rristola

I like to start my career from lower leagues. In my current game my team (in English 8. level) was just promoted, and I had only a few players in team. They seemed to get a lot of CA stars. Even if scout said 'decent 9. level player'. When I started to sign better players, some player's CA stars dropped from 4 to one. So, not that helpful aid for a (my style) manager, or at least in some cases. For me it's just too 'relative' to my own teams players. Might work well when there's a lot of players in team, and changing one player at one time, thou. It would help me, if there was an option, where a player is compared to all players in that league. Finding a player with 3 stars would mean an average player in this league. Why this? To find usable players I need to know how good they are compared to the players in other teams. Only when I have many ones to choose from, I need this current option (if even then). This option could be chosen in game's options, or in game, in 'Scouting' pages. Stars could be given: half - belongs to lower leagues, 1-1,5 - backup, 2-2,5 - decent, 3 - average, 3,5-4 - good, 4,5 - star, 5 - belongs to upper leagues So, a bit like now. PS. Think about it, like situation when I started my current game. I could have 'asked' my scout: "Is this try-out player a good one?" Scout: "Four stars." Me: "So I should sign him?" Scout: "Only for backup!" Confusing!

Exactly. I have thought, that if we talk enough about these problems with managing lower leagues, SI might do something to the game's AI. When I asked you, what kind of problems there are in leagues you're playing, I meant if there are 'conflicts' between AI's (=board) demands and what can be done (like no wage money and no voluntary workers). Whether the AI doesn't even work good enough so, that those leagues are 'playable'. I think also that there are a lot of countries, like in Eastern Europe, which are smaller and/or poorer and those lower leagues could also be more 'playable' with better AI. That could give this game more players, too. SI should be interested. Thanks.

Pretty much so. I tried to create situation, what it could be like when a new manager starts one of his first jobs. Still a job, not a hobby. Part-time staff, non-contract and amateur players. What is your approach?

Yeah, that word absolute is a bit difficult. What I meant was, that every coach and scout would eventually give (closely) as many stars as everybody else (for overall level) - better ones only more quickly. And most important - I think - in star ratings players should be compared to all other players in that level or league or division. Then it is usable knowledge. (Usually scouts' knowledge level of an unattached player is 0% in lower leagues. With new players I need that basic info asap.) In the first letter there's a player, that gets in 'Coaches review' 3,5 golden stars for 'Current ability', whereas in 'Squad comparison' he gets only one. Still it is called the same 'Current ability'. OK, as I have heard, this could be due to chosen tactic and roles for players. And, maybe this is what causes me to go crazy - he gets 3,5 stars, so he should be on the better half of the players in team. He is 'Good County Leagues', while we play one level up because of getting promoted. There he won't be top half. Still he gets 3,5 stars. That's too relative for me.

The problem here is, if game uses the same method (stars) in two different ways without telling it in the info. If there are both 'absolute' and 'relative' or different 'relative' star ratings, there could and should be something like i-button next to the name of the table (or whatever) giving the needed info. One way to handle this would be changing that relativity to consider - not only players in your team - but all players in that division your team is playing. Why - for instance, when just promoted, you can get 'false' sense of your players' level - your recently good ones can become decent or backup, so you should realise it, asap. No stars at all - belongs to lower leagues, half to one - emergency backup, two - decent, three - average, four - good to excellent, five - belongs to upper league. On the other hand that relative comparison could be done more like the way player comparisons are done - using attribute values, not stars. How - I don't know. Why this should be done - there are also leagues which levels aren't as high as English Premier or such, and still there are players (us) wanting to be a manager in them. Like smaller countries top three divisions - there can be semi-pros and/or amateurs included. The rules of this game will have to work for them also! You must have had same problems than me. What have been the worst? Finding staff, players,...? Board not understanding...? What is your wage budget? Do you get any money? I like to start my game with the lowest licence (National C), and being a Sunday League footballer. Style - Tactician. This way I got a job from English 8. level division, from a team doomed to relegation. Got a decent budget, have been able to find players who are unattached or non-contract (and willing to sign). Coaches are also players, thou, Can't even use them as backups, so bad they are. But willing to continue as coaches aso. when in reserve team. Worst problem so far has been finding decent physios. Ones, whos physio attribute is about 7, want all 300 E per month. Board won't allow. With these league mods I use also realism mods by Daveincid. Have you found any other mods useful, especially for the lower leagues?

