Jump to content

enigmatic

Members+
  • Posts

    10,914
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Posts posted by enigmatic

  1. I think that would be an improvement.

    Getting rid of the assumption that any player, ever, would complain about not being instructed to play like a regular defender only with more emphasis on hoofing would be a start. Some players are very keen to be played in their most natural position IRL. A smaller number might be very keen on being a playmaker or target man. I doubt anyone, anywhere, has ever got upset about their manager not insisting they play a role where they do as little with the ball as humanly possible.

    Getting rid of that promise altogether because it's more often unbelievable than not (and the ability to actually have a proper conversation with players about their skills and your expectations is understandably nonexistant) would be better still...

  2. 33 minutes ago, Tnq said:

    Yes, but player with 190-195 CA would make much more difference than one with 175 CA. Unless you believe that it doesn't matter if you had Messi/Ronaldo or Hazard/Sanchez on the field ?

    For the 100th time, this system applies for "players who are considered to be successful youngsters the way they already are and offer them ability to go all the way to the top". I don't believe anyone considers Shenton to be successful youngster in that regard.

    I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a 190CA player (the highest possible under Mbappe's current allocation, which you used as an example of a problem) and a 199CA player without using an editor. 

    IIRC Dybala - considered by most FMers who've signed him to be an unstoppable force of nature - has a PA of 180.

    To the extent CA is (i) a reasonable approximation of player abilities and (ii) influences other game mechanics it makes a lot more difference when their abilities are a similar level to the rest of the division they play in than when it's over 170 and so they tend to dominate matches regardless, and all the scouting and transfer mechanics rate them as amongst the best in the game

    Historically there are vastly more players that the PA system has overrated than wrongly prevented from having a PA in the 190s, and most of the examples of players being significantly underrated by PA allocations are late developers at smaller clubs rather than well-known talents FM prevented from having a random chance of being theoretically on the same level as Ronaldo

  3. Isn't this exactly how negative PAs used to work 15-20 year ago (back when it was -1 or -2, with the latter being a range going all the way up to 200)? Didn't the new system come in because this wasn't a very good way of rating potential?

    Personally I'd rather see negative PAs replaced by a "max PA" and "min PA" box, so researchers can set narrow or wide ranges depending on their knowledge of the player, the player's maturity, and whether there's anything about the player that justifies a particularly wide range (like being way more technically gifted than his peers but too small to make it unless he has a growth spurt which may or may not happen). 

    But in the mean time, I'm not sure either that (i) the fact that Mbappe's potential cannot be randomly assigned to be 195 is actually a real problem, bearing in mind he'll be one of the best players in the game if it maxes out at 175  or (ii) introducing a non-zero possibility that the game generates an Oliver Shenton with higher potential than the potential generated for Mbappe is actually a realism enhancement.

  4. The roles actually offer a lot of flexibility in adjusting player's shape going backwards and forward *but none for lateral movement of central players* (bar 'roam' settings and decisions a player might make to cover space without instructions). A "cover right flank/left flank" instruction for DMs, MC/AMs to instruct them where to drop back (and possibly a "tuck in defensively" instruction on wide players and "stay wider/overlap" attacking instructions for MCs playing in a three) would solve most of those problems, and probably not be too difficult to train the AI to use occasionally and sensibly (get midfielders to cover nearest flank when playing with certain narrow formations against certain wide formations, basically). Whilst imposing more load on testers and AI designers to try to balance everything out, this seems possible to introduce without extreme exploit potential.

    Most of the rest of the question marks about formations would go away with a small AI improvement that drew offensive and defensive arrows on the pitch to reflect (i) the role settings and (ii) any additional boxes you'd checked like "roam" or "move into channels". You could probably even have a screen which draws an "attacking" and "defensive" formations based entirely on the prescribed roles, and it might make them a lot clearer to newbies than the paragraph of text.

    I mean, I rather liked wibblewobble's ability to be able to draw shifting triangles everywhere, but I get the arguments for those being overly prescriptive and easily manipulated

    -

    It probably doesn't help the discussion to conflate separate issues like the virtually all the forward roles being almost always reluctant to drop back to defend (which leads to 4-4-2-0 being a more accurate way of representing most RL 4-4-2s including the Juventus one. That's not a lack of flexibility, that's just questionable tuning of roles, much like the wingers defending too wide in the current version (personally I'd like most wide players in the AM strata to continue to stay wide and forward until a side is actually overloaded by wingers and most in the M strata to get in line and tuck in; at the moment their defensive approach is a bit too similar. Then again, that's an as-of FM17 development)

  5. One advantage of the existing setup (at least for lower division clubs with smaller squads) is that you generally get your youth intake at least a couple of months before the contracts of some of your players run out and the transfer window opens, so a high potential and/or reasonably developed youngster coming through can save you the need to renew/replace that backup player.

    Sometimes with people in the early stages of Youth Only saves the youth intake can help save their season midway through too. Or it can be incredibly frustrating if they're not allowed to play them because of squad registration rules...

