Weston
-
Posts
5,647 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Issue Comments posted by Weston
-
-
On 08/12/2023 at 10:28, LeoFM said:
these numbers are from the latest 24.2 patch as well:
Of 660 natural fullbacks aged 16 or under in 2023:
359 have 10+ crossing
49 have 10+ dribbling
31 have 10+ crossing and dribbling
*for some reason, 423 out of the 1083 fullbacks at the start of the game were newgens, and only one of those newgens had 10+ crossing and dribbling
Of 973 natural fullbacks aged 16 or under in 2030:
140 have 10+ crossing
27 have 10+ dribbling
8 have 10+ crossing and dribbling
I should also add that in 2030, there were 18 newgen fullbacks aged 16 or under with a CA of 90+. In 2023, there was only one.Thanks for doing this research, it really lays the problem bare.
It's even worse than it seems at first glance, considering the increase in FBs overall - 8 is obviously much lower than 31, but in 2023 that's 4.7% of the total, whereas in 2023 that's just 0.8%! That's a really shocking decrease in serviceable FBs that needs more substantial addressing.
One of the other issues with FM that's bothered me for years is how young players are unrealistically so much stronger in the later game than the start of the game, as SI has clearly boosted newgens a bit beyond realism to make the game seem fun and exciting for folks who buy it solely to hunt for wonderkids.
The fact that there are 18x more high-CA players in one position over 7 years is a problem. The fact that there are about 1/4 as many FBs with the correct attribute spread *despite that* overall increase in ability is really especially concerning...
1 -
On 07/12/2023 at 12:23, Kyle Brown said:
We've chatted about this with our internal QA team and first and foremost, the issue mentioned is in a much better state than it was in previous editions.
That's not to say it's perfect, but unfortunately it's a limitation of the current system. The attributes mentioned are heavily weighted on the overall CA, so to have them boosted would have a very detrimental effect on the overall ability of full backs game wide - making them extremely unbalanced.
We did make more positive strides within the progression coding however, and you'll notice that as the players get older the attributes will appear more realistic and at a satisfactory level.
I'm afraid there's just little more that we can do at this stage, but it's one we have our eye on and want to improve on for future editions of FM.
Thanks for your reply.
I've also been very frustrated with this issue for years, as a dedicated player who's sunk a lot of time into this game and always uses a tactic that revolves around having very strong wingbacks that can dribble and cross on the flanks of a narrow midfield diamond. I usually have to spend the first few years of my saves retraining players from other parts of the pitch to play this role (most recently a CAM) until I can blow 100m each on the two good newgen wingbacks in the entire world. Not to be dramatic, but this is the first year I've not bought the game in as long as I can remember, in large part because problems like this one have started to feel too repetitive and unmanageable to be ignored, and they've taken a bit of the immersion out of it lately.
What I still don't understand based on your response is this:
1a. You say the issue is caused (or at least exacerbated by) the fact that crossing and dribbling are weighted very highly. Why do we not see this issue with wingers who have both? Is it because they don't use CA on defensive attributes? Does this balancing act issue also impact box to box midfielders who have to have both offensive/defensive attributes, as well?
1b. And why, in general, is this the main role that is impacted, when surely other positions have combinations of necessary but highly weighted attributes that are generated far more frequently? For example, it feels like there are always TONS of AFs with strong finishing and pace, and TONS of playmakers with those combinations of playmaking attributes with no issue.
2. I don't know anything about coding, so excuse my ignorance, but how is it not possible to simply set up whatever code generates newgens to give natural FBs/WBs a higher CA/PA range, if coding them to prioritize crossing/dribbling would drain too much CA/PA in other areas of their attribute spread? This seems like a decent temporary workaround patch.
3. Why has SI not invested in a temporary workaround by somehow boosting AI's tendency to train FBs/WBs in this area and attempt to boost young players crossing/dribbling after they've been generated?
1 -
9 hours ago, Zachary Whyte said:
Unfortunately, you might have to push through. Unless you do something like temporarily increasing the stats of some youth players to play in the final?
We're sorry for this inconvenience.
Ah, I wouldn't want to do that. Hopefully this is finally fixed for the next edition, then.
0 -
@Zachary Whyte Let me know if you think this is salvageable at all or if I just have to push through as is. Haven't played since posting this in the hopes it's fixable in some way...
0 -
On 20/06/2023 at 09:02, Zachary Whyte said:
Hi @Weston
If possible, do you have a save file prior to the international callups?
Sorry for the slow reply, was traveling.
Yes, see save "gala april ii."
Aside from waiting until this is fixed in FM24, is there anything I can do with the editor to workaround this in the current save?
0 -
@Zachary Whyte Would you have any advice on how I could use the in-game editor to try to workaround this in some way?
0 -
-
I should note that I'm offering them 10-20k more than they even ask for to open negotiations as well.
0 -
On 07/03/2023 at 07:28, Kyle Brown said:
Believe this has now been resolved in a previous update, thank you for your patience. Do let us know if you spot anything similar.
