Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
thnord

Transfers - discussion on the mechanics and issues .

Recommended Posts

The player wouldn't be doing that bid if a risk factor when it comes to a youth's development actually existed.

A good solution would be to have the PA of a youth regen be decided later in his life, around 21 years of age for example, and be subject to change with tutoring, quality of the coaches that work with them and others, while still having some random base values affect it to have some variety.

I kind of agree with PA not to be definitively set until his development starts to slow down, say the age of 21/22. The issues with that is, by which time, the players CA is already either well on it's way to matching (or falling short of) his PA, which is supposed to be vague and in most cases it wouldn't be realistic to then extend his PA drastically. Even if you could, most of us would decide the player wouldn't be worth the time or risk of developing him further beyond this age because realistically he wouldn't see much of a stat increase. Even if this was acceptable, you would probably have to open the door to some pretty extreme stat changes in considerably short spaces of time, late on in a players' career. It could work and may even be more realistic in that it's effectively making player attributes more dynamic and more like form that actual set attributes.

Either way I inclined to agree that it's scouting or the definitive display of attributes that's the crux of the problem here rather than the transfer system it's self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with the sentiment here, but we do also need a mechanism to evaluate potential.

Do we though?

Given you already know CA through stars & attributes how much do we need to know about their potential? how much do staff/scouts know IRL? Surely its just a case of trial & error, some players improve, some don't.

IRL the focus seems to be much on their current ability and their age whereas in FM users focus much more on PA. IMO SI need to shift the focus of users away from PA and onto CA/attributes.

That doesn't mean we couldn't have opinions in some form, maybe on the scout report just something simple like "Player can improve" or "Player has reached his limit" similar to what we have now in some places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the complaint here? That you (seemingly) have to pay over the odds (how much is that anyway?) for young potential stars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically we are at an impasse here: SI have allowed you to bid on players that teams previously would not have entertained offers for (at logical market valuations) and there was a giant moan up from the user base. People felt that no player should be untouchable: that if you offer enough money, most players could be bought. So SI said fine, that's valid, and now you *can* pay silly money for a youngster. Is that entirely realistic? No. It used to be more realistic before when a team would just not accept your bid if they didn't want to sell. The current system that we now have is a trade-off. You can bid stupid money for a youngster and pay it. You shouldn't do it, but it is a game, after all, and people apparently would rather have every player buyable for some level of money than not. So don't pay it. You don't have to pretend it is or isn't realistic.

The larger issue is finding players that would cause those silly quotes to begin with. That is something that can be tweaked as the series progresses to make it harder to identify top-tier talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we though?

Given you already know CA through stars & attributes how much do we need to know about their potential? how much do staff/scouts know IRL? Surely its just a case of trial & error, some players improve, some don't.

IRL the focus seems to be much on their current ability and their age whereas in FM users focus much more on PA. IMO SI need to shift the focus of users away from PA and onto CA/attributes.

That doesn't mean we couldn't have opinions in some form, maybe on the scout report just something simple like "Player can improve" or "Player has reached his limit" similar to what we have now in some places.

We do because that's how it works in reality. You have scouts that look at young players- they recommend signing based on potential. That absolutely needs to be a part of it. We need their opinions to help us identify talent and some way to classify those opinions at a glance, which is what the stars do. The real question, where I think you are on to something, is the vagueness of the opinions. But certainly, if we are scouting a 16 year-old, we need our scouts to tell us whether it is worth following their development or not. Attributes are no firm guide when looking at players just promoted from a youth intake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I kind of agree with PA not to be definitively set until his development starts to slow down, say the age of 21/22. The issues with that is, by which time, the players CA is already either well on it's way to matching (or falling short of) his PA, which is supposed to be vague and in most cases it wouldn't be realistic to then extend his PA drastically. Even if you could, most of us would decide the player wouldn't be worth the time or risk of developing him further beyond this age because realistically he wouldn't see much of a stat increase. Even if this was acceptable, you would probably have to open the door to some pretty extreme stat changes in considerably short spaces of time, late on in a players' career. It could work and may even be more realistic in that it's effectively making player attributes more dynamic and more like form that actual set attributes.

Either way I inclined to agree that it's scouting or the definitive display of attributes that's the crux of the problem here rather than the transfer system it's self.

What you are talking about here is more PPA than PA.