    That said, probably more realistic to have the youth evaluation at the end of the season, even if only in playable/active divisions

  6. With match engine updates, I completely understand why SI don't want to address major, match changing issues that need very careful balancing like the current compromise between wide midfielders helping their (too narrow) MCs out and watching fullbacks that might overlap, which is currently skewed far too much towards the latter having been skewed too much towards the former in FM16. Getting the balance right is tricky, and a mid-term update that radically alters how the engine handles midfield play also annoys players by wiping out tactical edges they've spent a long time tinkering with tactics to achieve.

    But I'd have thought a more conservative match engine update that fixes stuff like goalkeepers - even good ones - insisting on conceding corners stretching for crosses that are obviously going wide should be achievable. Net effect: some less silly replays and maybe one fewer corner a game (and no tactical effect whatsoever since nobody bases their tactic around trying to go wide of the near post). Same goes for making players a little more likely to follow goalkeeper distribution or corner delivery instructions (understand that players aren't robots and don't always deliver the ball in the manner they're asked to and sometimes there's even a good reason for not rolling the ball to the fullbacks, but Joe Hart lost the #1 role at City for less persistent ignoring of simple instructions)

  7. You appeared to be arguing that a player could obstruct a keeper's view and not be offside (which I don't think is true fwiw)

    I pointed out that contrary to what others have said in the thread any attempt to play the ball, regardless of whether it has any effect on the ball or other players, automatically brings offside players into play

  8. Bjorn Heidenstrom was one of my favourites. Unlike the overrated youth stars and best players in the small European leagues, there appears to have been no reason whatsoever for the Leyton Orient researcher to get so wildly excited about the range of football talents possessed by a 29-year old Norwegian journeyman that started just three games for the club and didn't score.

     

    Since this thread has come back from the dead after five years, I'd be interested to see which players named as not quite making it actually turned out pretty well after all. Kasper Schmeichel named above, for example, is now an established international with a Premier League winner's medal...

  9. Surprised Barcelona's Sergi Samper hasn't got a mention yet (although I guess it's enough of a burden being the next Xavi without adding to it..). No set piece ability, but he's nailed the bit about decision making, range of passing and being too good at reading the game to need any pace, and he has a fair bit of room to grow.

  10. 10 hours ago, mavericktangoII said:
    1. You could make a film of this - Team slides into 41 different universes loses vital game in each one. The only way to break the cycle and return home is to finally win the game. How many different versions of yourself will you meet ?

    Ian MacDonald's Brasyl - a very weird book - does include a bit with former Brazilian goalkeeper Barbosa travelling into alternate universes to see worlds in which he didn't concede Ghiggia's winner and get blamed for the Maracanazo...

  11. 2 hours ago, RobertPage said:

    Interesting. Find that difficult to accept. Ability of players/team you're up against, the ability of your own players, and expectations, in my opinion, should definitely have an impact on ratings. It's always going to be harder for lower quality players to do the simpler things when they're up against better teams and better players. A good pass, a good goal, a good cross, really pretty much anything is much more difficult when you're up against teams and players of higher quality, and the match ratings should always appreciate that. You look at Leicester last season. You could take a result from last season where they may have scraped a 1-0 win and said it was brilliant. Now this season where expectations are higher the very same result would be rated lower and harsher due to slightly higher expectations. I'd be very disappointed if the ratings are infact based alone on what you do and that these things aren't used to calculate the ratings

    That's one of the few things about match ratings that's right. It's supposed to be a record of how well somebody is performing, not about how understanding you should be about them consistently losing challenges or passing the ball straight to the opposition because the opposition are much better anyway. If your players get good ratings in cup defeats against higher division opponents, it should be because they won loads of key tackles and headers, not because the opposition had an off day in front of goal and registered a smaller victory margin than they should have done.

    Imagine if they were relative to players' ability and you had a defensive partnership consisting of one defender consistently getting 8 out of 10 for failing to win headers and tackles because the ratings are sympathetic towards him for not being anywhere near good enough to play at this level, whilst your best player continually gets 5 out of 10 despite consistently winning headers and tackles and not making mistakes because the system gives him no credit for the performance because players he's up against are rubbish and still often score. How on earth would you assess how your players were doing and who was the weak link in the defence?

    If we look at match ratings given to players by various sources IRL, Jamie Vardy generally didn't get awarded 8 out of 10 for running around a lot and not remotely threatening the goal in his first season because he was only considered a rubbish player for little Leicester, and he didn't generally get only 6.8 out of 10 for scoring the winner and causing the defence all sorts of problems in the middle of his second season because that's the least you'd expect from the league's top scorer when playing against the defences of mid-table dross like Stoke and Liverpool. Sure, there's a lot more pressure on the manager and the team to get good results now, but that's not reflected in the assessment of individual players.

  12. Would have thought the nationality warranted inclusion even if the NT doesn't get it's FIFA status sorted out because of players born in Kosovo that don't have any other nationalities (there must be some, surely?). They won't represent Serbia in the foreseeable future so they'd need to get an overseas passport to play international football, like several of them actually have done.

    As a second nationality it would also reflect the reality of players unlikely to agree to play for clubs based in the Serbian or Russian leagues.

×
×
  • Create New...