Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

BMNJohn

Members+
  • Content Count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BMNJohn

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was talking about intake quality. The quality of the players I've had coming in my intakes have unfortunately little to do with the quality of the HoYD. Aside from the personality I don't care. Considering they also will have coaching duties, I don't select HoYDs based on the formation they like (good luck finding one playing a 3-4-3 Diamond), and players who don't play in the position I want are retrained (reminds me of a topic on how the AI developed players are less versatile than real ones). Moreover, positional familiarity has mostly an impact on the Decision making attribute, which is rather minor and doesn't prevent a player from performing - IME of course (and what has been said on other parts of this forum. I'm not arguing that the HoYD is a useless staff member in its entierety. But his supposed "prerogatives" regarding the signing of young players aren't useful, and I personally find the role more useful for coaching and managing the youth team as well as some personality bonus for intakes. The rest...
  2. As an addition to what you've said, I've had success in reducing training injuries by hiring... a better fitness coach. I've felt a HoYD is more of a glorified coach (and sometimes glorified scout), and sometimes youth team manager than actually good at spotting and hiring young players from all over the country. That portion of their role isn't that relevant since the AI isn't exactly good at signing the right players. I do use their judgement when scouting a player, but I never let the AI sign players. Or at the very least, my intakes were the same with or without a HoYD!
  3. More like in favour of finishing a FM17/18 save. The (early) Editor issues with FM19 kinda discouraged some of the most prevalent editors from making as many and as rich databases as it used to be the case. For me ,most of the fun in FM is generated by the community moreso than the base game. SI hasn't announced anything that excites me for FM2020... if anything at all concerning the ME, tactics and how football actually plays in FM. I'll see what happens in the coming weeks, but I wouldn't mind skipping another couple of FM versions; I already did so in the past. I didn't play much FM18 either.
  4. Technically he's still on loan, not on a definitive transfer. Yeah, I know that some will see as a "distinction without a difference" considering he's likely to spend the rest of his contract on loan, but it's somewhat different as he's still contracted to Marseille. I don't think a lot of people would mind paying a wage contribution for a loaned player, but I suppose paying one for a transferred player, well... it kinda hurts. As for OP's case, it would need to be clarified (if it wasn't clarified in-game) for how long you're supposed to pay the wage contribution, should you choose to sell a player that way.
  5. @WojciechZed: In a sense, FM somewhat (huge grain of salt there) has Mental development at the late stages of one's career. Older players tend to have pretty good Mental attributes, which makes them very well suited for Tutoring/Mentoring. However in matches, physical attributes in FM decline way quicker than they do IRL. 32+ years old outfields quickly become irrelevant physically, which makes their growth in Mental attributes pointless. If you cannot get to the job, it doesn't matter how smart you are at said job. Someone had ran an experiment where they found that players past their 30s when the save starts tend to be still pretty decent physically, as they were scouted by real people. However and once the save kicks in, you see fewer and fewer 35 yo players. They just tend to retire around that age or become physically impotent. I think it's this thread.
  6. As mentioned by others, Star Rating only your Assistant's or/and your Scout's or/and your staff's opinion relative to the strength of your team. Also and in my experience, Star Rated Potential tends to be highly weighed on their current ability. Star rating can also be modified by form. Compared to actual hidden CA and PA ratings, Star Rating is always 1) relative, 2) somewhat subjective (well computers aren't subjective but I hope you see the point), and 3) can be erroneous. Yes, your staff can (and will) lead you to believe things about the progression of a player that are not true. For example, it's very easy to see if a player who has a supposed 5 Star Rating in his Potential but say, a 3 Star Rating his his ability is actually making progress or not. You go to his Training page and see his Attribute growth. If it's a bunch of flat lines and assuming you've done everything possible for his development (training, facilities, coaching, playing time, tutoring/mentoring, etc.), it's very possible that he actually has reached his PA. Even if your AssMan tells you he has 3 star current ability and 5 star potential ability. You'll even start reading messages akin to "Player's training hard but he's not making progress". It's a bit hard for me to explain it well, so I hope I've managed to be understood.
  7. If the benchmarking thread is any help, any PC that can sustain a high frequency for a long period of time. Too many laptops tend to throttle thermally sadly. Any good laptop review should be able to tell if (or when) a laptop will throttle in any way (power limit, thermal limit, voltage limit). "Just" pick the best performing one within your budget.