Its worth pointing out that when your 26yo player is shown as having 3* CA & PA he might be well short of the PA figure set in the database. In fact SI stated earlier this year that a high % of players never reach the PA given to them in the database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As YKW said (think it was him). maybe a good (and realistic) approach is to have the club's board step in or dictate if offers like £15million can be made for 15/16 year old kids. Most clubs would have some sort of mandate outlining acceptable targets or strategies in the club's transfer policy anyway. Buying unproven youngsters at top dollar prices would probably be have to a privilege that only many years of reliable and consistent service would earn anyway.

IMO SI need to shift the focus of users away from PA and onto CA/attributes.

I agree. While buying potential and building a transer policy up around potential is a viable transfer strategy it has become all too easy and a generally safe bet among the community that most managers will adopt playing FM. It should be more of a risk and more hit and miss. I've read a number of good proposals ont his thread on how this could be tackled that many of which warrant further debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We do because that's how it works in reality. You have scouts that look at young players- they recommend signing based on potential. That absolutely needs to be a part of it. We need their opinions to help us identify talent and some way to classify those opinions at a glance, which is what the stars do. The real question, where I think you are on to something, is the vagueness of the opinions. But certainly, if we are scouting a 16 year-old, we need our scouts to tell us whether it is worth following their development or not. Attributes are no firm guide when looking at players just promoted from a youth intake.

I'm not convinced it is tbh.

Taking Odegaard as a RL example, were all the top clubs after him because he has huge potential to improve or because or his high CA compared to other players of his age?

Past examples include the like of Franny Jeffers & Freddie Adu, both came on the scene early and were well ahead of other players of a similar age. Big clubs watched them but ultimately both hit their peaks early in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is the complaint here? That you (seemingly) have to pay over the odds (how much is that anyway?) for young potential stars?

As a respectful suggestion, I think it might be polite if you were to read the extensive and interesting discussion that has taken place, instead of arriving late and asking (rhetorical?) questions to which the answers are already clear.

Have you added anything with your comment? Come on now, I know you're better than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a respectful suggestion, I think it might be polite if you were to read the extensive and interesting discussion that has taken place, instead of arriving late and asking (rhetorical?) questions to which the answers are already clear.

Have you added anything with your comment? Come on now, I know you're better than this.

2745079.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you added anything with your comment? Come on now, I know you're better than this.

Sort of like post #50 that you made then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not convinced it is tbh.

Taking Odegaard as a RL example, were all the top clubs after him because he has huge potential to improve or because or his high CA compared to other players of his age?

Past examples include the like of Franny Jeffers & Freddie Adu, both came on the scene early and were well ahead of other players of a similar age. Big clubs watched them but ultimately both hit their peaks early in life.

Okay, so there are some high profile exceptions there, and I see where you are coming from, but stepping back from top-flight football for a moment, I *do* want my scouts' opinions on whether they think a young player has it what it takes to develop into a first-teamer at any level. I don't expect them to be correct on all counts, but I want it as one factor in my arsenal of things to consider when signing a young player. I want to look at attributes, physical stature etc. and also a scout's informed opinion from having watched the player. So I agree with you that it needs to be harder to identify potential, but I do want that to remain as part of the picture. I think perhaps the problem is more that the PA or PPA-based stars are too reliable a guide, or at least are taken as such by both users and the AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a respectful suggestion, I think it might be polite if you were to read the extensive and interesting discussion that has taken place, instead of arriving late and asking (rhetorical?) questions to which the answers are already clear.

Have you added anything with your comment? Come on now, I know you're better than this.

Are you just seeing how close to the line you can skate without getting another infraction? Because your reply here is no value added remark itself, just as it was in another thread. Please rein it in or have a forced vacation from the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a respectful suggestion, I think it might be polite if you were to read the extensive and interesting discussion that has taken place, instead of arriving late and asking (rhetorical?) questions to which the answers are already clear.

Have you added anything with your comment? Come on now, I know you're better than this.

I know you're not better than this, but try taking part in the discussion instead of having pops at everyone, otherwise you're taking more time off. I take it you're saying "Yes"?

If that was the major complaint, which I just tried to clarify, I was going to follow up by saying it's perfectly possible to sign youngsters on the cheap. I've been able to buy world class midfielders for around £7m at age 17 and already breaking into the first team (from clubs like Lyon). Same with a 19yo striker (wonderkid) from Troyes, for £7m. An 18yo Brazilian wonderkid striker from Atletico Mineiro for *£3.9m. The list goes on. Roma, Mainz, Cardiff, Amiens, HSV, Saint-Ettiene, Newells (for £4m!), Standard Liege, Fluminese among others, all fell parted with wonderkids for under £10m.