This is very much still happening - if anything, it's gotten worse.
If I search for staff who are realistic, all of the unemployed ones want astronomical wages, meaning they are by definition not realistic hires.
So I sort by employed ones already on low wages, because I hope they'll accept less, and most will. But even if they're on <20k and I offer them 45k, they all still re-sign with their original club for <20k. One or two guys I can accept, as some people won't want to move countries even for 200% pay increase, I guess. But like 5, 6, 7 in a row? And the new deals they sign are still really low? It simply doesn't make sense.
See save "gala april ii" and look at all the past rejections. It shouldn't be practically impossible to sign staff, but it is.
0 -
11 minutes ago, Kyle Brown said:
Thanks for the spot, I've passed this over to the testing team.
Thanks - please let me know if there is any way to work around this bug in the meantime using the in-game editor.
0 -
18 hours ago, Kyle Brown said:
Appreciate it's been a while, apologies for the delay, but we'll investigate this ahead of future editions, thanks for the spot.
Noticing it with fully professional players as well - I'm being told they're jaded and need a rest for seemingly no reason, sometimes it's early in the season, their fitness looks all green, etc., and I rotate a lot. I'll rest them in training and sit them out in games and still get the messages for quite some time. Not sure what's going on under the hood there.
0 -
Why is this dual national still considered eligible for Turkey and not considered foreign despite making so many competitive appearances for Belgium? Is it because of his age? Maybe I still don't fully understand the rules.
He just won what looks like player of the year (?) in March (?) but the award seems to have been given both to Turkish players abroad and non-Turkish players in the domestic league. All very confusing.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Kyle Brown said:
We've got this over to our team now who will be able to check more closely whether this is indeed an issue, it could just be a case of a player performing for a normally lesser-rated team. ie, a hattrick for top of the league, while impressive, may be outshone by a striker scoring twice for a relegation threatened team against a big side.
It's been a while now so I don't remember 100%, but I think Sahin outperformed Chory, and they're both on my squad, so if club stature, etc., is taken into account, it still wouldn't make sense in context.
0 -
Also worth noting that in this other screen with conflicting feedback he says he is less interested in the two clubs he has negotiated contracts with than he is in my club which he refuses to talk to.
0 -
It also says he's extremely interested, so it seems like a bug that he won't discuss a contract with me...
Meanwhile other clubs are now offering deals without issue...
0 -
On 04/05/2023 at 05:14, Zachary Whyte said:
Hi, this conversation is based on several different factors, so it's not just 'overpowered' or 'underpowered', it is dependent on the 2 players involved and squad dynamics/hierarchy.
If you believe there is a problem we would need a save file with an example at the ready.
I've uploaded a lot of Galatasaray saves you can look at, but I've forgotten when exactly the specific examples took place since I posted over a month ago.
0 -
On 04/05/2023 at 05:16, Zachary Whyte said:
Hi, we've looked through your save and this is working as intended.
It wouldn't be a particularly natural conversation to be able to repeat this with multiple players.
We've ran through the conversation a few times in a couple of different scenarios and the conversation works perfectly fine and reads well.
That doesn't make any sense, what's unnatural about needing a player to do something and asking your players until you find one who will? What's unnatural is arbitrarily giving up after the first try. I don't understand.
It seems to me that players will never speak to the press about a signing if the signing does not have a large profile / current ability, ie it does not work correctly for players who are up and coming targets, even when they are in hotly contested battles for their signature.
0 -
On 08/02/2023 at 11:30, Zachary Whyte said:
Hello, this is a known issue we're currently investigating.
Just following up on this - will this be fixed? It is happening even more than ever now and is really bogging down my scouting - I have to remember to check every day or two in game to delete the 10 or so random players that my scouts are scouting again for no reason.
I can't imagine how much of my scouting budget I've lost tracking multiple games for these guys I have no intention of getting reports on, not to mention how it eats up my team's bandwidth and delays what I actually need getting done.
0 -
It's very clearly, obviously broken, because now the players I promised improvements to are upset that I said in a press conference that I'm not making any more signings, even though the promise already shows up as succeeded! How could a previous promise already completed be broken retroactively?
And that's after I had to assume what the vague message meant, since it didn't actually explain the issue whatsoever.
See save "gala aug ii."
0 -
8 hours ago, Kyle Brown said:
QA have looked into a few issues here, apologies for the length but just to summarise:
Thanks for the feedback, but this still doesn't make sense to me.
(First of all, I'm wondering if part of the issue is that the reinforcements are sometimes already pre-signed but haven't arrived and/or actually arrive before or simultaneously as the player due to different windows opening, and I'm assuming the promise does/should reflect who is currently at the club at the time of negotiation v who arrives after the promise is made regardless. If it doesn't, this should be changed.)
8 hours ago, Kyle Brown said:2. 'Strengthen defence' - Simply put, Kerim doesn't believe Mustafi is good enough. He's a 34 year old on the decline and is the 14th best player by CA in the squad, hence why the promise failed.
