Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Grez

Members+
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    50

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

51 "Houston, we have a problem"

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Grez
    Nothing that I'm aware of, although I've never looked up ways to cheat so if there was anything I probably wouldn't know. The host can definitely cheat through the use of an editor, but the other players don't have that option. What I would say is there's a lot unethical things that you can do that isn't necessarily "cheating" but is still a massive advantage that some people might take advantage of. For example looking up wonderkid lists or online player stats to help with transfers, pushing transfer debt to ridiculous limits, downloading optimised premade tactics, deliberately unsettling opponents players before important matches etc. But in terms of actual cheating I can't think of anything.
  2. Grez
    Don't think so. Haven't played a multiplayer since last year's game, but even on that version when we had a player disconnect and have to rejoin they'd have to spectate, and the score continued from what it was when they left. I would assume the current version does the same.
  3. Grez
    I suspect there's little desire from SI to increase difficulty. The game is almost certainly balanced around new players who don't know how to play yet, and I really don't blame SI for that. The worst possible outcome for SI is a new player picking up the game for free during their end of year promotion, losing every game, getting fired, and then never coming back - so these players need to be protected and made to feel like they're doing well so that they keep coming back. I think the issue is not that the game is too easy, it's that there's only one difficulty level. The current difficulty is absolutely fine for new players, or for players who just want to play out a fantasy, but it's not fine for experienced players who want a challenge. I don't think you can ever cater to everybody with only one difficulty level. One thing I disagree with is that AI is the problem. The AI has flaws, but that's not what sets the difficulty. In reality this is a numbers game - It's wages, transfer fees and budgets. It's club reputations, team cohesion and tactical familiarity. It's player attributes, morale and condition - it's all numbers - so as such the difficulty can be changed by adjusting the numbers. Want a slightly harder game? Make player-managed clubs slightly worse at all of these aspects - Imagine if your player interactions resulted in slightly worse morale, your training was slightly less effective, your team cohesion dropped more from new signings, your players demand more wages, your players play as if they have lower attributes, your fatigue rises faster and condition drops quicker etc - There's dozens of scenarios that are decided by comparing and incrementing numbers, so if you apply a difficulty modifier to these calculations you modify the difficulty. No complicated AI changes, no changes to the way the game flows, no need to alienate new players - just an optional modifier on a few numbers that would allow infinite difficulty levels to keep everybody entertained.
  4. Grez
    It's always happened to an extent, I've had AI managers complain and had players recalled on previous versions of FM due to players being in the incorrect position or role, or just due to their playing time. Whether it happens more or less this year I don't know though. To be honest I don't mind it though, because I would do exactly the same. It's one of the reasons I dislike loaning players to the AI - they often train players badly, play them out of position etc - I'd recall them too. I wish we could set stronger rules for loans, for example sending a player out with a "Suggested individual training plan", or at least see what individual training a player is being given.
  5. Grez started following Preview shows incorrect delivery location for deep free kicks #2 and #3 , Jamaica league - High World Reputation players , Finances - Increasing season expectations with a negative transfer budget can actually REDUCE your budget and 1 other
  6. Grez
    Hi, Noticing a lot of players from the Jamaican league popping up as higher than expected world reputation (around 2 stars, dunno what that is numerically) when trying to recruit. It's particularly noticeable when trying to trial free players/end of contract players because sorting by "World Reputation" is a good indicator of which players are worth trialing or scouting. Note - the attached database was set up on FM24 using "Advanced" database size and adding extra players with a setting something like below: I'm potentially seeing more Jamaican players than average partially due to this database setup - but it doesn't explain why they're so high reputation, and if it was purely based on database setup I'd expect to see a more varied list of players from other non-playable leagues, not just Jamaica and the playable leagues. There's a large number of players in this division competing in reputation with players from leagues like the Eredivisie / Jupiler Pro League etc. which doesn't feel right. Take a look in the player search on the attached save - if you scroll down you'll see dozens of players from the Jamaican league. I'm not sure if this is FM24 specific as I recall seeing a lot of Jamaican players on a save before but I don't remember when. Cheers, Grez
  7. Grez
    Hi, Another issue with negative budgets following on from this odd scenario. Later into the season now and the board has offered my friend the option to adjust his season expectations. This usually means that you agree to do better in the league or in a cup competition and as a reward you are given more transfer funds and wages to spend. However - when increasing expectations with a negative transfer budget the transfer budget actually goes DOWN. In this case the transfer budget went from minus 203k to minus 283k. The wages went up as usual. One obvious explanation would be that the logic may just increase the budget by a chosen percentage, which when applied to a negative number goes further into the negative. Save attached. Cheers, Grez
  8. Grez
    Yeah I've had a look at adding debt before and it could definitely give you a tricky start. I figured once you get past the initial debt you're just going back into the normal flow of things though, and I was looking for something that adds a more permanent challenge to the save (which is why I looked at chairmen attributes/resources). I guess if you made the loan payments persist long term that would make it a more permanent problem though. That gives me an interesting idea - adding debt repayments that increase every year, so even though you're growing and improving the club every year, the debt repayments are increasing too. It would be a race between how quickly you can improve the club and raise money vs how quickly you fall into administration due to the ever-increasing debt. I like the sound of this for a save idea, it'll just be hard to know what level to set the debt payments at so that they're not irrelevant, but also not impossible to deal with.
  9. Grez
