NineCloudNine

Yes agreed - this is why you are a mod and I am just a bloke on the internet. I have no knowledge of or insight into SI's developer process or team. It would have been better had I illustrated my post with a more generic example rather than specificlly using SI/FM. That said, I am old and grizzled enough to have seen what I described above far too many times to count. I believe I can reliably spot a bloated Frankenstein's monster of module tagged onto workaround onto module onto tinkering onto workaround onto module. So while you are correct that I don't know first-hand that this is what FM has become, I'd be willing to bet multiples of Real Madrid's transfer budget on it being the case.

Thanks! I’ll add a bit if I may. Very specifically, technical debt is the extra work that will have to be done in the future as a result of a time-saving shortcut now. So under time pressure an SI developer working on a new feature will bolt on a new module and use workarounds to connect it to the existing code. At some point in the future another developer will be tasked with making changes to that module and discovers the workaround used by the original developer, who has now left. The extra time that the new developer has to spend understanding the workaround is technical debt, which now has to be paid off. Of course, this extra time was not factored in to the their project schedule so either the changes are delivered late, extra resource has to be found, the work canned or a new workaround has to be found, adding more techical debt for some poor future developer to discover. Do that across a dozen or more game systems for an annual release of a game whose original code may now be decades old. You end up with code that literally no-one fully understands and where changes are far more difficult than they should be and may have unpredictable and unexpected knock-on effects on what should be unrelated modules. Given enough time the accumulated technical debt (the time/money it would take to fix the problems) is less than the cost of building it all again from scratch. That seems to be the point SI has reached with the ME, hence Unity. What isn’t clear - because SI aren’t saying - is whether this is also true of modules like player interaction, AI squad building, transfers, 101 other elements and the interface in general, all of which have clearly accumulated so much technical debt that it is questionable whether SI can ever fix them while being committed to an annual release cycle in which new features are considered mandatory.

You’ve used the phrase ‘technical debt’ a few times in this context. That will be familiar to anyone who works in software or possibly project management, but perhaps not to a wider audience. It’s a really interesting concept which IMO explains many of the frustrations expressed here. I’m happy to expand on it, but as it was your phrase and clearly something you have a professional understanding of, you should go first if you wish to .

Just on this, if you mean by “random” that the schedule should not include clumps of similar blocks of fixtures or back-to-backs, then you’re falling into a common cognitive trap. Did you know that ‘shuffle’ features on music players are not random? They used to be, but then people got three tracks in a row from the same artist, or two from one album, or repeats, and complained. So now shuffle doesn’t allow that sort of repetition, so it’s no longer random (because what comes up next is influenced by what came before and what is due to come after) but people think it is. Getting what you seem to want a ‘random’ fixture list to look like actually takes a lot of planning - which is why all those fixture scheduling options exist in the editor. Deducing whether the output is in fact random (insofar as the fixture plan allows) is a pretty difficult task that needs a lot more than a handful of odd examples posted here, however obvious the problem might seem to our unreliable, pattern-seeking minds.

A couple of additional observations: Play out of defence and distribute to defenders seems odd to combine with 2xCDs. Could one at least be a BPD? Throw it long also seems to contradict that intention. Far too many restrictive PIs. Dribble less and work ball into box are odd to combine with more expressive. I’d suggest removing all your PIs then slowly adding them back as needed. Do you want to play through the midfield or down the flanks? The shape says through the middle, wide FB roles suggest flanks. The ME likes to use the flanks because there’s usually more space there, but if you want to direct play through your DLP and AM you have to force the game narrow. I play a similar 4-3-2-1 and use 2xFB-S and an AM-A.

Feels like he isn’t getting much support behind him (IFB vs FB on the other side) and although IF/Mez looks like they should gel, my experience is that they try to occupy the same spaces. I’d be tempted to try a Carrilero in place of the Mezzala, to offer some wide support. I usually play my AP in CM strata on attack because on support they sit deeper than you might expect (PPMs make a difference here too). IW on attack also cuts in so early they may as well be an IF. An actual Winger might create more width and space for your IF to attack. At the moment you have four players lurking around the edge of the box and no-one properly attacking it.

I've had the best success with "a lot of competition in your position", as long as (1) it's true and (2) the player isn't better than the other options. The others seem reasonably clear to me. Not quite ready = not good enough yet (I'd only say that to a younger player); Not in form = not playing well; Not available = injured a lot.

I think to an extent this depends who we are talking about. People generally lump together quite different players in these sorts of discussions. For example Totti, Baggio, Del Piero were forwards who definitely did not start in midfield and move up. Riquelme started high and moved side to side more than coming deep. Rivaldo played much of his career as what in FM we’d call an IW. Same for Neymar. De Bruyne has pretty much always been a midfielder. I’d say Deco was always a midfielder too. Same for modern attacking playmakers like Pedri and Iniesta. So that’s a pretty wide range of playing styles to categorise as “a classic #10”. Zidane is probably the most complete all-round player IMO. I can definitely see him fitting your description of pushing forward from a deeper starting point. But I still think it is a stretch to describe him as a CM. Where I very much agree with you is on the power of an AP-A or a CM-A as the middle of a CM strata three, with aggressive instructions and PPMs. I have done the same and get a tremendous goal/assist output from them plus (importantly!) some exhilarating driving dribbles and the occasional fantasy goal. Your analysis of how to make this work is excellent. I see you are also using WBs and a Libero. That’s interesting too. I combine my AP-A with a back 4 (2WBs) and a Halfback DM. This is defensively stable and gives good space for the AP to work. I found that using a Libero or IWBs tended to bunch the midfield. The downside of the WB/HB route is that the match engine does like to go wide, presumably because that’s where the space is. So you have to force play through the centre with instructions (and a narrow pitch). Using a AP-A role rather than CM-A helps here because they naturally draw the ball.

