Bojanbbz94
-
Posts
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by Bojanbbz94
-
-
1 hour ago, DarJ said:
Im not coming at anyone for anything but watch what people complain about this year has been very interesting for me because I tend to ignore most of these things as it doesn’t have any viable impact on gameplay.
A player comes to me because he’s unhappy and thinks he deserves a new contract, I just try to talk them down and if it doesn’t work, I just ignore them especially if they have a lot of time left in their contract and I address it when I feel like. I do the same with players moaning about playing time, I just ignore it since it doesn’t affect their performance when I need them to play
I do get what you are saying, and I don't disagree with you. But I also don't think this is a good thing.
For a start, if a feature of the game feels off or unrealistic to the extent that it is detrimental to the player's experience this is obviously not ideal for a game that markets as the most realistic football simulation out there.
But more importantly, it is really not good that so many features in the game right now really do have, as you say, no 'viable impact on gameplay'. If a feature really only has a minimal affect on the game at all (if any), what is it doing in the final product? What is it achieving other than adding unnecessary bloat to the game: more info for a player to read but to immediately dismiss, screens for a player to click through even though the pages hold no meaningful information, more complexity (and frankly adding work) that I have to navigate before I actually get to the fun and engaging parts of the game? I can understand this with new features that are being implemented and tested in the latest edition of the game so that they can be refined in the future. But increasingly it feels like a lot of features to the game don't actually add any value to the experience.
Staff meetings being a formal event that I have to click through to advance the game, rather than informal pop-ups that I can choose to engage with or dismiss as I see fit. Recruitment meetings are forced on me multiple times a transfer window, even though they have literally not even once used any information to inform any transfer decisions (that's what my scouting assignments were and are already for). Squad dynamics has been in the game since 2018 but, to be blunt, it remains a mostly meaningless feature that you are totally safe to dismiss.
I certainly don't want to shoot the messenger here, and I agree with you that many player interactions feel mostly meaningless. But if it's an element to the game that only takes away from your sense of immersion if you think about it too hard, and can safely be ignored by a player who understands the systems enough, then it is a feature that seriously lacks polish.
3 -
14 hours ago, HUNT3R said:
"Hello, once the ongoing focus ends, the findings are filed under the completed focus section, and it restarts. So if you navigate to the completed focus section you will probably find your reports."
Looking at what Zachary posted, this is what you can expect. Is that not the case?
If an 'ongoing' scouting assignment ends, and files a list of reports away on a different screen, without the player manually clicking a button to end the assignment then, by very definition, it isn't 'ongoing'. It is a time-sensitive task, and it is creating more manual work for a player to navigate through more screens to look for historic reports.
Bit of an odd UI choice to limit visibility of a revamped feature of the game, imho.
3 -
4 hours ago, HoChiKim said:
I actually don't remember ever seeing a current big team relegated in any save I've ever done, I usually play about 20 seasons too.
Liverpool got relegated after about 15 years in an FM save I did once, but that was off the back of a slow decline and a few season of mid table mediocrity before they went down. They made very light work of the Championship the next season.
0 -
4 hours ago, santy001 said:
Trying to create the balance between Peter and John is still posing some issues. I'll check it over with my head researcher some more and look to get this right in the next update.
No worries! I appreciate that Stoke's boardroom situation is very unique and I'm sure that causes some problems to code for, but just wanted to flag.
3 hours ago, handy500 said:Any chance you can put all the players up for free transfers they are playing worse than a Sunday league team irl
lol
0 -
On 31/12/2021 at 14:37, santy001 said:
It just hasn't worked as I'd intended in the data as it wasn't supposed to be the case that it gets formally handed over as such in that capacity. I thought I had set-up the data the right way so that John would have more of the responsibilities and it would let Peter Coates slip into the background.
John is already down as chairperson in the data, so I've likely made a mistake somewhere else.
It's tough to understand the exact dynamics, as far back as Mark Hughes credit was being given to John for the decision making so its difficult to establish which of the two should be prioritised as leading the club.
As you've mentioned and based on the loose explanation of the Portsmouth situation - that doesn't exactly fit the bill for Stoke. The club is funded by bet365 so the finance element is relatively transferrable between the Coates family member who is overseeing things. It just should already be resting on John and not Peter for how I intended to set it up, and it hasn't quite gone right.
This might be the fact that by % ownership of the bet365 group, and in turn % ownership of Stoke, Denise is the actual owner of the club and due to taking no active role is marked as not for extraction. This could then mean its passing it on to Peter rather than John. I'll run it past my head researcher.
