RBKalle
-
Posts
8,483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by RBKalle
-
-
1 minuto fa, XaW ha scritto:
I hereby invite @johnsie to try to win the Champions League with Undrið FF of the Faroe Islands like I do without every buying a player and only rely on youth intakes. I still have only reached the EL 2nd qualifying round, so I can confirm this game is not easy!
Hey!
It's MY club!
0 -
It depends on what kind of save you're after...
If it's a LL one, you may want to load as many divisions as you can in your nation of choice, plus a handful of Top Nations' top tiers to keep the gameworld "alive" and for further expanding on when/if you'll have made it to the top yourself.
If it's a Journeyman save, or a One-Club Save at a high level, you may want to ignore lower divisions and focus on more top-tiers leagues in order to get more clubs to manage or to make business with.
BUT
Be careful because if you load too many leagues/nations, you may get a very "static" gameworld, because there are more players than clubs, so selling players will be tougher (and cheaper).
On the other hand if you load too few nations, the transfers market will go NUTS because of the relatively few good players available, meaning even an average Championship player may attract the interest of an EPL side that wouldn't even give him a second look in a more "crowded" save.I think SI should implement a "guideline" for setting up a new game. In addition to the Game Speed/Performance, we'd get a Star Rating for "Gameworld Balance", warning us when we load too many/too few players for the db's size.
1 -
11 ore fa, prot651 ha scritto:
Maybe they should stop working on the match engine as it's getting worse every year . FM17 was pretty good , well balanced and exciting but this year's is bad and very boring .
Every edition has its own idiosyncrasies and annoying quirks and bugs.
fm17 had low crosses on the far post, 18 had the 3 strikers,19 has lethargic strikers and overachieving wingers.
Crossing hit or miss patch after patch for years... Defending has been erratic and prone to the same inexplicable lapses in concentration.
No ME was perfect. And it's gonna be hard to have a balanced one without a total rewrite also of other modules
0 -
1 ora fa, RoversRob ha scritto:
You say you searched 15-16 year olds and out of hundreds of regens only one met my criteria. You didn't. In fact your post said you were searching 14-15 year olds (no idea now whether you were searching 14-15 or 15-16, but it doesn't matter), and your parameters were not following my guidelines form the OP. In fact, the most relevant search you made was the following:
"Players aged 14-15 with CA >100 AND PA <130: ONE"
That search isn't going to help you with the circumstances I am finding, because you are excluding players above 130 PA (which is the bracket most of these "problematic" intakes I am finding fall into).
The starting search I did was to put whatever findings in perspective... Like "there are N players aged 14-15 currently in the test save, and X out of those N fit these or those criteria". E.g. 20 out of 100 is not the same as 20 out of 500... But I shouldn't even being explaining that.
Anyway, about your main criticism... I should have probably set a higher upper limit than PA 130 but, guess what, there is only ONE MORE player that sort of proves your point, with CA113/PA137.
I'll give you that if I search for 16yo players only (so with at least one year of in-game life), there are like a dozen of players with relatively low PA already close to their maximum potential (CA-PA difference <30). But the thing is, without knowing their original CA, that gap may have been more noticeable and fair.
So a 110/135 16yo could have been a rather acceptable 98/135 15yo when he was created
1 ora fa, RoversRob ha scritto:All I'm saying mate, is from your very first post you've hardly contributed anything worthwhile to the actual relevant data I'm finding, other than casting your opinion on how realistic my CA/PA scenario is compared to real life players and youth development, quoting names such as Francis Jeffers and Didier Drogba, followed by making presumptions that I am making this post due to being unhappy about not uncovering a Wayne Rooney every season, coupled with a hint of "must be database editing".
Well, I'm sorry you find my data not relevant and my contribution not worthwhile... Maybe because it's not backing up your point?
You asked for data and I've given you my findings on a particular save. It's anecdotal, I'll even give you that it wasn't made on Intake Day either (don't have one, and don't have time now to create one for that purpose). But if out of several hundreds of players age 14-15, only TWO vaguely fit your criteria, while 99.5% are either low CA-high PA or simply awful lower-league fodder who'll never improve significantly, what should I tell you?
1 ora fa, RoversRob ha scritto:You also make contradictory statements like this:
They are absolutely NOT contradictory!
* FM produces many players with reasonable starting CA and HIGH PA, meaning a 17-18yo will likely be able to feature a lot in a Top Club's Starting XI. Think of something like CA115/PA165 upon entering the gameworld. Within one or two seasons, the player will be around 125-130CA, therefore more than ready to get serious first team action.
* Conversely, players with average PA (like 120-130 for EPL sides) are generally unlikely to also have high CA. So a 75CA/125PA is still a common model.
