Ein

I know. My question is whether in this example the probability of getting 160 is higher (~2/3) than getting any number in the 161-170 range on account of the 140-159 values that are are automatically set to 160.

That people won't play a harder game is just an assumption, almost a conspiracy theory conveniently used to justify the status-quo. One of the most enjoyable saves for me was with Newcastle in an older FM where I finished 8th, then 6th, then started challenging for a CL spot. In the Roma save I mentioned earlier I intended to do a long-term homegrown challenge but the fact that I won everything immediately (including the Champions League in the second season) put me off. I don't believe that the game is intentionally easy. I think the new tactical creator has made the game easier because some things are not optimally calibrated and that addressing these miscalibrations is nigh impossible, which might explain why a switch to a new game engine is necessary.

I don't know. If they truly wanted to cater to that kind of fanbase, why did they drop FM Touch? I don't have as much time to play as I used to as well. The point isn't for more time-consuming gameplay (a lot of time-consuming noise/clickfest such as media interactions could be scrapped for all I care), but for harder gameplay. There's a difference. Winning after 5 years of squad-building and steady progression is more fun than winning immediately.

What tools? In FM22, I won every single competition for 2 years with this formation and squad, before losing interest. The formation/instructions seem quite normal to me and were chosen based on the players available at the club. I never had any occasion to use the data hub, OIs, change formation/tactics to counter different oppositions, utilise the transfer market, or come up with something tactically extraordinary to achieve this feat. Correction: I also had 'slightly narrower' ticked.

I fail to see why there would be a correlation between increased sales and game difficulty. After all, players often can't gauge a game's difficulty until they've purchased and played it. There are likely other factors driving higher sales, such as population growth, increased remote work, and greater internet access.

Are you suggesting that SI intentionally dumb down the game to appeal to casual players and boost sales? Has this been a longstanding practice, predating the introduction of gegenpress? Is there concrete evidence that easier games sell better? Personally, I lose interest in a save once I achieve consistent success. I found FM22 too easy, which deterred me from purchasing subsequent editions.

But is the adjustment performed "before" or "after" the random generation? Using the same example, will the probability of the PA being 160 be 2/3 (to account for the all the values in the 140-160 range that are automatically converted to 160)? (This is for a dynamic PA project that allows for more unpredictable player development and varied saves)

If a player has a CA of 160 and a PA of -85 (140-170), can the generated PA be less than his starting CA or would it necessarily have to be between 160 and 170?

This is not the issue. The issue is that Team X plays A, B, C, D, E, etc in that order whilst Team Y (typically the closest rival) plays Z, A, B, C, D, etc. In other words, Y always plays whoever X played one fixture earlier. This issue is easily reproducible and has been present at least since FM20.

The manager doesn't even attempt to play Orsolini unlike the mentioned real life cases who amassed 25 appearances or more in their first season. Something like that would only make sense if the player suffered a long-term injury or if the manager was replaced right after the transfer.

The displayed player value should be the market value not the club's asking price. The club's asking price or a 'not for sale' declaration should only be given with a scout report. It should be possible to sort players by market value for one's own information and immersion like in older versions of FM and transfermarkt: https://www.transfermarkt.com/marktwertetop/wertvollstespieler

Strange. I distinctly remember criticisms of the HB role in that it pushed the CBs too wide.

I thought they already did that in previous editions.

I still don't understand the deal with positional play (I don't have FM24). Is it automatic? Doesn't it depend on player attributes like off the ball, decisions, teamwork, etc? Could it not be done in previous versions of FM given the right setup of roles and attributes?

I reinstalled FM17. I like that IF-A doesn't have 'take more risks' hardcoded. IF-A is more of a wide AF whereas IF-S with 'more risky passes' hardcoded is more of a creator. There is no inverted winger but I guess playing a winger with 'cuts inside' trait will do. There is no SV. Is there a role that can replicate the BBM role from the DM stratum? The DM role is a bit strange. DM-D has 'close down more' hardcoded but the DM-S hasn't (even though it has a higher mentality).

Yes, that's right.

It grants him a fixed potential between 150 and 180 (fixed for each save).

