Ein

So people don't trust the game ("the game is scripted") only to blindly trust what the game's Xg system is telling them... Games are won by scoring goals not by having more possession, shooting more on goal, etc. Even if Xg numbers are trustworthy and reliable, they count for nothing. IRL, based on Xg, Chelsea should be fighting for a Champions League spot and Man Utd should be in a relegation scrap.

I sometimes go back to CM93 so I definitely don't mind going back... I plan to go back to FM20. At the moment I'm updating its database. A couple of guys mentioned FM19. Why that one in particular?

I actually don't think that new players will necessarily find the game easy. New players managing a weak team might intuitively think that they should play defensively until they discover they're better off playing gegenpress. New players might read and take heed of what the assistant says until they discover it's just random noise. Being experienced and good at the game is mostly about knowing what things to avoid.

I don't do it either. I like to have full control over my team. What I enjoy most in the game is finding, buying and developing my own players, and implementing and maintaining a sound squad hierarchy and wage structure.

Do you by any chance watch matches in full or extended? Watching FM matches in full exposes such defects and breaks the immersion. I firmly believe that it's better both for immersion and for one's own time to watch matches in comprehensive. The ME is extremely approximative and the tactical intricacies can be observed better by cutting out all the ME noise. This is why I don't understand why people are so hung up about the ME. I cannot fathom that people actually bother to watch FM games in full. Sometimes I can barely stand RL ones...

Absolutely not true. As I wrote earlier, I could win everything by playing almost a clean slate tactic without bothering about anything else (OIs, data hub analysis, adjusting to opposition, etc). As long as the formation and roles are balanced and you keep the players happy you can do extremely well. But it shouldn't be that easy. You should have to do that something extra or be extremely lucky to win, say, the quadruple.

Difficulty is one of the most important aspects of a game, surely. Easy games become boring quickly so I don't entirely understand how a game can both be the best and the easiest. My planned long-term FM22 save with Roma ended up lasting just 2 years because the team literally won every competition it took part in (Serie A, Coppa Italia, UECL in the first season; Serie A, Coppa Italia, Champions League, both super cups in the second) using a very simple tactic (counter, counterpress, high LoE/DL, play out of defence), no OIs, and without ever performing opposition or data hub analysis.

Does it matter at all in terms of performance/morale or is it purely cosmetic?

150 CA players can be very good, it depends on the spread of their attributes. Mancini, in particular, is a very well rounded central defender with excellent mentals. Some clubs seem to have low asking prices by default. Roma is one of those clubs. Even in FM22, the likes of Mancini, Cristante and Karsdorp (who was very good in that edition) are all initially valued below €20m.

Personality, attributes that fit team DNA (especially ones that cannot be trained), nationality (prefer HG).

Then you just contradicted what you said earlier (native people setting their own values, which is bound to be subjective). If there is oversight, it doesn't show in the case brought about by the OP and in a number of other examples.

Having things done by individual researchers without any form of oversight or standardisation is not ideal. The player database has this issue as well. Some clubs tend to have overpowered players, both in terms of attributes and personalities e.g. one particular Italian club is always filled with model citizens, model pros and perfectionists and does much better in FM than in real life.

You can either download an updated database or do it yourself via the pre-game editor (located in Steam under tools). I personally prefer to do it myself and keep updating it.

I don't have FM23/24 but I've seen it happen in previous editions. Normally, I offer a non-negotiable offer that I consider reasonable but below their asking price. This can unsettle the player if refused and he may then end up transfer listed for a reduced asking price.

Unfortunately, contemporary ideology is imbued with the myth of progress. However, newer does not necessarily equate to better. I personally don't find any problems playing older editions. I typically update the database myself, mostly by revising PAs and fixed attributes. I use dynamic PA (-10, -95, -9, etc) for most players under 26 so games are more replayable, unpredictable and fun. When a new edition is out, I try the demo and don't buy it if I don't like it, which is what I did with FM24. People will still buy and praise the game for a number of reasons (swayed by marketing, addiction, social media monetisation interests, etc).

There's no actual or objective transfer value. The asking price can change depending on a number of factors including player happiness. I'm not fazed by astronomical asking prices. Basically it means that the club is presently unwilling to sell. If you manage to unsettle a player, the asking price can drop to a more realistic value. The issue, as mentioned earlier, is that the game lacks the more objective market value. It should be possible to sort players and clubs by market value. Having a market value doesn't mean that clubs would be forced or expected to sell at market value. They could still demand ten times as much or just outright refuse to sell. It would then be up to the player/agent to force a transfer.

IMO it should be possible to view/sort players by market value (like Transfermarkt and past editions of FM). Market value would depend on a number of factors (league/player reputation, performance, age, contract length, etc). Then there should be the asking price (or a not for sale declaration) set by the club which the respective player/agent may or may not agree with. A scout's estimate of the asking price would be given in the scout report. In the recent editions the former component is completely lacking and it's not even possible to view the most valuable players.

I don't know. Maybe depends on a club's willingness to sell but in that case I don't know on which basis one's own player values are calculated. Also, I don't understand why values now come in ranges. It should simply be one market value like in Transfermarkt.

I agree that it is very easy to assess players. I think that is partly because players' attributes and personalities are not as dynamic as they should be. In FM, attributes more or less increase incrementally until a ceiling is reached and then remain pretty much static until the physicals decline with age. The same with personality attributes and other hidden attributes like consistency; they generally improve incrementally with time and experience. However, in real life, you can find plenty of examples of players who stop performing after securing big moves. Other players start performing out of the blue (think Guirassy). The incremental approach doesn't really simulate most real-life development trajectories.

The issue is not with the display of attributes, it's whether attributes matter e.g. whether players with higher scoring attributes do better than those without or whether players with higher attributes for pressing press more/cover more distance than those without. The claim is that they do not or that the difference is minimal/less than it should be or that match performance is predominantly governed by other factors (e.g. the role itself). Masking attributes and following the match metrics would simply conceal this issue.

Bumping this as it has dropped down a few pages without a reply being given.

You have 2 IFs, a SS and an AF essentially doing the same thing/attacking the same space. If you want the AF as the focal point, the roles behind him should probably be more conservative e.g. IF-S AM-S W/IW-S. His attributes seem to be ideal for DLF-A.

Press conferences and a lot of "AI" stuff in general (staff recommendations) are badly programmed and should pretty much be ignored/delegated. I understand that it may be difficult to improve them. The problem with the latest FM iterations is that these areas have been given more prominence instead of less. For instance, you have to enter a dedicated menu for press conferences instead of being able to respond quickly in the inbox. Press conferences are much longer than necessary, leading to junk questions like transfer-listed players in lower divisions. They introduced staff meetings which you cannot opt out from. Bad areas should be recognized as such and be given less prominence until solutions are found.

I reported this issue here: Unfortunately there has been no response yet. At this point, I'm not sure to what extent the information displayed in the training UI is correct. I've been using routines like Transition - Press a lot based on what the UI displays but I'm seeing experienced players opt for general routines like Attacking and Defending.

I don't think aggression and bravery can be improved by mentoring. Mentoring can improve determination and the hidden mental attributes (professionalism, ambition, etc).