forameuss

And yet, despite all these allusions to it being "fishy", we've yet to have one actual well-thought-out bit of proof around it. If you believe there's something wrong with it, map out every cup draw you have over a long period and see how many of these draws you get. If it's an abnormal number, that's probably something SI would really, really like to have a look at. I won't hold my breath.

Those that want to play in international football wouldn't really have the same experience, would they? Not being popular enough to prioritise over more important things (which I agree with and understand) isn't the same as no-one playing it whatsoever. Wholesale removing things will never make any sense.

The idea that anything that doesn't quite work as people want should just be completely excised from the game is mad to me. I wouldn't even do that with the things that don't work correctly, let alone things that are fine and just lacking like International Management.

While I see where you're coming from though, is there this big untapped market of people who are suddenly going to be interested in playing FM just because you can be Emma Hayes? And this isn't a comment against them including Women's football, I'm really looking forward to that, but I'd imagine those interested enough to give FM a try are probably already playing it. That's not to say there aren't some numbers to be gained, but I just don't think there is really this big market share to be obtained. They've already obtained it.

People keep talking about a wider audience, but I'm not convinced there really is this mythical larger market that SI can go after. Are there really a sizeable number of people that are interested enough in football management to want to play FM, but decide to completely abstain from the only product in the market purely because the graphics don't look as good as they could? What is true is that they can't, as a particularly niche product, **** off the market they do have. Unfortunately, that's probably unavoidable, as no matter what direction you go in, someone's going to feel like it's drifting away from where they want it to be. Best you can try is balance.

Semantics really, as the same goes. That's always been their priority. There hasn't been some big meeting at SI where they suddenly decide "nah, screw the fans, now it's all about the the priority is money and sales". All that's happened is they've delivered the product they had at release, and you haven't liked it. Which is perfectly fine, of course.

When confronted with the reality of things, just throw out something about how anyone who disagrees is an apologist. Top work. They've put in something that can lessen the chances of it happening, which doesn't seem like a "fix" to me. Thought you guys were all over stuff like that? Actually properly fixing it isn't as simple, which is maybe why it's still around? That seemed to be your original point before you started scrambling for another.

I like the assertion that now SI only care about "money and sales", like previous versions have all been wholly philanthropic. The main priority is - and always will be - to sell more copies and make more money. The route towards that is almost always through providing a product that people want.

I'm well aware. But that's 3 years versus a couple of decades. There will be significant rewrites, but I'd still be amazed if they started from scratch. That just isn't realistic

Oh sweet summer child. The bigger the company the far more likely there are systems older than you are still clinging onto life despite being bug-riddled messes that are simply too important to be switched off. Using company size as a metric for determining how many bugs there should be is stupid. You may as well use what colours the walls are in their office.

Counter-point. Do you really want the game to strictly stick to the numbers you see as attributes, so players with low injury proneness never get injured, and those with 20 are permacrocks? What about finishing? Should those with 20 always score? This isn't Top Trumps. The beauty of the game is in the complexity, and the way that it isn't just "big number is big lololol".

And that supports the previous point that "easy" is rarely a conscious design decision. FM12 was easy because collision detection was yet to be a thing, and quick, direct players could literally ghost straight through defenders with impunity. Probably the last time you could realistically argue that the ME was "broken".

Nah, not just you. It definitely is lacking. But I suspect it's the same answer as why a lot of bugs still exist - they aren't considered higher priority than the things that do get more attention. I expect the numbers of people who regularly and seriously use international management aren't high enough for them to go in and take a proper deep dive into the feature.

I know this is often trotted out as fact, but I've always disagreed. I think SI's antipathy towards difficulty levels in general probably more supports the assertion that they've never really concentrated on making the game "easy" or difficult, or whatever. They just make the game. Obviously there's ways you can make certain things accessible, but suggesting like they've somehow gauged how difficult it is and deliberately dumbed it down seems like the usual "SI bad" stuff. If it has become easier - and I think that's entirely subjective - then it's likely because of the tools that have been made available, rather than any conscious effort. A human manager is always going to be able to outthink an AI agent, especially when they often struggle with the I part in AI, often the only leveller is just how much power the user is given. There's a million variables you can affect now, so more opportunity to gain an advantage.