I've edited the Colombian league to award the title to the team that's first in the combined table. The opening and closing tournaments still happen, but their results are not included in league or club histories. I have deleted the league histories of the opening and closing tournaments. When I run 2023 the entry is correctly added to the league and winning club's history, However, the winners are not shown in the league history from 2002-2022, which are the years that the opening/closing structure has been in place. This despite there being one contiguous league history with identically formatted entries from 1948 to 2022. The game/editor seems to 'know' that something different started in 2002 but I cannot see where. Any ideas please?

By moving your attacking playmaker to CM strata you are brilliantly making the point that the classic #10 has changed. The players you list would now be midfielders (Zidane, Deco) or deep-lying forwards (Totti, Del Piero). No-one disputes that players such as this can be successful, it’s just that they rarely do it ‘in the hole’ behind strikers. It’s that specific classic role that has largely been squeezed out of the modern game, not the type of player. The exception I think is Riquelme. Too slow, too immobile. Might work in a weaker league, but would be crushed by modern pressing and be a passenger when defending. Try making a success of Joao Felix as an example!

That, I think, is the intention.

Great info! Thanks, that was an interesting read. I don’t think anything in that case obviously covers conditional fees. However, this did catch my eye: That seems to clearly cover the sort of deal structure the OP describes. However we each got there, we all agree that a deal structured like that should absolutely not be used to avoid sell-on fee obligations.

In the database for each country (or it might be each league, I’ll check later) there is a page listing typical wages for players by CA band. These do not, I believe, act as absolute caps (they definitely don’t at the top end) but I think they do constrain the wages typically available in each league. This is a bit of a crude mechanism but it does prevent too much wage disparity and allows the game to reflect reasonably accurately the vast differences in spending power between countries. Players increasing their demands with each negotoation round is, on the other hand, nuts.

I have no idea how to interpret that!

Either description is fine. To me the solution is for AI teams not to accept deals structured this way, because they would not do so IRL. Changing the way sell-on clauses work to include percentages of conditional fees is not the answer, because that’s not how such clauses work IRL.

I do tend to agree and also appreciate you writing detailed, considered posts. I would add though that there is a large space between the detailed interaction some players expect, and absolutely zero communication of any sort, which is what we get.

I'd like to stop/start certain competitions adding a record to player achievements. I am sure I have done this in the past but I cannot find what box to tick/untick. Assistance greatly appreciated, thank you!

This is - like almost all fan/player/board communication modules - hard to work out. There must be some reason the algorithm here has caused the fans to be grumpy. They obviously thought you should have done better. There’s little indication as to why - “lack of effort” seems to suggest something more than the result but doesn’t tell you what they wanted as well as the result. I don’t mind unrealistic or even unreasonable fan expectations, but it is frustrating how often FM throws up an interaction or reaction without giving any way for the player to know what they did wrong or what the game expected. There may be an explanation for this - that’s what my suggestions were trying to get to - but there’s no way of knowing with the little information the game offers.

That is the risk. Which is why deals structured that way (low/no fee with high conditional clauses) are very rare or non-existent in real life. Nor do AI teams ever structure a deal that way. So the problem/risk you describe only exists when a human FM player chooses to structure a deal that way, knowing that the AI won’t laugh them out if the room in the way a real life club would.

You know the answer to this.

What were your other results against them? How much better than them are you? A single 2-1 win doesn’t on its own complete that objective.

The Libero, even on defend, is surprisingly aggressive. I suspect a DM-D will actually be the more secure side. I’d thus be tempted to put the Libero on the left so the DM moves to the right. As your BBM should move up more than the Carrilero, that also gives the Libero more room. But a lot depends on the players because PPMs are very important in dictating how a Libero, BBM, WB and Carr play in the role.

The DM will move whichever way is needed to accomodate the L moving up so in that sense it makes no difference. Using a Libero with two WB is punchy. You’ll be left with one defender back and a bunched midfield. Could equally be genius, or a disaster .

That’s a Halfback. It’s one of my favourite FM roles. Starts as a DM out of possession but in posession drops between the CBs, who move wide to make a back three allowing the FBs to push up aggressively. Sergio Busquets was the master of this in the early Guardiola era. De Jong played a lot of his early Ajax career at CB so was a natural at HB. He doesn’t do it for Barcelona because Xavi only plays with one attacking FB and has the other as what FM would call an IFB tucking in. I trained Giacomo Faticanti at Roma to be a HB with plays long passes and switches to other flank PPMs. He turned into a quarterback launching missile passes around the field from the back. It was awesome.

The replies here are like the in-game social media response to anything at all: ”It’s awesome!” ”It’s terrible!” ”It’s neither awesome nor terrible!”