I even picked up an Egyptian regen for £650k. Turns out, he's world class too. I couldn't get him before he signed a professional contract though (got quoted crazy sums), but that's understandable.

I should also add that I found all these players purely by using my scouts. No player search and no 3rd party programs.

-----

Although, IMO, I think PPA is still a bit too accurate and should be based more on CA in relation to others of the same age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people do focus too much on the PPA value, I often see young players being assessed as having the potential to be a 175+ CA player when their true PA score is below 120, of course this margin of error is reduced as a player gets older & it is between the ages of 19-23 that the big clubs tend to start considering making a move for a player tipped to have high potential.

I'd be interested to see how people get on with poaching players at 15 or 16 without the use of the IGE, external scouting tools or player tips based on real world knowledge, treating the game world as the only real world & relying on scouts (with FOW turned on) imo offers a more enjoyable way of playing & there are moments of real jeopardy when deciding on signing a teenage player with high perceived potential.

On my save I have a very talented 19 yr old midfielder who has just won player of the tournament while guiding England to victory in the French Youth Invitational & many of my trusted coaches rate him as high as 4* potential. With solid visible mental & physical attributes many would buy him in an instant & after 3 or 4 seasons they would have to accept that he was a waste of money as he is unlikely to progress beyond his current ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you just seeing how close to the line you can skate without getting another infraction? Because your reply here is no value added remark itself, just as it was in another thread. Please rein it in or have a forced vacation from the forums.

Apologies to all, I thought my criticism of Hunt3r's post was justified considering it's brevity and redundancy, and I thought my manner was exemplary. It was just a polite suggestion after all, although I will admit the slightly antagonistic, Hollywood style call-back to an earlier exchange, which I'm sure he picked up on privately. Apologies again.

I'm just a scurrilous character by nature, and was annoyed about my post being deleted. I thought it offered much more to the discussion than the post you've replied to and not deleted, but I will accept my lack of understanding. Perhaps more posts comprising exclusively of off-topic pictures would fit more appropriately within the clear and consistent guidelines that you are rigidly operating from.

Hunt3r, apologies, I was deliberately being antagonistic. I do have just one small reservation about your post. I accept the charge of "having pops" but I can't bear to see it in tandem with the accusation of not taking part in the discussion, as this is my primary objective 100% of the time, even demonstrated in this thread. I think a more suitable request, delivered to me by you, would be to "try to continue taking part in the discussion, but stop having pops at everyone." This would be much more appropriate for this situation.

So I will take the advice that I have given you to give to me, and I will return to being the YKW that you know I can be. I hope this draws a line underneath this, and hope that the others in this thread who seemed to take offense at my post have also received satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff. I do appreciate the majority of your posts.

To get back to the topic, take my previous post into consideration. It's possible to buy youngsters (good ones) for relatively little. Some youngsters I tried to get, were just priced beyond what I was willing to pay, £20m+ for some. At least half (but note, that I didn't actually count how many) initially were also going to be costly. Because I'm a big club, attempting to lure players from smaller, less prestigious clubs and I'm a reputable manager, I took my time. I spent time chasing these players. Declaring interest. Answering questions about them when needed. I made cheeky offers, to let it be known that I'm interested. Eventually, the player demanded to leave or to at least speak to us. In the end, I managed to land most of my targets, though not all. Some were still valued too highly, but keeping tabs on them, they eventually left for less than what was wanted, because they became unhappy and upset the apple cart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my save I have a very talented 19 yr old midfielder who has just won player of the tournament while guiding England to victory in the French Youth Invitational & many of my trusted coaches rate him as high as 4* potential. With solid visible mental & physical attributes many would buy him in an instant & after 3 or 4 seasons they would have to accept that he was a waste of money as he is unlikely to progress beyond his current ability.

Given the solid visible mental & physicals of our player as well as the fact he did well in a recent ingame tournament, what makes you think that in 3-4 years he is unlikely to progress behind his current ability (using only ingame tools)?

Also, out of curiosity, how does the AI see your above player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the players true PA value & it is only a few points above his current CA, he will be an effective player at Championship level with the right training but he will not be the international calibre player that scouts or coaches believe he will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading through most of the comments on this thread: (I'm the one who started it)

I have realised I had the wrong view of the game and expectations of it.