1 ora fa, RoversRob ha scritto:To close this off mate, this post is not about your opinion, ego or anything else. It is about me getting 120+ CA players on a regular basis in this particular youth intake, with the vast majority (more testing showing my OP is not 100% the case) showing no potential for improvement. I will be doing more testing and revealing much more data, so if you are interested to see it, stick around. If you can't believe me when I say I am using no editors or skewed database, then this post isn't for you as everything I present will be too easy for you to dismiss if it doesn't follow your own experience.
If you want to contribute (which honestly, I would appreciate), wait til your next youth intake, save, reload, use search parameters CA 120+, max age 16. Newgens only, no 16 year olds that have been developing in France or Germany since they were age 14.
Apologies if I am sounding an arse, but really mate - I just posted this here to show people the data, not get into a discussion on five different fronts to cover 5 different topics.
Cold data can't be about opinions or egos (whose ego anyway?!).
You came in presenting what many will (and did) tell you it's rather unusual. We've been debating newgens for years around here and I can honestly say it's the first time I've read about your scenario.
People either moan about newgens been too good on average or about not getting a decent newgen in 50 reloads despite top-level facilities and staff. Your point can be summed up as "newgens are too average", which, again, is a first.
Wanna upload your save so we can test it ourselves instead of trying to recreate it?
0 -
38 minuti fa, keylertage ha scritto:
We are perfectly free to avoid the editor and choose a difficult club in a difficult league, and set further restrictions like a Youth Challenge.
Yeah, but we shouldn't be forced to go to such great lengths in order to keep the game difficult for a couple of extra seasons before the AI's weaknesses kick in and destroy any semblance of challenge.
38 minuti fa, keylertage ha scritto:What the casuals choose to do and post on social media is not something that need bother us in the slightest.
And I think you're so so wrong about that!
Au contraire, it matters a lot more than what WE "hardcores" choose. We'd play the game almost regardless, be it the easiest most pedestrian "buy 5 Wonderkids, click Continue til you're bored with winning Quintuples" experience or a frustrating, Dark Souls-esque exercise in gaming masochism where even the most insignificant piece of silverware is an epic success.
But as long as the Joe Q. Player wants to show off his impressive run in 2022-23 CL with former Vanarama side Bumfluff County or a 465-games undefeated streak with FC Moneybags, obtained by downloading tactics, reloading, using wonderkids shortlists and assorted shortcuts, rest assured SI won't put their neck on the line by trying something revolutionary, daring and ultimately risky. And, just to be clear, I don't blame them for that one bit!
So yeah, as long as the biggest portion of the customer base will be happy with the current philosophy, there's no need to change it.
0 -
1 ora fa, RoversRob ha scritto:
@RBKalle You can maintain your personal and unfounded opinion that I've modded or edited all you like. I have not. I've also not looked at the numbers you just made in that post mate, but again ill point out, Im only referring to newgens that just came out of youth intake with a 120+ CA. Not all regens across the game with random 100 CA stats after who knows how many months have been in game.
Chill out pal...
I was just ASKING, because frankly your findings go against not one but two rather common "norms" in FM youth intake:
1) 15-16yo players ready for Championship/Low EPL football are extremely rare to get in Youth Intakes
2) 15-16yo players with such CA are usually Wonderkids with very high PABasically you've been reporting a double subversion of how Youth Intakes generally go, which made me wonder whether you may have "enhanced" your youth setup... And since I've at times dabbled in editing for research/curiosity purposes, I know for a fact not even a 10000 Reputation club with state-of-the-art facilities and top-notch youth recruitment in Big Nation with 200 Youth Rating can guarantee First-Team level players in every intake.
It may take several reloads in such "ideal" (and unrealistic) conditions to get one "Rooney" and a handful of "Welbecks", "Januzajs" and "Machedas". But the bulk of the intake will still consist of players you'll either cut right away or will keep in the U19 side as filler til their contract runs out (or a League Two side signs them).
The odds of a CA120/PA130 player showing up at 15-16 in youth intakes in a Top Nation are minimal for the aforementioned reasons.
BTW, the fact you didn't even bother to read and understand the numbers I took the time to research tells me a lot about what you really expect from this thread... People telling you "you're right! It's broken!".
Which isn't gonna happen. Not because we're all asskissers (dude, I've been among the most vocal critics of a lot of FM's aspects...) but because we know what to expect, what is "normal" and what is, let's say, unusual.And your scenario is very unusual.
Also, I looked at 15-16 players, so players generated in the current season's intake. And if out of hundrers of freshly generated newgens, only ONE player is fitting your criteria, what does it mean? That it's not as common as you think... And that you're either experiencing a statistical anomaly (to the point of drawing the same lottery numbers 10 times in a row) or you're making a mountain out of a molehill...
