechanics of the game. I'm not saying the issue is easy or SI isn't doing a decent job and trying hard to improve, but it is fair for us to give feedback requesting a more sophisticated growth system in future games. I think the problem with your last paragraph citing Ronaldo is that people actually do attribute his amazing growth to work ethic, and not just some nebulous and inevitable potential. See statements by Sir Alex Ferguson and others about how hard he trained to grow from an initially raw talent to a world class player. He became the player he is today through tireless dedication to his craft, in addition to some physical gifts (that required personal development, as well, I might add) that he might have been born with. Now, I agree that PA is an okay assumption for a player growth model, but at the end of the day it is an oversimplification that leads to some less than ideal outcomes (which have inspired this thread). In real life, potential is just a vague word people throw around as a way of projecting a player's future ability based on what they see now. In truth, there is no hard cap that dictates what a player will become. It is a player's work ethic, personality, and environment that largely dictate how he develops. Now, there obviously should be some natural limiting factor so every player can't become a Messi; we do also have to acknowledge the natural proclivity and physical gifts that some players have, after all. But having said that, the mental and technical attributes (and strength, stamina, balance, and maybe natural fitness to a lesser degree) of a player should be far more variable than they currently are, and so that limiting factor should therefore be more flexible than the hard PA cap that exists now. This hard PA cap ultimately just forces players to focus on PA and not on the actual development and performance of the player. We should not have scenarios where a player's CA reaches his PA and just stops growing, even if he is still young and (1) has a good personality that enables further improvement (2) continuing to train well (3) out-perform on the pitch and/or (4) exposed to better competition, coaches, and/or training facilities. Nor should we have to take matters into our own hands and just correct PAs when we feel it would be more realistic. Also, a more flexible system would allow for late bloomers that do occur in real life, which is a phenomenon that is not really capture in the current system very well (or at all). Again, not blaming SI here. A hard cap is a reasonable initial mechanism to manage the complexity of the game, but in the long run it should definitely evolve towards a more flexible and realistic system.
  16. I think you can have a natural cap. Basically, if a player is outperforming his CA on the pitch, then that differential between his performance and his CA would create a pulling effect on his CA to gradually match his performances. This pulling effect would be slow, though, requiring a player to outperform his CA for an extended period of time (depending on the differential gap, it could be a season or even 2-3 or more seasons). There would be other variables at play, notably strength of competition, training facilities, staff, teammate quality, and system of play, that would effect this growth, as well. Also, if a player is older than 22-24 range, then these stat increases would have to obviously be mostly mental and technical (strength, stamina, balance might improve), and based on how the player is performing. If he is bagging goals with his head, shots off through balls, long shots, etc., then those relevant stats would be the ones improved. This concept would similarly apply for midfield, defense, and GK play. The natural cap would always be that player's performance, though. Even with slowly improving stats, the performances would ideally level off or revert to the mean eventually, hencing capping a players CA so he doesn't just spiral out of control and become a Messi. This is obviously a much more sophisticated mechanism for growth which I think better reflects how players actually improve in real life, and it would require an overhaul involving some mathematical modeling and significant testing/simulation to get it just right (you don't want league 2 players becoming messi, or vice versa). Ultimately, I think something like this would be the goal, though. In real life, there isn't really a hard cap on someone's potential. Natural physical gifts aside, how a player develops is largely a function of their personality (which is malleable) and work ethic, the environment they are in, and ultimately how they actually play in games.
  17. No, I think the design of this game is definitely conducive to addictive-like abuse for people who are prone to it, and it can definitely interfere with real life responsibilities (which is, in a way, a compliment to SI). Sure, self-control and moderation is to always be striven for on a personal level, but having the developers provide a self-control mechanism to the game itself is a good idea to help assist at-risk users in developing healthy gaming habits with regard to FM. It's not like it hurts SI's bottom line. They've already payed for the game and there is no pay to play scheme (thank god...). Ultimately, I think it would actually be appreciated by the people who would use it. p.s. As per the forum guidelines, consider adding [suggestion] to the beginning of the title to indicate what type of feature request this is.
  18. I agree, there is no need to restrict team training to weekly. In real life, I imagine coaches can switch up the training focus and intensity each day as per needs. p.s. As per formatting guidelines, consider adding [suggestion] to the beginning of the title to indicate what type of thread this is. This is a pretty well-defined feature suggestion (as opposed to a discussion of how a feature might be implemented).
  19. In my defense, I think those digs do serve the purpose (besides the obvious venting) of pointing out what I perceive to be ideological flaws on SI's part which appear to be at the core of the issue as to why this feature isn't implemented, and the biting tone is there just to emphasize the point. Nonetheless, I'll heed the warning. If it is possibly a licensing issue, I would love to have confirmation of that from someone in the know. That would obviously go along way towards relieving my frustration. I mean, I think they could still add support for users to do it more easily and comprehensively on their own, but I would at least be more empathetic towards the studio about neglecting such a feature.