At least this thread has taught me that I should immediately be going into work tomorrow and telling my employer that because they have near enough a quarter of a million employees, there should never be any problems in their code whatsoever. Should probably tell all those people whose entire role it is to react to production incidents that they're no longer needed either. No excuses.

You're almost certainly not going to get a definitive answer, but I would be absolutely amazed if they've started completely from scratch, especially with the ME. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see them throwing away a product of two decades of work. That's not to say it'll just be same-old, particularly with the addition of women's football, but I don't think they've just sat down with a blank piece of paper asking "what now?". There'll be significant changes.

Not much update recently, but I've still been hard at work. Thanks to all those who have been having a look at the tool and given some feedback, and the stuff I've got...well, not all been good! But all perfectly valid, and it's been really useful for me, so thank you again. I'll hopefully be releasing a new version by the end of the week. It won't really have many new features, but I've been concentrating on making it a little easier to use. I'll also make an effort to provide more detailed step-by-step documentation. If that stuff's out the way, I can properly start on the new features without worrying about stuff being broken behind it.

My first thoughts would've been whatever you've tried, but I expect the code that - put more simply than it likely works - actually makes an injury happen, is probably not touchable by anything we can do. For example, say you up the occurrence rate of...I don't know, torn hamstrings. That will just be one variable going into the engine during a match to decide whether a hamstring tear occurs. There's probably many, many other variables going into that decision. Now if you could make it so that those variables didn't ever change, and then change the occurrence, you might see a noticeable change. However, those variables are never going to be identical from day to day. Your questions though, they seem pretty logical. Not sure on number 1. Or number 2 really, although I'd guess that extra days gives you the random range idea for injuries. Number 3, I would imagine it is contributing to how often an individual injury is going to happen. Theoretically, of course, no idea if the above is accurate, just trying to think it through.

It's part of the competition rules, I believe, not the data. You can definitely do it as part of the Pre-game Editor, but you'll need a new save.

Because Youth Rating is nowhere near the be all and end all of how youths are generated. Even if you just take into account one more field - Game Importance - then that will push Scotland way above a lot of the nations you mentioned. Scotland rarely has an issue generating decent quality youth players anyway, at least in my experience.

To 99% of the user base, them changing the UID is completely irrelevant. It's a core piece of their own product that most of those people will never, ever be exposed to. Mods may use that, but it is absolutely not SI's responsibility to spend their time catering for mods. It's absolute lunacy to believe otherwise. Mods are solely the responsibility of the people actually building them. And I say that as someone who is working on a project where unique iDs are a fairly big part. If they change, then, oh well, I guess I've got a bit more work to do. To believe that SI should have given me a heads-up like that would be so incredibly entitled. You may as well start complaining about their communication because they didn't personally give you a birthday card last year, it probably holds about as much weight. And of course, you're welcome to complain about whatever you like, just like people are welcome to point out when said complaint is ridiculous.

You want them to get the whole apology tour on because a change they felt they had to make to the game broke something unofficial that has nothing to do with them? Really? So in your mind, SI should be spending time going through every mod that has a userbase and making sure they don't break it? You can pick any number of things that SI themselves would probably admit they should have done better. This isn't anywhere near one of them.

No, you're quite clearly going to the Hague for what you've done. Who cares? Play the game how you like.

Yeah, as @cleiria says, if you install that mod, you can add them directly from the editor. Personally, I'd say that mod is an absolute must for the editor anyway. However, the tool will allow you to create local regions in the same manner but in bulk.

Nation has a region parameter rather than local region, and I'm not quite sure what that connects up to. For example, Argentina has South America (South) as its region, which sits in a list of other larger regions, but that looks like it comes from a hard-coded list rather than any list of regions we can actually edit. With the editor mod skin, I can change the region, and it's down on my spreadsheet as something you can edit, but I expect we can only change to one of the existing ones rather than change it to something completely different.