Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About enigmatic

  • Rank
    Semi Pro

Recent Profile Visitors

1,651 profile views
  1. I think Teamwork is mainly but not wholly a tendency, based on the fact it is weighted for player ability (unlike aggression, flair or tendency to punch) but isn't weighted very highly despite being theoretically something all players need, with high values often given to low division players. But I think the fact that tweaking players in the editor arguably tells you more about how important it is than manual says a lot about SI's approach to helping players play the game...
  2. It's true to reality for clubs to ask for a lot less and then negotiate upwards, or wait to the next transfer window and try again. It's not true to reality for them to say "Can we buy your player for £12m", get told to go away and keep coming back saying "how about £12m then?"
  3. Absolutely ridiculous "promise"

    A related issue is I think the underlying model of player behaviour based on ~6 hidden variables which are often randomly set and presumably fairly difficult to research is always going to be difficult to test to see if it's behaving as expected, especially in game conditions. And I've certainly played FM variants where I have set those variables for custom players and the behaviour of players has been very, very unexpected. For other variables, they're visible and easily compared with others at the same level and there's a match engine to see how they perform and how that conforms with expectations. Instead of relying on ambiguous combinations of "Ambition", "Loyalty" etc, it'd be nice if prominent players' decision making was based mainly around (visible or not) specific traits similar to the manager ones e.g "happy in backup role", "expects to win trophies", "will accept lucrative contracts at less prestigious clubs", "relaxed attitude to training", "aims to play for favoured club" etc. Unlikely to happen, but from a realism point of view I think it'd be better actually scrapping a lot of the player personality/interaction logic altogether, focus on better implementations of stuff that's actually essential to a management simulation (transfer requests/promises, game time balancing, demanding more from players) and not stuff that isn't like making players overreact to implicit statements about young players or passing being a joy to behold in a forced-choice conversation system. I'd genuinely rather see player tantrums be completely random than the result of deficient conversational systems.
  4. Absolutely ridiculous "promise"

    Sure, but the only reason the player "believes the manager lied to him" is because the player was programmed to irrationally interpret a statement to the effect that a player had been replaced by a younger, better player as a binding commitment to play a specific number of youngsters in a specific number of games, without any further interaction to clarify being possible, and then programmed to massively overreact rather than seek clarification. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that the number of players who have ever demanded to leave a club because they the manager lied to them by not dropping more senior players for youngsters is zero. Which is why this "feature" would be best improved by removing it and focusing on improving the sort of manager promises that actually do have consequences, like those concerning transfers.
  5. Absolutely ridiculous "promise"