0 -
22 ore fa, RoversRob ha scritto:
*Edit* So I just started loading more games to try and push this point, and the pattern remains consistent. Over 3 saves, several more 120/130 CA intakes with the same virtually non-existent increase in PA. I'm not going to bother with more screenshots, feel like the first should be enough.
Is it the default database? No edits?
To be honest, I've never had this problem, but then again, I've never gone around snooping other clubs intakes, so I can only comment on what I've seen happening at my clubs. And I've never had many ready-made players, regardless of their Potential.
Well, actually that happened in my Faroes save, but because ANY player with 50CA was first team material for the first couple of years... Still, nowhere near the 120CA/125PA 15yo English players you seem to keep on getting.Which, I maintain, is very weird and likely the outcome of some "modding". Usually a standard youth intake has 1 player with passable CA and higher PA, a handful of low-CA, average PA, and a dozen of no-hopers. Every now and then you get the odd Supertalent, but if he's 110CA, odds are his PA will be much much higher.
Anyway, out of curiosity, I've loaded an old test save to crunch some numbers...
Total players aged 14 and 15: 436
Players aged 14-15 with CA >50 AND PA >100: 159
Players aged 14-15 with CA >100 AND PA <130: ONE
Players aged 14-15 with PA-CA Difference <10: 34. Highest CA among those is 44 (PA 51)
With Difference <20 there are 22 more players, only TWO with PA >100 (85/104 and 82/101. Oddly enough they, and the aforementioned ONE are all from Herta Berlin's Youth Setup...So, in a mostly typical savegame (loaded the Top Five nations), there are only a handful of 15yo players who are vaguely ready for first team football without much room for improvement.
Not saying you're lying, but either you've tampered with the editor or you're getting a series of very very odd and extreme events.
0 -
10 ore fa, BMNJohn ha scritto:
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.
It's still an interesting digression...
Having played a lot with additional databases for lower leagues/nations, I'm convinced FM just can't go "lower" than the original setup.
Once you're in the <50 CA territory, the system falls apart, and the lower you get the more irrelevant attributes differences get. Which, AFAICT, it's exactly the opposite of real life works. A SLIGHTLY faster/more technical/more creative player at a Tier 7 level can indeed turn his team's fortunes around. While at the very top of the pyramid, a "18" and a "19" are much closer.
So it'd be exponential to an extent, but I doubt it is.
And that's Tangent #2 in this thread
10 ore fa, BMNJohn ha scritto: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.
In this case though, Reputation Manager is a good thing because it prevents Ai from scooping every generated player with good PA and workable CA.
Of course a Malay talent wouldn't end up on the radar of European teams and would likely have, say, Qatar or Japan as the best career path possible. HOWEVER in FM, human managers would be all over him, given the right scouting setup and they'd sign him for peanuts, KNOWING he'll be a serviceable rotation option/backup to resell.
Because in the end, his attributes are all that matters (to the game). Reputation is, for once, a much needed spanner in the works
9 ore fa, enigmatic ha scritto:The idea of "subjective", "relative" or "variable" displays of attributes is ultimately a separate one (you can have coaches correctly represent attribute values as stars and incorrectly represent them as numbers) but I can't see the average player seeing it as an improvement to see their players' talent levels magically dropping on the day they complete the purchase, or for it to be even more difficult to distinguish between the players in a middling top division where most attributes are in the 12-14 range because there's also a 2 point margin for error on everything.
After all, FMers on here have enough issues with a "coach's opinion" of a player because it's relative and sometimes changes...
But that's because, to put it mildly, many FM players don't understand an easy concept like "relative skills". And most games aren't helping them understand it either.
I can be the best salesman in my small company and get promoted to sales manager, but there's a solid chance that a random dude working at a much bigger company could outsell me on his worst day, despite me being on my best day.
I've seen it happening in school a lot: the class/school's resident "genius" turned out being just another average student once he moved "up" the education ladder...
The same should happen in FM, as it happens to real player.
9 ore fa, enigmatic ha scritto:Sure, real world managers have less precise information than you get on a fully scouted player or team member. But they also have a full time job to watch how players do relative to each other in training drills and pore through hours of video and stats, and have slightly more information than "balanced" to go on when assessing players' mentalities. And there's really no point in generating Malaysian kids to scout if you can't tell if they're any good even after having them on trial for a couple of weeks
I understand a game needs to cut many corners for usability's sake.
So a toggle to keep/remove 1-20 attributes could be a good thing for those who prefer it the traditional way. But it'd provide a solid challenge for other FM'ers.
9 ore fa, enigmatic ha scritto:Judging by old screenshots, most of van Wolfswinkel's attributes are still within a point of where they were in FM13, when he was far from being at the high end of Premier League strikers. Looked just about good enough to gamble on signing, but not good enough to worry Premier League defenders leading the line for a struggling team; actually exactly the sort of poacher that could flop in FM in a defensive side without a tactic to put goals on a plate for him, especially if the game decided his finishing was affected by his morale.