  8. I've never seen a discussion on how it scales either. Is it linear, exponential (16 is way better than 14, but 2 and 4 are rather similar), logarithmic (16 isn't much if *any* better than 14, but 4 is a lot better than 2)... Especially since the attribute and PA/CA scale isn't that big if you're the kind of person who loves lower league management: a player in English D12 may not be worse than a player two divisions above. I also read that when playing that much lower in the divisions, an extra point in Pace or Determination can make a world of difference, which also questions how much faster a player with 9 (or 19) Pace is relative to a player with 7 (or 17) Pace. Considering the rather cryptic answers read left and right, I'd assume the scale is rather logarithmic, but probably a bit smoother, but I don't actually know.
  9. I do so... but not for the sake of realism, but only because I rely on scouts more and save those precious attribute points for other categories. I've always thought that as long as I have scouts, my manager doesn't actually need an encyclopedic knowledge of the players within the database. OTOH, I obviously find it jarring when scouts don't actually have good knowledge of the nation they're from and can't tell a kitten and a lion apart. But that's another can of worms...
  10. They're not actual human beings and I want that sweet, sweet Determination and/or Team Work improvement. Sorry if I damaged anyone's suspension of disbelief. I don't fine at 6.4, I just send warnings all the time regardless because players have to be really douchy to take actual offence to it, and if they do they generally have some kind of poor hidden attribute and need to go anyway. I tend to fine a week below 6.0, but not always. You already need a pretty bad day at the office in FM to get below 6.0, and to justify two weeks wages fines you either need a player who has had not just a terrible, but an outright horrible day... or that did a colossal blunder that lost you an important tie. The former has been pretty rare for me for the main squad but can happen in the U19 leagues. The later has happened to me exactly once back in FM15, where a player just gave away possession in the second leg of a CL match vs. Real Madrid, during injury time, while we were 20 seconds away from winning on away goals. Fined him two weeks and he swore to improve. If only he had just hoofed the damn ball... That said, just hoofing the damn ball didn't do Ginola any good!
  11. I feel the need to be overly pedantic with this statement: overclocking doesn't necessarily reduces component life; overvolting tends to, especially with excessive voltages. Frequent thermal cycling also is worse than running a fixed temp 24/7 (doesn't mean one sould buy second hand mining cards though). You can very well overclock while running a lower voltage, increasing your performances while actually making them run cooler and safer. This for example happens if you possess a Vega 56 or Vega 64: they run really high voltages stock. Reducing the voltages allowed you not only to make the card cooler and therefore quieter, but to also overclock it a bit further; tried it with a couple Vega 56 and my experience confirms that. This is also what happens on Skylake 6000s CPUs: they run pretty high voltages stock. My 6600K stock runs at 3.9GHz with something like 1.3V; I'm able to run it very stable at 1.22V at 4.0GHz, tested with Prime 95. Silicon is a bit more resilient than we tend to give it credit for; that said, it does come into question when you overclock and are chasing an extra 100 or 200MHz when the CPU stops scaling: is a 0.05V or 0.075V worth it? Most likely not (those are exaggerated voltage values to make a point). That said, there's no point buying a K SKU Intel CPU is you don't OC it; and if you don't OC a 9600K AND it doesn't OC high because you lost the silicon lottery, then there's no point not using a stock Ryzen 3600 instead unless the prices are really, really good. Which essentially means there's little point buying an Intel CPU that isn't a 9700K or a 9900K since those chips have no competition and are the best ones strictly for gaming and nothing else. And you really have to lose the silicon lottery really bad not to get a 9900K that doesn't get to 5.0GHz all cores... assuming you have a good motherboard and a good CPU cooler. Beyond that point the chip hits the wall extremely hard. The highest bit of irony is that many motherboard manufacturers just have the board automatically OC your Intel CPU in your back anyway, just to make their board more desirable to less savvy users. Regardless of that, Auto OC software in BIOS is way better today than it used to be, having the motherboard dictate the behaviour of the CPU anyway. So basically for most casual users, just use XMP for your RAM, use AutoOC in BIOS and be done. Don't tweak anything. That was a pretty big digression there. Additional note: the Silicon Lottery website is a lot, LOT more strict in their definition of what's stable and what isn't. Depends if Stadia allows you to use mods. I don't see myself playing FM with no German+Japanese NT fix and without at least a name fix, no matter how great the performance is. And that's without mentioning all the extra leagues and other content (logo packs, face packs, skins, etc.) created by the community! It probably would satisfy a very casual user, but I doubt people ready to benchmark their CPU in FM are among those people. What's interesting is that Stadia runs on AMD hardware, so we'll see if that can trickle down some benefits to more core/thread heavy CPUs at the local user level on a recent CPU. Especially since both Intel and AMD have to at least some extend moved towards higher core/thread counts, something that FM struggles to exploit as seen in the results in this very thread.