Specifically to this example, I've not been looking at CA for obvious reasons (and Kerim certainly shouldn't be able to see that hidden value, either!), but Mustafi (3* CA, "good" for league) is better than Kerim (2.5*) and has a much higher reputation (3*, highest in squad) than both Kerim (2*) and the CB he replaced (Africo, 2*). This is an improvement.
Besides Mustafi, 3 other players who could be classified as defenders arrived as well. Though some were meant to be replacements for other players, in some cases (Africo left earlier), they were filling holes that, at the time of negotiation, were simply vacant, so we boosted simple numbers as well. Having 3 CBs and signing a 4th is by definition "strengthening" the defense, even if he wasn't 3* - improving the numbers has to count for something regardless.
By every single measurable metric, we reinforced the defense. It just seems incredibly unreasonable to expect the human manager to work out 1) that this is unacceptable and 2) how it is unacceptable, and the feature is simply not fit for purpose if it's meant to work this way. At the *very least* the text should be clearer, ie "I want you to sign a world class defender," or "I want you to have a larger number of defenders," or "I'm upset because I don't think [player x] is good enough," etc.
And it's worth noting that I had another signing I promised defensive improvements to accept I'd fulfilled the promise when I signed a 2* prospect with a high PA star count, which seems to directly contradict this rationale regardless, which brings me to:
8 hours ago, Kyle Brown said:4. Sahin was signed on the 12/1, and from date that no signings made the promise criteria. Ince was of the same nationality but only signed on loan, and Tabak was an u19 player so didn't meet the promise as he's in a different squad.
This also does not make any sense - not only do I not understand why a loan doesn't count (it should), how am I supposed to know that, when it doesn't say that anywhere before or in the complaint afterward?
As for Tabak, his arrival appears to have counted toward Sahin's expectation for defensive reinforcements (despite being 2* CA) - why would it fulfill one and not the other?
And furthermore, why was the "bring someone in to help settle" promise failed as soon as the window closed weeks later, but the "bring in a defender" promise has 200+ more days to go? It's all so confusingly counterintuitive and inconsistent.
Again this could be improved by saying something like "bring in a permanent Belgian signing in the same window" or other specific, clear instructions.
0 -
7 hours ago, Kyle Brown said:
Do you have a save before Mourinho is appointed so we can cross check the reasons he's shortlisted and interested?
Yes, see "mourinho move."
1 -
6 hours ago, Zachary Whyte said:
There's no record of a conversation between player and manager on 10th July in the save from 13th July. The player came to you concerned on the 10th, you asked Oliveira to discuss issue with Frydek, he was unable to persuade him to drop the concern and then you didn't speak to the player directly, which is why he's come back a few days later wanting to discuss the issue again.
In that case I must've confused myself, sorry about that. I could've sworn I spoke to him at the start.
6 hours ago, Zachary Whyte said:They are both natural CM's as their primary positions, so that is where they will be expecting to play (given Frydek has never played as a RB and is 28 this is a perfectly valid expectation). There is already a large number of players able to play in this position and then another has been signed which worries Frydek as he's been signed as a regular starter and expects to play in his natural position.
Yeah I understand that he doesn't know I'm trying to use him in a different position, because there's no real way to communicate this. I think I chose the dialogue option along the lines of "I signed him to be in a different role," but clearly I'm misremembering things now haha
6 hours ago, Zachary Whyte said:Looking at the wording on the promise it is a bit ambiguous, it should say 'will honour agreed playing time' instead of 'increasing' it (players agreed starting time is regular start before and after the meeting when promise is made), we'll look into changing the promise wording to make it clearer that he wants his original playing time honoured.
Yes, this would be good. In general, promises have needed some work for some years now.
0 -
3 hours ago, Zachary Whyte said:
Hi, in attached save we couldn't see any record of a conversation between Frydek & manager, we would need a save after the initial conversation but before the concern is raised again. (after I talk to Frydek he doesn't raise the issue again)
Unless I'm confused, it came up July 10 and then we spoke again July 14.
He was worried that someone I signed to play a completely different position would take his playing time so I said it wouldn't, which forced me to make a promise to increase his playing time, which doesn't make sense, and he was still upset after that anyway, and then still brought the issue up again 4 days later despite nothing even happening in that time, no games or anything. None of it has made any sense.
Save "gala postseason transfer window iii" should be between the two on the 13th.
0 -
4 hours ago, Zachary Whyte said:
Hello, looking into the save, the player will be 21 on 1/1/28 (birthday is 14/10/2006 so will be 21 on 1/1/28) so needs to be registered to be eligible to play.
Oh I see, thanks for checking. I was thrown by the CL registration date being 2027 and the league registration date being 2028 - I idn't realize they were a year different for some reason.
Still a little frustrating that it even asks me to register players way before the registration deadline when I'm still working on buying and selling to balance the squad, so forcing me to just make random incomplete selections to get to the next screen creates unnecessary problems like this.
0
Newgen fullbacks still have low crossing and dribbling
in Player Development, Injuries, Finances and Training
Posted
@Kyle Brown can you comment on the above?