Hey just as a quick FYI, this seems to still be happening in FM23. I don't have a lot of spare time atm, but I've tested it twice just by holidaying to June 2023 at the start of a save and on both occasions Stoke have been taken over as a result of Peter Coates retiring.
Where is the best place to raise this?
0 -
Not necessarily in any particular order, but as a minimum:
Passing. First touch. Vision. Composure. Teamwork. Decisions.But just generally, any attributes that the game tells you are important for a deep-lying playmaker in a support role, to be honest.
1 -
Correct me if I am wrong but the release clause and the extension are mutually exclusive, no? Unless the release clause has an expiration date.
So for example: if a player signs a three-year deal with a one-year optional extension that the club can activate at anytime, there is nothing stopping you from activating the clause to deter bids.
But the release clause is a separate clause in the contract, no? A buying club can trigger it at any time and offer him a contract. And if the player agrees a contract and arranges a move, you then cannot force a player to stay for an extra year when he has already been sold.
0 -
His star rating a reflection of how your coaches evaluate his Current Ability (this is a hidden attribute in the game) against other members of your squad (and to a lesser extent, against the overall quality of the league you are in). You coaches will be giving him 2.5 stars because there will be forwards in your squad who will be better, no? If you're Manchester United, you're going to have forwards with better finishing and composure than 13, and players with better vision, passing and first touch than him. It is also worth considering that being a 'squad player' at an elite level club like Man United probably still makes him better than 'star players' at lower midtable clubs; it is all relative to the level you're playing at.
If he is 25 and he has reached the peak of his potential he won't develop dramatically no matter how well he plays. But, honestly, don't worry about it too much. Star ratings are, at best, a guide to help you work out who the technically better and lesser players in your squad is. Current Ability and Potential Ability are hidden attribute that can definitely take some of the fun and mystery out of the game if you dwell on them too much, imho.
What actually matters for players their attributes (and how how players with those attributes work in your system), and also form and consistency. Just like in real life, what matters with strikers isn't how 'good' or 'bad' they are on paper, only how many goals they score.
This dude is playing well for you. I assume that in the coaching report 'consistency' is listed as one of his strengths? If so, he should probably continue to play well for you. It might only becomes a problem if he has a blip; but if he played so well for you for so many years, maybe that won't happen. Might be worth having some squad depth just in case, though.
1 -
I've been playing since FM13 (skipped FM14 and 15 because I was a skint undergrad at that time, but have hundreds of hours on every subsequent edition), and have had one tycoon takeover ever. I'd be interested to see how often non-player controlled teams get one, but my instinct from all the leagues I've played in is that they're not excessive.
11 hours ago, Mcfc1894 said:Does anyone think they are to many happening on fm22 that it takes away a lot of excitement of being owned by one
I suppose the question here is who is it that you're finding is getting taken over, and in what context? I've not played a lot of FM since the update following the war in Ukraine. But is it Chelsea who you are seeing always get taken over?
Because since Abramovich got sanctioned, they always get taken over with one season right? And since they're, yano, Chelsea, I imagine the probability of a high-investment takeover is higher than it is for a normal club? I mean, irl, they're about to be brought by Todd Boehly for £4bn.0 -
Wherever possible, sign players with decent determination, and who your scouts identify as being consistent and professional.
Simply don't buy players who are inconsistent or unprofessional; there are always other players out there with similar attributes or potential who don't have such significant issues.
3 -
3 hours ago, Baodan said:
@Bojanbbz94 You're adding way too much real life stuff into this game mechanic issue. The EPL has a much higher wage budget than the Danish Superliga, therefore SI has made it so that especially highly gifted players will demand more when those clubs come knocking. It matters very little what they're currently earning.
After the negotiation fails, the player resets and now re-evaluates his options. FCK may then be the best of the rest and he'll demand an outrageous amount of money from them, relative to what they're already paying (much less than the EPL club offered because they're no longer a factor).
On a side note potentially playing Champions League with FCK is much more attractive than U18/U21 matches for Everton, Southampton or West Ham. In general the EPL is infamous for being a bad place for young players looking to develop into first team players.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the game mechanics. But that dissonance between the way that a teenager would rationally react to a massive transfer offer irl and the way they the game functions is what frustrates people. If the game is currently not doing a great job of reflecting what people to perceive as realistic, then I think it's reasonable for players question that.