First, thanks for answering. This is obvious. But, is it so, that if I get scout's info of a player saying 'his XXX level is 4-12', then a better scout could say 'his XXX level is 6-10'. Or could it be, that a 'bad' scout could say 'level 4-10' and the correct value would be 3? Outside scouts review? Another, do you FrazT know, what caused that in the attached picture (in first)? Knowledge is 60%, and still 'Current ability' and 'Possible ability' are different in 'Coaches review' and in 'Squad comparison'. First is, of course, review from one coach, but what about the another?

First, sorry, that I have been away from this discussion (that I started). I still am, and always will be, a bit confused with these star ratings. But, when there are scouts and coaches, and there can be professionals and novices in both, I just have to take it as a fact, that different ratings occur. Maybe not the perfect way to calculate those stars? We even have these 'Squad comparison' tables. I don't know who (and how) makes them. One thing increasing difficulty can be, that I like to play lower leagues. When I started my newest game I had only 3-4 players in my team when pre-season started. That gives a 'false' sense of average level of your players, especially when trying to find your first new players. Perhaps scouts could try to compare those players to the approximated average level of all teams' (in that division) players in that position? One thing. Do you find those verbal reviews in 'Coach report', after 'Current ability' (like "Good XXX League player") reliable, or are those just like stars - believe or not?

I'm pretty sure he had to be 'free transfer / unattached' when I called him to a try-out. A while ago I noticed that in 'Scouted List' there are more of these 'wrongly' reviewed players. Like, a player gets C+ and 3,5 stars while in review it says he's already ready to play one division level higher than we are now, and in future even three levels higher! 22 years old, unattached. Only C+! While another player gets A and 2,5 stars now (and potential 4,5) and in review his current level is one division level LOWER than we are now, and in future gets only into our level. Still, he gets A! Why? My scouts have (Adapt, JPA, JPP) 7, 10, 10, and 14, 9, 8. Thou, they seem to get "all" other players' reviews right!

Devs, I just found an interesting thing with these 'wrong' CA's. First, I have only started a new game, and now is pre-season going. From team 'History' I can find that this team got just promoted. All these weird stars counts have been with players, that are suggested to be 'XXX League Level', where that XXX is the league this team was promoted from. Can it be that games AI just can't understand that team is promoted before new season has started (or first game of the season played)??? Some kind of a wrongly set up rules of how to calculate those stars? But with players from other league levels this star count has to be adjusted or recalculated, so there is no problem... Weird.

Thanks for answering. This page is 'Coach Report', and should be the best review of that player (compared to other players in our team). Right? CA in the upper left corner (review) should, of course, be the same as is in the lower right corner (Squad Comparison). Right? The skin draws all that info to the screen - how can those two numbers be different to each other? OK, this isn't a huge problem, but pretty annoying when it happens. Must check everything twice...

First, I use mods, but they shouldn't do anything like this. In my game I play in English 8. level division. I'm trying out several players, and usually 4 stars CA get those players who are capable of playing in 7. level division. Here I have a player who has 3,5 stars CA, but is classified as 'Leading County Leagues' (9. level). What...? I know that this star based classification is related to the level I'm coaching, but this player seems to have another classification system ;-) More confusing is, that down right in 'Squad Comparison' this same player gets only 1 star CA, which seems right. Any explanations? Guesses? A bug?

Not sure, if this is the correct topic where to ask this, but,,, at least you should know. I'm using some league mods with FM22, and some of them aren't updated to work with newest database. What kinds of info are there in league fmf? Why it even has to be updated`? League structures or rules don't change(?). When I start a new game, what will I miss if I use database 22.1 and compatible fmf's, and not database 22.4 aso.? Thanks.