Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Peljam

  • Rank


  • Biography
    Generally grumpy/sleepy


  • Interests
    Godzilla, Football, South Park, Sci Fi, Stand Up Comedy fan

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Huddersfield, Hull

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks for the tip. I missed that when setting up with Scarborough. Recruitment seems key at this level. I've got the tactic set up in a way that should work, and I'm seeing flashes of violent brilliance but my players were terrible (my fault, I signed them) and just couldn't do it. Strikers were too slow for the ball behind, but too weak for the chaos of a true targetman role. Midfielders were playing long balls rather than long passes which my terrible strikers couldn't rescue. The dream with Scarborough is over but I think I've tweaked the tactic to a point where the right recruitment next time should work.
  2. Thanks everyone for this thread. I'm been trying to put together a Wimbledon inspired tactic for my Scarborough team and this thread really helped (as did watching the Crazy Gang documentary and shouting 'STICK IT IN THE MIXER!' at my players). I've tried a 4411, a 442 (flat), a 41221 with edited versions of the route one preset. But based on the above (and the fact none of those were very attacking), I've now settled on what is essentially a 424. I'm getting more shots, kicking the crap out of the other teams and playing genuine hoofs. Needs some tweaking but next step is to buy a decent and unhinged targetman.
  3. The problem with this is the 'better the chance' variable. How is this being assessed? If there's a way to score it then you could run a correlation (bivariate) with the number of passes being the 2nd variable. If you are going to categorise it (Clear Cut, Half Chance, Other) then you could look at the distribution as suggested by sporadicsmiles for each. There would be issues with this though as already mentioned, there are other factors tactical style skewing things - if you only every play long ball then you'll only every have a few passes before a chance regardless of quality. If you play tika-taka you will almost always have many many passess before a chance, regardless of quality. That will make the data harder to deal with. If you have the time though you could collect that data from several teams, using several styles of play. You could always record other factors (like those sporadicsmiles mentions) and analyse it using a regression to take those factors into consideration. I'm nerding out over this idea as a) I'm a nerd, and b) there are tons of books about stats and football that blow apart a lot of myths. (Like...Soccernomics, The Numbers Game, Outside the Box). If you look at the history of football and stats (and the likes of Charles Reep) the original suggestion was that it was better to get the ball into the box as quickly as possible and in as few passes as possible (as very few successful moves were deemed to have more than a certain number of passes). This has been refuted since but it's interesting if you like stats and analytics.
  4. I always liked Nine Iron's videos but they are for older versions of the editor.
  5. Thanks, I ran a few other versions and tested over 20 seasons. Increasing the population of the cities the teams are based in Increasing the competition rep (with pop increase) Increasing the attendance value (with pop increase) Combining all 3. Increasing the population on its own had no effect. Increasing the competition rep led to a very small and gradual increase, as did increasing the attendance value to 300-415 (though this stalled) Combing them all, along with making sure most stadiums had room to expand led to more variety in attendances, expanded stadiums (around 900-1.2k usually), and a general increase in average attendance for each competition. Some teams with stadiums that had been too big (a couple used national stadia) actually built their own smaller stadiums eventually (downsized from a 14k they were renting but were only getting about 4% attendance to a 900 seater they were almost filling every week). So it looks like rep is king when it comes to attendances.
  6. Had a search and couldn't quite find the answer... I'm hoping to work out how to set up a league so that there is room for gradual attendances changes that eventually lead to new stadiums (but not huge changes). I've made a fictional league/nation set up with lots of clubs. I've set most teams has having a 500 seater, roughly equal reputation. Originally I set it up so the attendance value was higher than the 500 which meant most clubs built a new stadium 2-4 years. I'd set it to 1000-2000 depending on the team. I holidayed about 35 years and ended up with a range of stadiums with most getting attendances in the 1000's, and the more succesful teams getting 5-10k by 2040. This seemed a bit quick though, and not varied enough (with almost all teams building a stadium so soon). I was wanting a more gradual and organic growth to the attendances so I tried again but then set the values at around 250 for the teams. 15 years in and about 4 teams have built new stadiums. Two have downsized! To about 480. And two are building bigger stadiums 2.5k-3k. Every other team is getting about 350. I'm about to try a third time and up the attendance value slightly (350) but are there any other factors that influence attendance beyond the attendance value and team/league rep? Should I up the population of cities slightly?
  7. Thanks, will do. It is from a completely new save. Same edited files and packs etc. but for some reason it hasn't crashed (made it to 2045 so far!). No idea what triggered the other crash so consistently at that date.