    Ah yeah I meant 20 interference, my mistake! Custom board objectives could be interesting, I'll have to take a look at that too. Thanks for the suggestion!
  10. Grez
    How do I create the worst possible chairman? Once the official pre-game editor is released for FM24 I'm looking at creating a challenge save where I give my club the worst possible chairman, and give the other teams in the league a perfect chairman, hopefully creating a save where the league is hard to climb due to the mismatch in club finances. A chairman has 4 attributes Resources Patience Interference Business Resources, Patience and Interference seem fairly straightforward - putting them all at 1 should give me a poor chairman who likes to interfere and fires me at the first sign of failure, but I'm not entirely sure what "Business" does. Does 1 Business mean we'll be poorer as a club due to less sponsorship/merchandising sales? Does 20 Business mean he runs the club like a business rather than a football club - so it doesn't let me invest in players or put the club into any debt? I suspect setting it to 1 is probably the correct move, I Just want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding what the attribute does. Also - is there anything else I should consider when editing the club/board members? Cheers
  11. Grez
    Hi, My friend has sent me this odd scenario after gaining promotion on a Belgian beta save. He was given a large negative transfer budget (500k negative with only 35% transfer value retained, so it requires approx 1.5m in sales), which is a lot for this level of football. He was simultaneously given a large positive wage budget (~15k/week spare, which over the year is almost 800k). So in actual fact the budget overall should be positive, 500k transfer deficit but 800k in wage surplus - 300k overall budget surplus. The game doesn't allow moving any of the wages into transfer budget, so it is forcing him to sell most of the squad in order to clear a budget that shouldn't really be a problem. He's unable to sell some players, so it might not even be possible to clear the budget. Once the budget is resolved, there will then be a TON of spare wages to spend, so he'll be able to go on a huge signing spree. The negative budget blocks even signing free transfers due to agent fees/signing bonuses requiring an upfront cost (unless you lock them at £0 which I guess is possible but a bit of a weird interaction). It makes no sense to give a negative transfer budget at the same time as a positive wage budget. I'm fine with the concept of having a negative budget and having to sell players, but having to destroy the squad to then have a huge wage budget afterwards and sign a ton of new players makes no sense at all. I don't think negative transfer budgets should happen if there's money spare in the wage budget to cover it. The following scenarios would have made more sense: 0 transfer budget, but 300k spare in wages (6k/week) - In this scenario the wages cover the transfer deficit and we continue as normal with a smaller wage budget Or if the club specifically wants 1.5m in savings/sales before making signings: 245k transfer deficit (therefore 700k in sales still to make) and 0 spare wages (So the wages covered the first 800k of the money that needs to be raised, and then the rest needs to be made from sales) Either option makes a lot more sense than the scenario that has happened. Save attached. Cheers, Grez
  12. Grez
    You're allowed 25 players, BUT.. 4 have to be trained at Rangers 4 more have to be trained in Scotland (any club, including Rangers) 2 have to be goalkeepers So because you only have 5 players who were trained in Scotland, the remaining 3 slots in your squad can ONLY be filled by players who were trained in Scotland. Because you only have 2 players trained at Rangers, 2 of those 3 players must be players trained at Rangers. Because Tom Lawrence was trained in England from 15-21 he's not eligible, so the squad is considered full. If you don't have enough players to fill the home-grown slots you just have to leave them empty, which is why it complains when you try to add Tom Lawrence. You have to place extra value on home-grown players. It's worth specifically scouting for home-grown players and keeping hold of them, even if they're only average squad players. Fortunately for you most good Scottish players come from either Celtic or Rangers so there will be a lot of decent options out there. I recently did a save at St Mirren and had a tough time finding anybody at all!
  13. Grez
    Hi, When setting up multiple deep free kicks the delivery location on the preview map is incorrect for deep free kick #2 and #3. See attached image - Deep free kick #2 is set to "short" yet on the preview the delivery is clearly not going short. Same applies to deep free kick #3. This is not only applicable to "short" free kicks, the preview is wrong in all cases. Save game also attached. Cheers, Grez
  14. Grez
    Sounds like Oostende is correct then. I just thought it was worth mentioning when I saw multiple clubs falling into administration. Do we know if the Aspire Academy are looking to sell Eupen too? It feels a little weird that they allow the club to go into administration so easily in-game given it has been a part of the Qatari football project - we all know Qatar can easily afford to cover the debts if they want to. I'm sure the debt is correct if their financial documents say so, it just feels more likely that they'd bail out the club rather than letting it fall into administration - unless you know something about them looking to end that partnership.
  15. Grez
    Hi OlivierL, The issue I've seen is slightly different but does affect at least a couple of clubs in Belgium that I'm aware of. I can explain what happens: Oostende and Eupen both start with large bank loans (£5-10m+, which is a lot for Belgium) and large chairman loans. The bank loans are set up to be paid over 1 year only, which they can't afford. The repayments of these bank loans cause these clubs to go into £5-10m+ of debt during their first season, which makes it almost inevitable they enter administration. The administration emails/news items then state that the clubs are in £40-50m+ of debt because the chairman loans are included in the total figure. I suspect that the loan terms are set up incorrectly and should be paid over a longer, more manageable term, but I'm not an expert on these clubs irl finances. Cheers, Grez
  16. Grez
    Anyone else seeing multiple clubs go into administration? Not sure if it's a bug because I don't know enough about Belgian football, maybe these clubs are actually in financial trouble, but it seems very suspicous because I've almost never seen clubs go into administration on FM before. Oostende went into admin after 1 season with £38m of debt. Google does suggest they're in some trouble - but administration so quickly, and such a large amount of debt? Eupen seems very suspicious - they actually made a profit this season in game and their costs were only a couple of million in total, but they're in administration with over £55m of debt after only 1 season. Google suggests they're owned by Qataris after having some debt issues around a decade ago - so it doesn't really add up for them to be in such big trouble. Any Belgian football experts know anything about these clubs finances?
×
×
  • Create New...