You people have changed my view of this matter, and thanks to that I'll probably enjoy the game a lot more from now on! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give the OP an example from the other point of view, let's see if he can find some empathy.

Scene: I am coach of Uruguayan Primera team, absolutely skint and with awesome youth prospects. Ajax come in for my five-star rated 16 yo forward

Ajax: Hello, Mr Por Ella, how are you today? I see that young Vega is 16 and valued at 35,000 euros. In that case, we think a bid of 500,000 is more than generous.

Me: :lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ajax: Mr Por Ella, that's very disrespectful. Ok, how much would you like for your unproven teenager.

Me: I'd like at least 5 million, or it's not worth selling him you greedy so and sos.

Ajax: *hangs up phone*

Me: Hello? Hello? *Strokes cat menacingly* They'll be back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the potential ability shouldn't even be shown, because that's where the problem lies really. Just like in RL a youth will stand out because of their current ability, or growth as a footballer, not because someone has shown you he has 5 stars next to his name. Of course they could still have tags as they do now, wonderkid, the next Danny Bhoy or what ever, but you may have to scout a player for a time and see how he has progressed. Your scout would come to you and say something like, "I've been keeping my eyes on this kid from league one, he's got a lot of talent and seems to be only getting better and better, could be a chance," then proceed to give you their evaluation of his CA and what seems to be improving over the year, personality etc.

Same as your own youths, you may end up hedging your bets on that lad who always performs well in the U18, but at 21 doesn't seem to get any better, but generally you should be able to see who is pushing on.

That's my 2 cents on the matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ajax: Hello, Mr Por Ella, how are you today? I see that young Vega is 16 and valued at 35,000 euros. In that case, we think a bid of 500,000 is more than generous. Me: :lol:

Because you know with great certainty that the player is going to be good in the future. In real life the player's future potential would be completely uncertain, which means that his value would be much less. Within the game it is only rational not to sell high potential 15-16 year olds even for preposterously large fees because the chance that they will turn out to be great is huge. There is simply too much certainty regarding a youngster's potential and his ability to reach it.

If you had as little certainty as in real life a sub £5m bid might seem more attractive as for all you know there might only be a 1/20 chance that the youngster is even going to be good enough for you first team.

In general why do you guys think it is so easy to take a non league team to BPL and UCL glory within very few seasons in the game? Obviously because it is extremely easy to identify young prospects and develop them and because the AI is very poor at squad building. I.e. the main edge the human players has over the AI is the ability to exploit the certainty of player potential and player growth. I'm surprised we are yet to see the likes of Whitehawk rise to glory in under 15 years given that it happens hundreds of times on every FM edition. Maybe we armchair managers are just better than the real life ones?

With all this said it is a daunting task to emulate real life scouting in a game. Even player attributes are unrealistically conclusive of a player's ability. It is quite handy that I can just send out a couple of scouts to look at a group of strikers and within a short time I have perfect knowledge of their finishing, composure, first touch, pace etc. stated as easy understandable 1-20 values. SI is going in the right direction by making scouting harder and using attributes as ranges, but clearly scouting and ability identification in game is still considerably easier (to put it mildly) than in real life. Obviously if these are made too hard/realistic the game would be much more difficult which could ruin the experience for many, so it might be in everybody's interest that the game doesn't resemble reality too much in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like a next big step for the game will be player development. It's harder to identify players with great potential this year, which is really positive and makes the game significantly more challenging. It should be even more difficult when there is a higher flop rate for high potential players in the game. In FM15, if you do get the right players who actually do have great potential (or if you use a wonderkid list), barring a freak injury you can almost always get them to max out their potential within 4-5 seasons. IRL there's a % of players that simply never live up to their potential... just have a look at a list like this and you know some of them are on their way, whereas others haven't made it / aren't on track to make it:

http://www.aidtheboss.com/football-manager-2011-wonderkids/

It might be interesting from a data standpoint to characterize those old wonderkid lists by degree of success they've each had, then run a learning algorithm over the data set and see if there are any traits that stand out as predictors... maybe kids with high composure at an early age are more likely to make it than kids with well-developed physicals, or something like that, who knows. Might even learn something that might be useful for Real Madrid the next time they go shopping for precocious Norwegians. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SI is in a no win situation here. If they simply do what would happen in real life and slam the door shut, people will throw a fit. If they go with silly money bids, they get crushed because "it isn't realistic for a team to turn down 15 million for a teenager"

IRL, there are a ridiculous amount of factors in play. How big are the club? A club like Man City, Chelsea or Real Madrid are going to tell you to go to hell if they feel they have a generational talent in their youth system. I don't care if a club offered 20 million. (which nobody would because you can't throw out 20 million and be wrong) A team on the verge of bankruptcy will sell any asset they have.