Against the AI, you can even overachieve with a clean slate (literally zero team/player instructions) if you pick the right roles.

This might be the only forum where you'll find gamers arguing against game moddability. I mean, some developers oppose it and in some cases (Creative Assembly) have scaled it back to push the DLC model. In some cases (Paradox), moddability and the DLC model exist side-by-side. Whilst SI's reaction to the Korean mod was insanely weird (why all the censorship if the change really did nothing?), they also release a modding tool (the pre-game editor) for free with every iteration, which makes mods like Daveincid's 'megarealism pack' possible. From our (FM gamers) point of view, it would obviously be great if more stuff could be subject to modification, especially when considering that FM has a lot of unfinished or half-baked features which do not get the attention of the developers but might very well be improved upon by dedicated fans.

One person mentioned that, and s/he was mistaken.

Which is the latest version without bloated or poorly implemented features like media interactions and so on?

Is it possible to buy old FM games? They aren't sold on Steam and the only sites that I could find seem dodgy. I'm specifically looking to buy FM18 which is the last edition before the switch to the new tactical creator.

Mentality is an abstract FM artefact which should have been rendered obsolete (at least as a free choice) with the implementation of the block/press line. This is also the reason mentalities were renamed e.g. from counter to cautious and control to positive since the block line is really the basis for those styles of football. To keep possession and control the game you have to press your opponent high. To hit your opponent on the counter you have to invite your opponent in. The current situation hardly makes sense e.g. you can simultaneously ask your players to be very defensive and press very high up the pitch or, alternatively, ask your players to be very attacking whilst simultaneously instructing them to stay within their own half.

I think team mentality should no longer remain stand-alone but should instead be automatically determined from the combined effect of various factors like TIs, roles, PIs, formation, OIs, etc. Anything which increases risk (e.g. TIs like counter, counterpress, high pressing, direct passing, attacking duties, a top-heavy formation) ups the mentality and and viceversa. Just some examples with TIs: Tiki taka: counterpress (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), short passing (- risk), low tempo (- risk), hold shape (- risk) -> balanced Gegenpress: counterpress (+ risk), counter (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk) -> attacking Direct counter-attacking: counter (+ risk), regroup (- risk), direct passing (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk), low block (- risk), -> balanced/positive Catenaccio: short passing (- risk), low block (- risk), hold shape (- risk), regroup (- risk) -> defensive Say you're playing a counter-attacking tactic and want to protect a lead. You could, among other things, change to shorter passing/lower tempo which would automatically change the mentality to cautious. This would be similar to how team shape is automatically determined from the player duties/number of support roles. Player mentalities are already determined automatically but they could take in more context. For example if you instruct your CM (with balanced mentality) to 'press more', his mentality would automatically change to positive.

I think the tactics creator could be made less abstract (less dependent on mentalities, roles, etc). What would be helpful is the ability to create patterns of play and intertwine tactics with training to develop specific strategies. For instance, if you aim to attack in a certain way: For example: 1. play out of defence (this would have its own pattern of play) until the ball reaches our designated midfield creator (say our #8). 2. When the ball reaches our #8, our LW (#11) should cut inside to overload the opposition defender (#5) with our CF (#9). 3a. If the opposition RFB (#2) does not follow our #11, pass the ball to either our #11 or #9 (the one farthest from their #5). 3b. If their #2 follows our #11 to prevent the overload, our LFB (#3) should bomb forward and our #8 should switch play to him. And so on... The higher the number of patterns of play, the more unpredictable your team will be. However, it will be more challenging for your players to remember and execute them successfully, depending on their technical abilities, mental attributes, player traits, team cohesion, etc. This approach integrates tactics, training, and one's managerial knowledge into a cohesive package. AI managers would have preprogrammed patterns of play (based on real-life preferences) with some degree of flexibility (dropping and adopting new PoP over time), depending on tactical knowledge, adaptability, in-game performance, etc. Of course it would still be possible to play without PoP if one chooses to. In that case, the players would be left to their own devices (as at present, essentially). I think it could help the AI (if done correctly) because the moves would be more rule-bound, like chess.