Having situations where players consistently turn down higher wages at x club because that clubs has a higher overall wage bill / the league is wealthier only to end up signing a contract with y club on significantly lower terms is silly. Players and agents should recognise that in making overly-demanding contract requests, they are playing a game of brinkmanship that they are going to lose.
2 -
On 17/01/2022 at 12:21, Baodan said:
It's probably a pretty talented player you're trying to sign and he'll want to be payed in accordance with his talent, role and general pay level of your club and league. You're most likely not managing a club comparable to FCK, so why would it bother you what they end up paying him?
I think in real life an 18-year-old in the Danish league would understand that signing a contract with a club in a major European top-flight league, even on a lower wage than he would ideally demand at that level, is an unbelievable opportunity for career development and progression. He'd be playing at a much higher level, and if he plays well over the course of a 3 or 4-year contract that gives him a big opportunity to demand more wages at his new club, or to move on as a Bosman while still at an age where he could be demanding big wages for many years to come.
Very few young players would turn down a move to a major European league early in their career, and the game should reflect that. It's just such a huge opportunity to develop yourself and fulfil your ambitions at a very early stage of your career. Turning down such a transfer only to then move (within the same transfer window) to a club in the league he is already playing in, for significantly lower terms than he was previously offered to play in a higher reputation league, is plainly bizarre.
2 -
When foreign staff arrive at your club you can, of course, send them on an intensive language course to learn the local language. I've often felt that the inability to get staff to learn foreign languages is a missing feature, though.
If I have, for example, a English scout who could only speak English, I would never send them to South America or to a Francophile African country, no matter how high their adaptability is. It is always just easier to hire a scout who already speaks Spanish and send them to South America, even if their scouting stats are lower.
It's how I've always played the game, since I started playing in FM13. Maybe I'd feel differently about that if I was able to send a scout on Spanish and Portuguese language courses while they were posted in Argentina and Brazil, and have them learn a new language within the course of a few months.To a certain extent, I'd always favour sending people to places they always have knowledge of and that wouldn't change anyway. I favour sending an Argentinian scout to S. America than I would a Spanish national with no knowledge of S. America; I'd always prefer (where possible) to send a half-decent Senegalese scout to Senegal than I would a good French scout who doesn't have any knowledge of Senegal.
But I'd still be interested in being able to send scouts on language courses. Maybe it would be a way for clubs with very limited world knowledge (and hence limited knowledge of foreign staff) to build up their capability as the board allows a bigger and bigger scouting range.
It needs a bit of thought, of course. E.g. I don't think it would feel very realistic to be able hire a monolingual scout in their 40s but have them suddenly a polyglot within three or four years by sending them them on consecutive intensive language courses in four or five languages one after another. But an arbitrary cap on how many languages a staff member can learn doesn't feel like an elegant solution when it's not particularly rare irl for well-travelled players to speak four or five languages by the time they retire (or more for players like Lukaku, Seedorf or Ibrahimović).
4 -
To be honest, I don't really understand why they removed the ability to hover over the green line. Like with making staff meeting a formal event that you have to click into now, rather than informal advice that just pops into your inbox periodically (and a few other examples I'm not going to list exhaustively here), SI seems determined to make the game less streamlined rather than more simplified.
To add additional layers to complexity (to make players click on more buttons, or navigate through more screen) to find information that should be accessible at a glance is a really baffling design decision.
2 -
3 hours ago, saware said:
I’ve had the same issue before. Started a new game after the update & it’s not happening now so will double-check my settings against yours to see if there’s anything different.
3 hours ago, cruyff14 said:I've been getting the same thing. is it a bug and is starting a new save the only way to stop it happening?
I'm also pretty sure I wasn't getting this problem post winter update.
This save is also post winter update. Cheers for the replies though, both. Will report as a bug
0 -
Curious if anybody knows what I'm doing wrong here and how I fix it. I have a scout with good tactical knowledge, I hired him to be the specific person in the club who scouts the next opposition. But every time these reports come around I'm getting two of them: one from the dedicated scout I have asked to do this, and one from my chief scout.
I have full responsibility for assigning scouts. The scout that I want to be producing the opposition reports is set to that on the responsibilities page and on his individual assignment. My chief scout has a different assignment altogether. I even cancelled and re-started both of their current assignment when I first noticed this happening to see if that would work, but it hasn't.
I don't want my chief scout be scouting my opponents; I want him to be finding players for me in the region that he already has some knowledge of. How do I stop this?