  12. Not just that, but also how much better is a 20 compared to a 1. Is the scale linear? Exponential? Also, I find that when you go low enough, there's essentially no difference between players one, two or even three leagues apart in terms of attributes... and even attributes. In England, that happens around 10th tier. If you go below that, the Reputation, CA/PA and Attribute system doesn't scale well anymore. That's a funny thing since FM technically allows you to play with Average Joe in your squad, but he'd still have 1s in his attributes because that's the limits of the system. Anyway, I digress. I shortened your posts quite a bit, but that's IMO more on how the AI (does not) work(s) there. I often call FM "Reputation Manager™" for that very reason: Reputation has a huge impact on how FM works, moreso than about anything else. The AI wouldn't buy that Malay player, but that's not because he's from a small country: that's only because his reputation is horrid. There's little reason why he wouldn't be a good buy, and I think it should be fair that should he be discovered, he should be able to perform... although a player with 14 Finishing, 12 Composure would likely be a Malay international player, which would raise his Reputation and net him a transfer to a bigger Asian league at the very least. FM doesn't disclose well how much of how the game works is around Reputation and fixed values if not values that scale based on a fixed value in the db (like transfer values or wage values). And it's a understandable thing, because it would break the willing suspension of disbelief. I don't think Attributes being too accurate is an issue: I think the "AI" should be better at analysing and recognizing greatness as well as using great players rather than the player being brought down the the AI's level... albeit it would be more "realistic" in a sense not to have hard values. It's harsh to say, but it basically means that the AI can't get better therefore we should tweak the player experience. That may not be the intent, but that's how I see it.
  13. That would imply that a player who has 5 Finishing is indeed four times worse at Finishing than a player at 20. It would also suggest, on that slippery slope, that the scale SI uses goes indeed from 1 as the lowest any human being can be, to 20 which is the best an human being can be. Likewise, it would also mean that a player who has 5 Acceleration and 5 Pace is indeed four times slower than a player who scores 20 in both attributes. I'm going to hazard a guess that it's not the case, but only SI coders know. It's slippery for that reason: it may be the case, it may not be, it can vary depending on the attribute we're judging... If yes, then you can as easily not judge a player on his Finishing at all, or disregard it as non important. I'm not assuming that they can be relied upon in all cases, and have written so: it's not the can of worms I wanted to open. That said, I haven't seen an AssMan who doesn't note a Finishing attribute of 5 as weak. It could be passable in a given league, but it's still in my experience as bad as it gets for strikers, especially computer generated ones.
  14. To be extremely, INCREDIBLY pedantic, my experience in really poor leagues with clubs having reputations in the 100 to 300 range (out of 10,000) says no. The worst grey/virtual players you can get still have around 7 everywhere with no more than 5 to 10 CA points; and I've signed some of them since they were no worse than the players in the wild in those leagues! Scoring a 5 in one of your main attributes indeed is complete trash regardless of the league. Only way you could get away with it is through good tactics and/or other attributes compensating for it. In other words, you could be the best scorer in the league with 5 Finishing, but 5 in Finishing is always trash. Also, the scouting/training report given by your Scouts or Ass/Man already tells you if the player is up to the standard of the league or not, and that for most if not every single one of his attributes. It's going to light bright red with a huge "Avoid". Now, how good staff and AIs are at judging players is a whole other debate and a can of worm I'm not sure is good to open in this thread. EDIT: More on topic... Being able to judge numbers and see how they work against each other is part and parcel of basically every game/software that pretends to be a simulation, especially a strategic one. It may be indeed confusing for the newcomer, especially since FM is poor if not outright hides the numbers and/or the rules surrounding them. That said, I'm not sure doing away and/or hiding/compounding those numbers may help. For an in-game example of how numbers can be compounded into a single expression, there's the Personality. Whether a player is Professional, Perfectionist or Easily Discouraged is a mix of the attributes, visible and hidden that they have. You already need a guide to know which personalities are good (some are obvious, but the caveats aren't always), what hidden attributes are, and so on. Not sure we need more of that in a game where the information isn't perfect already. That said, I think I see OP's point.
  15. Probably if I were to defend somewhat deep as I haven't had too much success when playing high on the pitch with Tight Marking. I don't find defenders to be particularly good at anticipating movement and balls, so when they mark an attacker that's faster than they are, they can too easily let them away with acres of space. I think it makes somewhat more sense when you defend low since there isn't as much space to make a run or pass, and it's technically harder for a player to find the right pass in a forest of legs. You can't get away with just punting the ball over the defence and have a striker just get past his defender(s) with his pace, especially since keepers aren't too good at anticipating and clearing such balls like they do more and more IRL.
×
×
  • Create New...