Coaches sign van Wolfswinkels because they can't aim higher than 14 weaker league goals last season for a strong side; seems fairly well rounded if not especially skilful, clever or quick and still young enough to improve, not because they mistake him them for the next Ronaldo.
Of course nobody expected him to be the next Ronaldo. But that wasn't my point.
IRL he was expected to perform at least adequately. He didn't, for whatever reason.
IFM he almost CAN'T perform as badly as he did for Norwich unless you actively go out of your way to put him in the worst possible conditions.This happens because FM being a numbers game, if a player has good enough numbers, those will eventually provide some kind of return based on said numbers.
RvW's attributes are good enough for a low-level EPL striker and he'll perform around that level. Always.
0 -
Ratings are just skewed toward goals/assists they're borderline useless.
A striker can send 9 out of 10 shots right into the parking lot and still get a good rating if the 10th shot has been a goal (and it doesn't even need to be a GWG either), while defensive players rarely get high ratings.
That's rather confusing and misleading if you're not paying close attention to the game or you don't look at the stats afterwards. I've been close to criticizing many players, usually CMs, for 6.7 ratings in games they actually didn't misplace more than a few passes, creted a couple of key chances etc.... You really wonder where that below-average rating came from.
0 -
55 minuti fa, enigmatic ha scritto:
Sure, I'm entirely aware they're just numbers under the hood, as are scout reports, personality descriptions and even stuff like news reports.
My point is they're the exact same 20 point scale as the existing visualisation based on numbers, so don't represent a "more complex system where CA and weighed attributes aren't identical for La Liga players and for the Finnish third tier" unless you start playing with how the ranges are displayed, which certainly isn't a route to making the game easier
I never said they were.. Although Silver Stars apply only to Reserve/Youth IIRC, so they're kinda different in use if not in their inner workings.
A 90CA player may be judged 3 Silver Stars in West Ham's U19, but he'll go down to 1 Gold Star if promoted to West Ham "proper", while he'd be 2 Gold Stars in the Finnish Top Division but 4 Gold Stars in the third tier there.
TBF this is a bit of a tangent though... I maintain a less number-oriented presentation would help change the perception of FM being "a glorified set of spreadsheets". And would also help users to actually play like managers instead of like accountants.
Which is why the "relative attributes" should definitely be at least considered a viable idea for the future.Currently, all you need to know is the exact numeric attribute: a player with Passing 16 will be as good at Passing (in isolation, I know) whether he's playing in La Liga or in the Swiss Challenge League. All the other attributes will dictate how far he can make it with a few great attributes, but the game fails to take into account the bigger picture.
ANY player with a high enough CA or with decently balanced attributes (for a lowly CA) can and will be a solid option for any Top Club. You purchase a "3* striker" from the Serbian league, you know he'll do fine, unless he has some hidden flaws (your scout should still point out eventually).
IRL there's no guarantee... Players who were taking smaller leagues by storm often struggled to replicate that kind of performances on a bigger stage. Something that in FM if only dictated by CA (and hidden stats). Had FM2013's Ricky van Wolfswinkel been given solid enough CA and attributes to match his previous scoring record, there'd been NO WAY for him to flop so spectacularly like he did in Norwich.With a different, dual, rating system and non-numerical attributes, transfers would be more realistic, relying on actual in-game stats and not on "he's never played a minute of football, he's from Malaysia, but golly, he has 14 Finishing, 12 Composure and is decent enough in other key areas, so he's likely good enough for us!"
2 -
2 ore fa, Svenc ha scritto:
As of the Attributes, a possible overhaul imo should Always take AI into account
Fair point.
But my suggestion was more about presentation than actual substance. Of course if the ME still needs to differentiate between First Touch and Technique, or Vision and Flair, all the current attributes should be retained. But still under the hood.
A toggle to go from 1-20 to A-F grades or even to an adjective could work fine, while still retaining the original 1-200 system for coding and "backend" purposes.
AI would thus still "see" the numbers. It's just the human player who may enjoy and benefit from something different and more realistic.
44 minuti fa, BMNJohn ha scritto: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.
No need to go that far... Stuff like "good passer" or "pacey winger" are platitudes that don't help much, and coming up with longer descriptions would inevitably create more FM Lingo. Or legal issues, considering real players can't get a "negative" personality label, so everyone is "fairly something", even while a newgen with the same traits would be "Fickle", "Mercenary", "Unambitious", or "a pain in the butt".
All I say is we'd be better off with a more streamlined set of macrocategories, thus allowing the actual performances to suggest us who is good at what.
How many times apparently mediocre players perform much better than alleged Top Players? But attributes still trump anything else for most players. AI included.