0 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
The great contradiction of FM, imho, is between 'realism' and the fact that the actual (unspoken) joy of the game is roleplaying. FM markets itself (correctly) as the most realistic and accurate football simulation on market. But actual saves in the game are are about making your own fun; about the journey that your manager goes on, about imagining press conferences, your relationships with your players or rival managers and all the rest of it to be much more important than they are on a mechanical in-game level.
FM is realistic in the sense that it attempts to accurately simulate football matches (it does this to varying degrees of success depending on the quirks of MEs, but that is the sincere aim). FM is realistic in that all of the SI researchers all around the world try very hard to make the most accurate and objective judgements about the players they research, and they are so successful at this that real life clubs use their database. I could go on about all the realism, and I don't want it to change.
But at the same time, on a fundamental level, it is a roleplaying game. To a certain extent, once you are a few years into a save, what should start happening is that the realism should be in the fact that the internal logic of the game becomes consistent. If a player wants to take a post-Soviet Eastern European nation with a small population and a weak economy, but turn one of its bigger clubs into a genuine and consistent force in the Champions League over the course of a few decades, then that should logically alter the course of football in that nation. I can't really see a strong reason for the game not allowing you to do that in the name of 'realism'; the very premise of the save isn't realistic to begin with, but that's fine because this is a roleplaying game.
India's Game Importance is set to 'Unimportant' and Pakistan's is 'Completely Useless'. Of course this is realistic: cricket and hockey are much more important sports than football there. But these are countries with absolutely gigantic populations. If somebody wanted to a long-term save as the national team manager of one of those countries and (inexplicably) consistently make the knockout stages of World Cups, then this should logically raise the profile of the sport in the nation, even if it was a very slow process of cultural transformation. And in the two examples I have picked, there is definitely the population there to support this imaginary newfound interest in football.
Again, from a roleplaying perspective I don't really see why you shouldn't be able to that. SI would have to decide the criteria for how these changes happen, and how fast they happen, and I appreciate that would have to be a subjective judgement call on the basis of game design. But as long as there were consistent and logical rules that influenced how these things worked, that would be fine.None of this would damage the integrity of FM's database or the 'realism' of the global situation at the start of a save. For the overwhelming majority of players (myself included) who really only ever manage in major European nations, nothing would ever change anyway. But I don't really see a strong justification for not allowing the option.
In a game where taking no-mark English teams from no-mark English towns with tiny populations and transforming them into top-flight mainstays within the course of decade (sometimes winning consecutive promotions from the National League North/South to the Championship or League One) has been a much publicised and celebrated thing for years, I'm not sure I can understand 'realism' being used as the justification for Game Importance or Economic Factor being set values that can literally never change once you load the database.
11 -
Star ratings are a subjective judgement by the staff members offering the report, and is reflection of how good a player is compared to
a) the quality of players in your squad.
b) the standard of your league.If you were managing a non-league side in England and asked for a scout report on a bang-average midtable PL midfielder, they'd be five-star rated player; if you signed him, he'd be so far beyond anything in your squad and so far beyond any players in the league. But to Man City, who have Bernardo Silver, Rodri and De Bruyne, he'd be (at best) around 2-3 stars; a useful squad player but not much more.
I wouldn't use star ratings as anything more than a vague guide to how good a player is, a bit like the lettered 'grade' rating you get with a scout report. Their actual attributes, and how those attributes fit into your tactics, are much more important.
4 -
3 hours ago, MrPompey said:
This can be set. We have this now for Portsmouth going from Michael to Eric Eisner. Needs to be raised in the database forum for the Stoke Researcher / SI to consider
Brilliant, thanks. I didn't know this. I will raise it in the Championship database thread!
0 -
7 minutes ago, XaW said:
@santy001 - I'm sure you will correct me, but I assume this is likely to happen because of the age of Peter Coates?
Don't think the game replicates ownership transfer to family members currently, so I guess the game decides that when Coates retires the logical thing is to have a takeover.
Yeah. I appreciate that. To be honest, for future editions: if it was a straight-up choice between Peter Coates being present but his imminent retirement always triggering a takeover, or him being removed from the game entirely and having Stoke City's board just being made up of John Coates as Chairperson and Tony Scholes (or whoever replaces him as CEO when he leaves the club), I'd consider that to be the lesser of two evils.
If John has all the same club visions and demands as Peter does, then removing Peter from the database doesn't really alter the course of a save (or the sense of immersion). Whereas Stoke being taken over in the first new summer inevitably does change the save and the sense of continuity if the new owner has different visions or financial means.