  8. I've started the game again, same settings, and go on holiday. It was got past 2031 now. I'm not sure what caused the original dump.
  9. See I struggle with this. On one hand I get what you mean, when there's a new verison out with new things in you want to play it but there's nothing making you do that, and there's nothing to stop you going back to the version you preferred and carrying on with it. It's not the case you have 12 months to play and then the game just stops working. I was really enjoying my FM17 save, and even though FM18 had come out I carried on with it until I reached a point I felt was the 'end' (winning the SPL with the mighty Berwick Rangers). I played it for more than the yearly window. Just because a new version was out didn't mean I had to stop, and the new version didn't change my enjoyment of the old version. I've got people on my steam friends list who play FM12 on a regular basis because they love it. I played FM13 more or less through to FM15. Basically if the version is good enough and the save is good enough then I'm not going to stick to the yearly window just because a new version is out. If I'm enjoying what I've got I'll continue. I know part of the point is that if there was a 2 year cycle more could be done but that, and the reasons for and against, have been debated to death on the forums.
  10. True, a more official SI road map would be welcome
  11. More official responses would be nice, I don't think any of us would be against that. But it's like you said the tone is always going to be an issue as there'll be users that rather than having questions will have assumptions and/or accusations. The more official responses seem to appear in feedback threads which aren't always the most friendly of places. The Ask thread was good. I guess as a community the more we do to help each other and share/debate properly the better the atmosphere and the more likely official responses would be. If there are innaccuracies or conspiracy theories (scripting!) then they need challenging, and if people are spouting vitriolic opinons dressed up as 'All this is true and I speak for the masses' they need challenging. In terms of who to trust I think it's case of using reason, logic and evidence first. Ignore who is saying it and focus on what has been said. If there's no evidence supporting it (maybe it's about something going on under the hood) then the focus can switch more onto who has said it. There are some names that pop up a lot and you can see on past posts where they have got their information from.
  12. To be fair a lot of the questions originally posed by the OP were either opinion based rather than factual, or overly accusatory. They were never going to get a response. The rest were all questions where the views, experience and knowledge of other long term users would have been helpful. There are plenty here who have worked in the games industry, there are plenty who have been in-house or early beta testers who know how it works. There are lots of members of the community who know tons about tactics, ME and the A.I. because of their past conservations with SI, or consulting, or going above and beyond in their own games and experiments. You can see it in some of the responses about the development of the ME. But the OP basically dismissed all of this with the framing of the entire thread.
  13. Uploaded to FTP as Atoll Test precrash SEPT19 2031
  14. Before we start - I realise this is not a vanilla version of the game. I have two edits running - One that adds 4 customs leagues, some cups, lots of teams to Tahiti (including the editing of some oceania nations), and one that adds an annual international league between 6 of those teams. I've been holidaying the game to see how it shapes up and it gets to september 19th, 2031 just fine. But on the 20th it will always crash. I was running a graphics/logo pack I had made but I've also tried it with it removed and the cache cleared, the crash still happens. I've tried to check scheduling but I can't see any competitions being scheduled or rolling over on that date. The league and cup fixtures have already been drawn, even for relevant international qualifiers or are yet to be drawn. I can't see anything special about the date, for that year. I've attached the crash dump, and the two edited files in case they are needed. I understand because it's not a standard save it might not be a priority but I've got my fingers crossed that some light might be shed on it as I'm planning on playing a save using these edits well past the 2031 mark. I'll try to upload the save to the ftp. Atoll Championship Cup 18.fmf FP Tahiti 18 Expansion.fmf FM 2018 v18.1.3.1045020 (2017.12.07 12.44.36).dmp
  15. Oh wait...I mean, they had made a fair point really about value of the game over it's lifespan/hours played compared to initial up front price but okay... Right so if someone disagrees with your set of opinions it is because they are primitive, a child, or part of a sect (inflexible fanboys). But you obviously have none of these qualities - the understanding you've shown of development cycles, profits, pricing and the history of FM is on point, you've been reasonable and I can clearly see you are here for a real debate rather than to just shout your opinion over everyone else ... There we go. You just want to potificate about your personal immovable views on the state of the game. Which is a pity because if you were willing to actually debate and allow room for opinions and experiences other than your own you might have got some answers. Instead you asked a list of questions, didn't like the response and have redrawn the debate as 'Oh no one is actually meant to try to give me an answer/engage with this unless they agree'. Looking forward to this car crash of a thread