19 minuti fa, BMNJohn ha scritto: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
As far as I can tell, "1" is "the lowest for a footballer good enough to feature somewhere in FM's original gameworld".
So an amateur with CA/PA 5/6, with no attribute >9 and plenty of secondary/tertiary attributes as low as 1s and 2s, is STILL likely better than the Average Joe who plays in the local tournaments or in Tier 9.
The attributes' absolute value is another point of contention for me, and I'd love to see a more complex system where CA and weighed attributes aren't identical for La Liga players and for the Finnish third tier.
A player should be able to dominate a smaller league or weaker competition without his skills ending up on par with actual Top Players.
That's the fallacy that has caused plenty of expensive flops and of ruined careers.... Take Martin Ødegaard: a league-leader in Norway at 16, he had high stats for that competition, that would still have made him viable for Real Madrid upon arrival, or at least a valid option for a loan spell in La Liga.
In real life, it has taken him YEARS to get something going for him, and he had to go on loan all the time. In places where his "14" attributes meant more than in La Liga.So like we have Silver and Golden Stars for potential, we'd may have Silver and Gold attributes?
0 -
14 minuti fa, RoversRob ha scritto:
Again, I challenge anyone, yourself included, to find me an unedited youth intake with high 120/130+ CA, with a high PA.
But why do you think you should get one, or many, such players?
You may not like to hear the "in real life" argument, but actually how many high-end players aged 16-17 break through every year in any given Top League?
you seem to expect to see 4 or 5 Rooneys to appear year in and year out, while the good-to--pants ratio is much much lower.
I'd be more than happy to get a 120-130 player in my intake... Any club would.
instead the vast majority of the academy alumni end up in league one and below... Even producing a future Championship player is regarded as a good result.
both in FM and in real life
1 -
I've been playing as a NT manager on the side in almost every save since FM14, and I can guarantee you there are TOO MANY CA120/PA>160 youngsters in the youth intake. By the 3rd or 4th season most NTs, including top-level ones will feature at least one newgen, thus aged 19 at most, in the Startig XI or as part of the team.
You may not get them in your club's intake, not even in your league, but the rate at which high-end newgens are produces is way too high.
The actual problem is how terrible AI's development skills are... You can nurture one of those half-flawed CA80 talents and get something out of him. AI won't because the low CA, the questionable attributes distribution and the low reputation will label the player as "not worth it".
Which, again, is realistic enough.Anyway, we've been debating newgens a lot lately, with plenty of data: for reference:
0 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Controversial take here.
Maybe it's time for the time-tested Players Attributes to go the way of the old tactical sliders...
I know it sounds blasphemous, preposterous and also inconvenient from a playing and even coding purpose but bear with me.
FM has a laundry list of attributes, many of which have been given over the years a bit of a specific and "unique" interpretation in the game. Often enough quite different from its real life counterpart as far as the average user is concerned.
Also, how attributes interact with eachother in the game has been a very debated and disputed subject.Way too often the reply to objections (fair and unreasonable alike) is "yes, but you shouldn't judge the attribute in isolation...". Which is fair, but is also very very confusing. The last thing a game like FM need is more confusion.
So if I see a striker with 8 Finishing, I'll assume he won't hit a barn door from 10 feet away. Still, if another half-dozen attributes are OK or good, he'll still score much more than you'd have thought. On the other hand, apparently GREAT players are absolute nightmares to have in your team because of hidden weaknesses of of a weird combination that makes their >15 attributes almost irrelevant.So it has dawned on me... Do we really still need 30+ attributes to "define" a player?!
Sure, under the hood it's still needed, but much like the sliders of old, they can be done away with in the "front-end" part of the game, while still keeping them under the hood.
Instead of 1-20 figures for many "marginal" or very specific traits, we'd get either an A-F rating system for a set of macrocategories (basically those displayed in the Octagon, maybe a few more). We'd still get a fair assessment of a player's skills, but it'd be much less cut-and-dry that it is now. And it'll help people developing the tactical side of their game instead of simply going for 17s over 16s etc.
Is it too daring?
12 -
22 minuti fa, RoversRob ha scritto:
In a nutshell, it appeared to me that players I was getting in my youth intake with AMAZING stats never developed. After checking CA's and PA's via FMSE, it turns out that the AMAZING looking players with great starting stats that come into your youth intake are usually around 120/130 CA. They unfortunately, however, only have PA's around 10 points higher.
Basically, 15 year olds that look like they could be the next Wayne Rooney the day they come into your intake? You may as well just sell them as soon as you can, they are not getting any better.
That's however kinda accurate...
How many "great prospect" are hyped around the time they're starting to get a few apps for the first team, or even before that while they're still playing for the Youth team?