  20. Yes, it is superficial and probably insignificant in terms of fundamental gameplay unless they completely overhaul the media and character interactions (which wouldn't be a bad idea, as that part of the game is quite stale IMO), but I don't think that's a huge hurdle to overcome. The difference in actual gameplay isn't really the major point, at least not initially. The feature is more about story-telling and new options for role-play (that's what this game is, at the end of the day). SI could flesh this feature out to varying degrees. All they would need to do is change the interactions about being a new coach, winning new trophies, etc., and adapt it to the circumstances of the coach you are playing as. The more in-depth and unique they make those interactions the better, but the minimum threshold for getting this feature up in running is likely not that significant. Just some new text and scenarios to allow for, all of which are supported by the game's current infrastructure as far as I can tell.
  21. YES!!!!!!!! Thank you for getting it; it's not like this is some unrealistic idea out of left field (to use an american idiom). Also, I really like how you frame it. When you get down to it, it's all about story-telling, whether that story be unfolding in your head as you play or one being narrated in front of a Youtube audience. At the end of the day, it only enables better immersion and story-telling, without detracting from the experience in any way for those who just want to play as a created character. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the management at SI who obstinately stick to this unnecessarily narrow-minded "vision" that FMers should only play as created characters, because it's about "us" and "our journey" through this simulated world. Why they are so stuck on this silly philosophy towards the game, I have no idea. I guess that is how Miles Jacobson prefers to play and he believes that we should all embrace his gaming perspective.
  22. Beating a dead horse here, but nonetheless, I will re-iterate -- allowing for users to take over as existing characters would allow an almost limitless supply of new story lines for you to pursue (or not, if you don't care for it). Whether it is grounded in reality or completely far-fetched (Guardiola taking over Madrid and playing hero ball, or Wenger taking over Manchester United and playing exclusively counter-attack) is totally irrelevant. Giving user's this new option is just that, an option. It's just another way for people to immerse themselves in the game and role-play, just as you might do with your created characters. You are free to control those characters however you like. It does nothing to detract from those created character scenarios, it only adds depth and variety to the game, with relatively little effort on the part of the developers.
  23. Okay, so you would choose not to use it. That's how YOU will play the game, and that's totally justified. But, you are just one user among many. Say, even a quarter of the users (I'd bet more would try it, if given the option) would play around with the feature, and some fraction of them would love it and play with it frequently for the added role-play and immersion. Is that not worth it, then? Given how simple it likely would be to implement, the answer is yes. Compared to all the minor little features SI adds every year that negligibly contribute to the overall experience, this is an easy feature with a fairly significant impact on the user's enjoyment of the game. Also, the point isn't just having good stats, it's about role-playing and embodying the existing manager of a team you follow (or at least watch) in real life. The best managers are major actors in the wonderful theater that is soccer: Mourinho, Pep, Wenger, Simeone, Klopp, Ancelotti, etc., and they often represent the brand and identity of a football club for the tenure that they coach (and sometimes long after). To just switch your reputation to international does nothing for that role-playing aspect that some of us would really enjoy. To finish out Wenger's career in style, lead Pep's new tiki-taka re-styling of City, return Man. United to glory under Mourinho (or even someone like Giggs later on), or whatever other adventure of your imagining, all of these would be great scenarios for most users, I think. If not, then you can go on playing with your own created character. No harm, no foul.
  24. Anyone having trouble getting the most out of Ozil? I play him as a free roaming playmaker in the AM position of a 4-2-3-1 Wide formation (control/standard and fluid/flexible, depending on quality of opponent, and fairly high press, retain possession, and pass into space instructions). Unfortunately, he only has average a rating of 7.1-7.2 after a little over a season. In my first season, I liked to play both Sanchez and Ox as an IFs on the left and right, respectively, so the outside backs (wing-backs) can provide support out wide. The IF roles were very sucessful with Sanchez winning the EPL player of the year with an 8.* rating and Ox averaged around a 7.4-7.5. Also, my center mids typically player a DLP and ball winner combo to provide balance, and I had Walcott as a poacher or Welbeck as advanced forward as strikers. While this setup was largely successful as I went on to win the league, I am still troubled by the under-utilization of my best player (along with Sanchez). I don't want to sell him as he's a hallmark of Arsenal at this point, but if I can't get the most out of him I think I'll have off-load him while he can demand a huge fee. So, what's going on here? Am I crowding out the middle with the IFs? Is it my striker role? While I suspect the IFs are the reason for his under-performance, I am a little hesitant to give up those roles as I have offloaded Welbeck, Walcott, and Giroud and replaced them with Berardi, Gabriel Barbosa, and Anthony Martial (total transfer fees < 100M pounds!), all of whom are best in the IF position (though one of them usually plays complete or advanced forward role up top). Is there some other remedy here besides changing the wing roles? Should I change the striker role?
×
×
  • Create New...