    Can anyone defending this implementation name a real life senior player who has demanded to leave a club because they weren't developing as many junior players as he thought the manager promised to do? The "promise" gets made not because a gamer intends to commit to developing youth, but because they can't say "I think X is younger and better player, he was complaining about game time and we have adequate cover that's less likely to ask to leave" which is what an actual manager would say in the situation. Similarly the promise gets broken not because the manager doesn't want to keep it but because it's impossible to communicate with players to understand what they consider "young players" and "enough chances" to be. That's understandable given it's not practical to write the sort of AI that can understand what you really want to say and have a full blown conversation. And arguably even with such limitations it's good and even necessary for a simulation to force managers to make the sorts of commitments real life managers do get forced into making, like letting players go if a big enough bid comes in, or at the end of the season, or if they don't win anything. SI's choice to waste resources and heighten complexity coding situations in which players may react to a statement by demanding to leave the club for reasons real life players do not demand to leave clubs is just baffling though.
  6. Surely the most logical solution is to (i) allow players to select as many players as they want for scouting in a click-efficient manner via some non-default route if they want to decide all the players they want their scouts to consider at the beginning of the season (ii) have the game queue these players in batches of 50 so the processing overhead treats it as only scouting 50 players Probably also (iii) warn the players that the scouts will only focus on about 50 players at a time when they check the boxes to scout all the players on their massive shortlist, so only people really keen to select all their scouting assignments at once use the interface in this way
  7. Coaches are wrong a lot, period, but they're definitely very focused on positions when recommending players for a particular position. Of course there are other reasons why a player with lower average attributes might be a better player anyway (e.g. average technical abilities but high pace)
  8. Suso's shown as more suitable for an inside forward AMR role despite having slightly lower figures for the theoretically important visible attributes because he's 20 out of 20 for AMR positional familiarity and probably about 17 for AMC. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the role suitability suggestions anyway; they're purely cosmetic. The CA algorithm that might actually force a few attributes down if a player's already hit his potential is separate and different. And the real reasons for Suso's underperformance might be different again (hidden mentals, tactics, PPM that makes him unwilling to use his right foot for anything, playing a lot of games as sub where he doesn't have time to influence the game)
  9. Agree that it should fluctuate, but higher ranked leagues often do have lower values for the same reputation of player IRL. Chinese clubs have more money than middling European leagues which play a higher standard of football but have to sell their best players to bigger European clubs for bargain prices. Even at the very high end a club is more likely to overpay for a middling Premier League player than a middling La Liga player.
  10. It was widely understood for years by all the FM experts, mods, long term players and even people like me that the Determination attribute only affected player performances and possibly morale, and that it was the hidden attributes Professionalism and Ambition that influenced the chances of them gaining or losing ability over time (alongside factors like age and match time). People that suggested Determination helped players develop their abilities faster were "corrected". Then one of the people responsible for testing the player development model popped into a thread and pointed out that actually Professionalism, Ambition and Determination all had a direct and approximately equal effect on whether players gained or lost ability over time. To be fair, the losing of attributes only a major issue when a player is at his CA (and not going to naturally lose pace anyway) and has attributes better weighted for their new position (or several other positions) which isn't that often. And the decline is only [a fraction of] 1 point in a few attributes so it's more cosmetic than radically performance-altering. But it is annoying when it happens. I think the game causes players to slowly lose positional ability in secondary positions they didn't previously have and aren't playing or training in via a separate unrelated mechanism, but I could be wrong and that could be CA linked. I think if your player is losing positions quickly it probably is influenced by his hidden versatility attribute. But if literally all the positional familiarity function does is effectively lower Decisions by a few points, I don't think the difference between "competent" and "natural" at DM is going to have any noticeable impact on a player with above average Decisions for the level anyway...
  11. Have always suspected this is one of the misunderstood things like "Determination doesn't affect development".... Bit disappointing if it isn't, tbh, since manuals have long hinted at subtleties around player familiarity with linked positions etc. An defensively-sound MR thrust into an unfamiliar DR position really ought to have different limitations to how they play than a technically-sound DC used there instead (much more willing to overlap, much less adept at the offside trap, holding all other attributes equal). Kroos' lack of training to make the runs of an average striker should be as abundantly obvious as his vastly superior linkup play, with the tradeoff representing a real tactical choice Not to mention the issue that even huge differences in Decisions appears to have surprisingly moderate effects on in-game performance, before we've started scaling them based on a position familiarity scale and a hidden versatility stat. Might revisit my "play every player in a position they have no familiarity in" experiment and see if I can get better results...
  12. To be fair, I think real life players do lose instincts of a position when deployed exclusively elsewhere. Though this is obviously more to do with CA-budgeting (I find the across-the-board drop in significant attributes when a player at his potential improves in a new position far more annoying though. Great news, your DM is now accomplished at playing centre back. He's just less good at jumping, heading, marking and positioning than before he started intensively training for a role which prioritises those characteristics) - Is "position only affects players via the Decisions attribute" the confirmed SI position of how the ME works, or just commonly accepted-but-not-actually-literally-true received wisdom based on statements to the effect that out of position players are less good at decision making? Always assumed it was more like PPMs in terms of actual ME behaviour effects so a natural striker would try to make lots of curving runs off the last defender, hit channels and gamble at the near post (but might be terrible at timing them with poor Decisions) whereas, say Kroos with his excellent decision making played in an unfamiliar striker role wouldn't decide to beat the offside trap, run channels or gamble on the near post nearly as much as even a low-Decisions striker (but would be pretty damn smart at using the ball even compared with most good strikers) This would make more sense than having a player with 18 decisions (and appropriate other attributes) looking more natural at the specialist requirements of a position they'd never even trained in before than most actual specialists. Seems more consistent with my observations of players played out of position actually act too.
  13. tbh A player with 19 pace and acceleration in the lower tiers has always achieved exploit-levels of performance in CM/FM and probably always will do. A player who has 19 pace will pretty much always be quicker than an opponent of 10 pace. A player who has 19 decisions won't always make the best decisions (either IRL, or even more in a simulation which fundamentally isn't as smart at decision-making as real players) and a player with 6 decisions and 8 crossing who gets to the byline on a regular basis will sometimes take the obvious decision to play a technically trivial cutback to the unmarked player standing near the penalty spot. Think ElPayaso's point that part of the problem is the AI doesn't press very well is a good one, and that's where the technical and decision making attributes should stand out more. If a Championship fullback tries pressing Hazard to death IRL, Hazard should often skin him or force a free kick due to smart anticipation and deft touch (and being slightly quicker). If he tries pressing Adama Traore, Traore should be likely to rush things and lose the ball, even if he can do some real damage in space. But of course, fullbacks doesn't press wingers much even when asked to, AI managers seem to be encouraged to tell their players not to close down quick players even if they're dumb quick players, and dribbling in FM is far more about physique (and the dribbling stat or "knocks ball past opponent" so they can use that speed/agility) than deciding exactly when to dribble and how to put an opponent off balance.
  14. I'm not sure it's possible to manage Man Utd towards a relegation battle without being wilfully incompetent at the game. Fail to win on all fronts like AI Mourinho often does and lose the confidence of your board and players, sure, but relegation battle? Real life title-winners Jose Mourinho and Claudio Ranieri say hi though... And I'm pretty sure a number of FM's biggest overachievers leave teamtalks to the assman most/all of the time.
  15. "N'Guessan has won La Liga in 2067, 2068, 2069, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2077, 2078, 2079 and 2080" You'd think he'd get bored... - Panathinaikos should be fun