0 -
I've played at least one or two seasons with Stoke in every edition of FM for the last few years, and at the end of the first season, like clockwork, the following always happens:
- Peter Coates announces his retirement.
- The club immediately faces takeover speculation, and is brought out by the end of the summer.
Does anybody else have any experiences of this happening? If so, could anything be done to prevent this in future editions? Peter Coates is 83, so I don't have any big issues with him retiring early on in-game (although he doesn't appear to be in any rush to do that irl, mind). But his son, John, is joint-Chair irl (and listed as the Chairperson in the game). The club is owned by bet365, which is owned and run by Denise Coates, Peter's daughter. Denise's husband, Richard Smith, is the Managing Director of Stoke City.
None of this seems to prevent Stoke from being sold as soon as Peter Coates retires. It clearly isn't what the Coates family have in mind for the club, which they basically view as a dynastic estate at this stage, so can anything be done under the hood to prevent this happening in future editions? John Coates being the listed Chairperson in the database doesn't seem to prevent him from selling up as soon as his dad leaves. I appreciate changing the game's coding around this one specific situation might not be high up on SI's priorities, but is clearly isn't realistic that Stoke get sold in every single save.
0 -
I have had this problem.
I don't know how it worked, or why, but I changed my delivery settings to 30 entries and it seems I am now getting reports when I asked for them. Your mileage may vary, I guess. But either way, I don't think the delivery settings are well explained this year.
0 -
Two days after this screenshot, I am being show another scouting update, this time for three players. I definitely do not have it set to show me updates every two days. Is this a bug (happy to report it as one if so), or am I doing something wrong?
0 -
Fairly self-explanatory against the title. I have requested scouting updates once a month outside of transfer windows, but I am currently getting them once every two or three days, as you can see from the filtered inbox on the left of the screenshot. It's not that my scouts are surpassing the maximum number of entries either. There are only two players being shown to me in this update. How can I stop this from happening?
I probably do want to look at scouting reports more than once a month, but I'm perfectly capable of going into the scouting centre to do that at my own leisure. All the stuff clogging up my inbox is actively slowing down how has I play the game.
0
.png.23860c620764ad7579599dfed3a7ae06.png)
.png.910d32a3e51d513286f0e703ba6ff876.png)
.png.1dd753ba7e32f19edbd680a9f2317623.png)
.png.9478f4fa9c155eb986b0a62a2d4d3392.png)
.png.7e2b70797421112bbc625210d99bdb49.png)
.png.c089408fb1a99fc12e57af5498f2bdc6.png)
Press Conference Questions
in Football Manager General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Bojanbbz94
There are still way too many questions that either
a) are totally unrealistic and would never be asked in real life.
or
b) have no meaningful impact on the game.
Both increasingly feel like a legacy thing that are still in the game because that's just the way things have always been. They need to be re-considered.
a) includes things like being asked your opinion on a recent manager sacking, or (even more bizarrely) a rival manager in your division transfer-listing a player.
I genuinely cannot imagine a real-life press conference where a journalist would dare ask a fully-professional manager how they feel about a club he has nothing to do with transfer-listing their second-choice defensive midfielder, who barely ever plays and is obviously surplus to requirements.
The answer would be, at best, to deflect and say you "I don't want to talk about other clubs, its not my place" or, at worse, to criticise the question itself and say something like "What has it got to do with me and why should I care? Don't you have something more pertinent to ask me about my squad or the upcoming fixture?"
b) includes things like asking my opinion on VAR or how I feel about the league I manage in having a winter break / not having a winter break (delete as appropriate).
Yes, these are real-life talking points so I can understand why they are in the game from a realism perspective. But the difference is that in real life clubs and managers have a stake in the leagues they play in, and might have the power to change policies if enough of them ask for it. In FM, we can't. The league rules are hard-coded in and that's that. So why ask me?
Unless a question has the ability to change a metric in the game (the morale of one of my players, a rival manager's relationship with me, how a transfer target feels about me, if I'll be fined by the league for disparaging a referee, etc. etc.), I'm not sure it should be in the game. They're just bits of fluff I'm clicking through to get into the meaningful questions.
In one recent fixture, I lost 5-2 and in a post-match press conference with six questions in it, three of them were about VAR. They could have asked me about my CB who made a mistake, my striker who missed two clear-cut chances and got subbed with a 6.0 rating, my relationship with the AI manager, anything. But no, three questions about an in-game mechanic I cannot change making the right decision to disallow a goal.