The list of those Early Peakers is long... Francis Jeffers is likely the most infamous, but also Federico Macheda could be a good example. Not to mention the plethora of 18yo "future worldclass players" who never even got an actual breakthrough and have since disappeared altogether or are having a modest career in tier 2, 3 or even lower.
If anything, I'd say FM produces TOO MANY good newgens who can almost walk into the Starting XI of a mid-table EPL team. Regardless of their potential, that's just not-so-accurate. Much less if we're talking about players with no room for improvement.
22 minuti fa, RoversRob ha scritto:The only players that develop to 160+ PA all start with around 80CA and are nowhere near your first team starting stats on intake day.
Again, not an outlandish scenario.
An unassuming teenager can grow into a top player if given enough time and nurturing. Pedro Rodriguez and Didier Drogba didn't set the world on fire as youth players, but they turned out quite good I'd say.
And converselt, how many potential talents have we missed out on because they didn't get a chance to develop and eventually stagnated?
22 minuti fa, RoversRob ha scritto:I just spent a measly half an hour loading up Englands youth intake day over and over. I searched for regens that had a CA of 120+. From loading about 7/8 games I found 5 of these wonderkids with no issues. As you will see in the screenshot below, they are amazing looking kids. I mean, they look like they are going to be absolute monsters in the future. As I've mentioned earlier though, not ONE of them will develop into anything better. Every single one has a PA rating barely above their 15/16 year old CA, as you will see in the screenshot.
For reference, from the 2nd player down I also decided to include 160+ PA players on the same youth intake day. As you can see, they all have dog ***** CA of around 80, but will still surpass these 130 CA wonderkids within a year or two and go on to become mega players.
But there's no guarantee those CA80/PA160 will surpass them... If the attributes distribution or the mental traits are unbalanced or poor, their PA won't be reached, and by a big margin.
FM's development model is too linear and predictable (THAT'S the actual issue with newgens...), so a "flawed" player is almost unfixable, no matter how many PA points left he has. And of course if he starts at 65CA, it's almost guaranteed he won't amount to much, surely not to his original PA.
On the other hand, the ready-made 18yo won't improve massively, but will still fulfill his PA much faster, making him the obvious one of the two choices.
2 -
It's also quite silly when fans are unhappy with the signing of a young prospect who costed a whopping 20k (while good First Team signing range from 500k to 1M).
"The fans feel X will never be more than a backup option"... So what? I may be able to sell him in 1-2 years for 5x the original price because of his potential... I didn't splash four years worth of transfers budget on a dud FFS...
0 -
10 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:
A tired and boring myth which needs to stop. Nobody ever says that and this kind of BS is driving people away from the forum.
Every myth has a bit of truth in it...
It may not be as prevalent as it used to be a few years back, but that kind of half-dismissive answer has been used and abused in here. And I doubt pointing it out (half-jokingly) is what drives people away from the forum...
Some weaknesses and annoyances in the game can be mitigated by a change of tactical approach, but others are indeed "unfixable" as they're part of how the ME plays on a specific iteration/build. Denying that is pointless and a tad dishonest IMO.
1 -
I have to be honest...
That's a scenario I've seen so so many times. But often in MY FAVOUR.
Which doesn't excuse the fact the ME is indeed prone to throw at us some really really unbalanced and non-sensical matches at an alarming rate. And more than that, it's the kind of goals you keep on scoring and conceding.
I'm frankly sick and tired of predictable scenarios like "RW crosses from deep, both strikers are freezed on the spot with the defenders, LW is free on the far post and volleys it in". Or "FB sneaks into the box, picks up a pass or a loose ball from the middle and places it in the opposite corner".
Sometimes it feels like I'm playing one of those old arcade footie games where you could score only by shooting from a specific position... Or the good old The Manager, where you got a finite set of highlights, one ending with a goal, one with a miss.And it can't be dismissed only with the usual "it's your tactics" spiel, because we're not talking about winning/losing, but it's a matter of what happens during the matches, regardless of the actual result.
I wouldn't mind losing 3-1 if the team played (poorly) the way I wished, instead of winning 4-0 courtesy of sameish goals created more by the ME's Quirk Of The Year than by whatever tactical plan I thought I had devised.
1 -
Ok, I'll go balls to the wall here.
Future FM should do away with roles and duties, in favour of General Playing Styles and Gameplans.
Most of the current tactical issues, even in AI v AI matches, stem from an overabundance of options that end up creating chaos and misunderstandings, in addition to show the ME/TC's shortcomings up in a blatant way.
I see why SI wanted to expand on roles and duties, following the "everyone's an expert" fad pushed by the media. But do you really think real managers go "ok Johnny, today you're playing Deep Lying Playmaker with Support duties, so you can Get Forward, but not Wide, Pass direct and distribute to both flanks and don't shoot".
Those things come naturally from the formation, the general playing style and the expectations for the game. Clearly if you're a relegation candidate playing away at a Top Club, you're likely parking the bus and you'll need your midfielders to play lower and defensive.
Instead the current system is basically like a restaurant manager not giving you much info about the ingredients or the dishes, so you may end up putting tomato sauce instead of strawberry jam in your cake and nobody'd notice til the customers start complaining about how it "tastes awful".
It's the epitome of the "square peg, round hole"... It doesn't fit, it won't ever fit, but you're still free to try and fail at it, whereas a better system shouldn't allow you to do that.Which doesn't mean it's gonna be just pedestrian handholding and spoonfeeding... You'll still be able to pick the wrong tactic for your squad or the wrong gameplan for a specific match. It'll only look more coherent even in its wrongness.
Teams lose matches because they get outplayed, outmuscled or outsmarted. Not because 11 players suddenly start playing an abomination of football that makes no sense whatsoever.0 -
1 ora fa, Zemahh ha scritto:
It's realistic for any manager to know tens of thousands of players' every little detail, before even needing to consult his scouting team? Nah.
Tens of thousands from across the globe? No.
But having to fully scout a player who's been part of the domestic league for like 2 years (or even players in the National Pool for NT managers) is simply as absurd as knowing about the Composure of Mamadou Diarra playing in the Nigerian league.
1 ora fa, Zemahh ha scritto:Disabling attribute masking takes away every need to actually plan your transfers or scout ahead and makes this game a joke. You can literally just scroll through youth national teams or other clubs and simply pick the best. Or even better, filter for players through Player Search and of course get the best possible pick available, since there's no hidden attributes. Even if you still request Scout Reports, they will be far more detailed and accurate than they would be normally, since you already have a 100% knowledge.
On the other hand, scouting reports have been getting less and less useful, with the need to scout a player 10 times for a cost (even when he's part of the Scouting Package).
Without masking, Scouting is useless because all you need is to sort players in the search tab.
With masking, Scouting is useless because it'll take weeks to find out stuff real-life managers know already.World knowledge has become indeed useless and farcical. I have a Brazilian scout/coach, I shouldn't need to send a scout out there to watch a promising striker who's already been part of the NT to assess his abilities.
Sure, scouting him MORE may help fine-tune the attributes knowledge, but I shouldn't get stuff like "9-15" after several sessions of scouting. Actually I shouldn't get it at all.1 ora fa, Zemahh ha scritto:Play the game however you enjoy it, but don't kid yourself that disabling attribute masking isn't cheating. Want better knowledge of players? Increase your Player/Youngster Knowledge on the manager creation screen. Hire scouts or coaches with better scouting knowledge. Buy better Scouting Packages. Can't afford them? Too bad, a Vanarama North side isn't meant to have a scouting knowledge of Barcelona anyway.
A Vanarama North side will probably know more about Barcelona B than about their next week's rivals in the league...
The huge dichotomy here is between what many consider "public knowledge" due to sheer exposure and what is indeed "insiders knowledge" built via careful scouting, international links etc.
FM goes from one extreme (you can get accurate infos about a Namibian side at first glance) to the other (as an EPL manager, you'll still need to scout your CL rivals to know about their backup striker with international experience).
I can't blame people for not caring about the new, punishing scouting system. And calling it cheating is a bit of an exaggeration. Is it cheating watching a lot of fooball and knowing more players than the average sofa-fan?
2 -
3 ore fa, Lucas ha scritto:
Why? People have been using walkthrough stuff for years.
A lot of people don't want to spend time learning how to play a game they just want to get to their end point and then move on to something else.
A walkthrough wouldn't help you beat Final Fantasy or Skyrim with a Level40 character while the "suggested" level to make it as an average player is Level 65-70, and a mediocre player may need up to level 90 to succeed with relative ease.
Old point-and-click adventures were the only games where a walkthrough was actually a gamechanger (and gamekiller in a way). You got key info about WHERE to go, WHAT to do and HOW to do it. So yes, a Myst walkthrough actively killed the fun of the game giving you all the tools to complete it.
In FM terms, wonderkid lists and overpowered tactics are the equivalent of old Trainers Mods. In Action-RPG terms, you're not getting a list of locations where top weapons can be found inside chests, or directions about where to go to grind XP for some easy levelling up. You're more or less downloading savegame that allows you to start with a lot of money and high-level equipment. So your character will be much stronger than he was supposed to be and despite your lack of gaming skills you can still thrive and breeze through the game.
0 -
Can't tell whether it's sarcasm or not, but seriously, those groups were an eye-opener to me.
Until then I only had a tiny frame of reference: the few friends or acquaintances dedicated enough to bother with such a complex game. And even they rarely made it past season 5/6 either with their (editorially enhanced) favourite Top Club or with one of the local sides.
Then FB showed me there's a whole world of "serial winners", whose Top Club Starting XI is likely the same, with all the usual Top Players, Utility Superstars, Cheap Diamonds in the Rough, Wonderkids etc. And whose tactical setup is one of the Instawins tactics. Or a rather straightforward homemade Gegenpress good enough to allow them to win by brute force.
0 -
6 ore fa, bigmattb28 ha scritto:
You lost me as soon as you mentioned FIFA & PES on an FM forum.
Maybe because you didn't bother reading/understanding why I brought them up?
In arcade-simulation games you are actually taking control of the players, you can field a 4-3-3 where the two fullbacks are actually wingers and all the midfielders are AMC with zero defending skills. If you're good enough at the game, you'll win despite the formation and the selected players are horribly unbalanced.
In FM you can't tiki-taka your way to a 4-0 win with Agüero as CM (as you already have 5 more Forwards already in the starting lineup). Major tactical flaws or selection absurdities will be punished (and should be punished even more IMO).
2 ore fa, Carninho ha scritto:the way you stereotype FM gamers makes this whole thread garbage to me
Dude, start following some of the groups on Facebook... I'm not stereotyping, I'm merely reporting what people usually post in there.
Out of 10 new posts, 4 are requests for wonderkids/good signing for X club, 4 are screenshots of ridiculous results (of which, 90% are unrealistic big wins, often shocking giant-killings, 10% are 'I got FM'ed' matches where the user's team got like 60 shots, only 6 on target and 20-30 between long and blocked shots. and the rest are general discussion or specific bugs/issues/questions
1 -
2 ore fa, 99 ha scritto:
I ended up talking about that, here:
You made a very good point, and I indeed agree with you.
A brutally realistic FM would be as much fun to play as a RPG game where your Lv1 character will get killed by sewer rats for the first 10-15 hours of gameplay and even the easiest fetch quest would take you weeks of dedicated and careful playing time.
By the time you MAY be good enough to move on to the main quest, you'll likely be so frustrated and bored with the game you wouldn't pay it if you got paid to...Sure, people enjoy challenging games like the Dark Souls series, Cuphead and Sekiro. Some even enjoy dull, dreary and ultimately unfulfilling games like Papers Please too... But all those are/were titles for a niche of aficionados.
Changing FM from the beloved Power Fantasy to a realistic, frustrating and definitely laborious affair where you'd be lucky to win a League Cup or to steal a CL/EL spot if managing outside the Top6 would alienate the majority of the current playing base. Nevermind playing in third-rate countries where making it to th EL Group Stage ONCE in a decade would still be a club and career highlight.1 ora fa, isignedupfornorealreason ha scritto:I don't see what's wrong with that though, that's why a lot of people initially picked up the game
I never said there's something wrong with that thought...
Nobody picks up ANY game hoping it'll be 90% slog, 5% fun and 5% success. Still, I often wonder what's the point of all the in-depth stuff (and of our endless discussions about how we can improve things) while the vast vast majority of the players could easily be as happy with CM3...
2
fm20 news
in Football Manager General Discussion
Posted
For a change, I'm quite happy with what I've seen so far!
1. Club vision has the potential to finally solve the managerial merry-go-round (for AI ones) and the general staleness of the P1 experience. So far, unless you really really really suck, you can stay at the same club forever as long as you meet the minimum goals for competitions (which isn't that hard after a couple of seasons). Hopefully more criteria and different long-term plans may also mean even the most successful run will eventually come to an end due to the club wanting something different. Or, at some top clubs, if the board or the fans aren't happy with the playing style regardless of its success.
2. Development Centre is also a step in the right direction. Gone is the anticipated and dreaded Intake Day you can reload time and again til you get something decent. Being able to track, and hopefully INFLUENCE, the Youth Candidates is surely an interesting change of scenario. So far, the only screenshot doesn't exactly scream "you're in control", so I'm afraid it'll still be down to the HoYD's preferences and good old RNG, but still better than the current one-day lottery.
Hopefully there's more to come and the players' development/progress will feel more organic and less robotic
3. Playing Time Pathway is another very promising improvement. Clearer plans for every player will hopefully stop the current bouts of random unhappiness due to "lack of playing time" and will also help establish internal hierarchies. It'd benefit AI with more balanced signings and better strategic choices in terms of contract offers/renewals etc.
4. Backroom staff looks a bit meh at the moment. The only interesting part is the "click on the square" info, but I'm afraid in the big picture it won't solve much unless the I/O between TC and ME won't get a dramatic overhaul. Sadly the awful Green Circles are still there
5. Graphics. Nothing to write home about here... The player's model looks better and so does the grass texture. Fingers crossed for the newgens' faces...
So far, so good... it's been quite an interesting and promising first batch of new features. I may even think about pre-ordering...