SI tries to balance this. if you want to play the game and simulate real life as much as possible, you'll avoid buying twenty 15 year olds each year and selling them for a massive profit. You'll pick out one or two if your scouts found them early and you can get a good price. Those are the exceptions. You spend your real money on more developed players and try to develop your own youth. SI is essentially saying if you don't want to play the game that way, it's going to make you pay silly money for these guys.

You can call it a flaw with scouting. You can get pissed that it isn't done the way YOU want it to be done. But why they do it that way is pretty obvious. With editors and programs like genie scout, you can pretty much play this game anyway you like. If your heart is set on that 15 year old, you can cheat the system and get him. Or you can realize you are playing the game in an unrealistic manner and pay the silly money for him. Or you can get royally pissed and never play the game again. The choice is yours. You can also bring up repetitive points over and over and over again. I'm not sure why you would do the last one, but I guess the choice is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole argument again? If a team quotes you a stupid amount it just means go away. I do this all the time when dealing with the AI if I do not have to sell a player, give them a stupid counter-offer and if they are dumb enough to accept then I will sell. They rarely are though.

The point is, why should a team sell one of their star young players for any amount of money? If they believe he will be a star player in the future then it makes more financial sense to keep him, let him progress, help improve the club and then sell him for 5 times as much money once he is the best player in his position in the world. It is strange how players never to seem to think of this.

The key to playing FM is timing, anyway. Wait until a contract is running down and then approach and try to unsettle the player (or bid anyway, he will be cheaper). Keep them on your shortlist and check their status regularly; if they become unhappy then make your move straight away. You cannot always get what you want immediately - both in this game and in real life - but with a bit of patience you can at least get some of it.

My best example of this was following a young French GK in FM14 for 3 years, with my scouts telling me he would be the bext 'keeper ever. I made one or two bids to test his teams resolve, but nothing. However, I kept following him and because he was a good player at a small team they could not afford his wages and he left on a free. Equally, because he was not yet the finished article and did not have a high rep, I managed to pick him up on a free with relatively little competition (I was easily the biggest club going in for him). The moral; patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you know with great certainty that the player is going to be good in the future. In real life the player's future potential would be completely uncertain, which means that his value would be much less. Within the game it is only rational not to sell high potential 15-16 year olds even for preposterously large fees because the chance that they will turn out to be great is huge. There is simply too much certainty regarding a youngster's potential and his ability to reach it.

If you had as little certainty as in real life a sub £5m bid might seem more attractive as for all you know there might only be a 1/20 chance that the youngster is even going to be good enough for you first team.

In general why do you guys think it is so easy to take a non league team to BPL and UCL glory within very few seasons in the game? Obviously because it is extremely easy to identify young prospects and develop them and because the AI is very poor at squad building. I.e. the main edge the human players has over the AI is the ability to exploit the certainty of player potential and player growth. I'm surprised we are yet to see the likes of Whitehawk rise to glory in under 15 years given that it happens hundreds of times on every FM edition. Maybe we armchair managers are just better than the real life ones?

With all this said it is a daunting task to emulate real life scouting in a game. Even player attributes are unrealistically conclusive of a player's ability. It is quite handy that I can just send out a couple of scouts to look at a group of strikers and within a short time I have perfect knowledge of their finishing, composure, first touch, pace etc. stated as easy understandable 1-20 values. SI is going in the right direction by making scouting harder and using attributes as ranges, but clearly scouting and ability identification in game is still considerably easier (to put it mildly) than in real life. Obviously if these are made too hard/realistic the game would be much more difficult which could ruin the experience for many, so it might be in everybody's interest that the game doesn't resemble reality too much in this regard.

I'd say you've hit the nail on the head there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most realistic solution is for the board to veto deals for young players where they feel the money would be better spent on players who are ready for the first team, especially when the player has limited senior appearances or they are a foreign player & the move is delayed for a season or two due to transfer rules.

Not sure how well that sort or board level interference would be received

I would think very poorly.

I think the current system works well enough though. If people are willing to spend crazy money on young, unproven players, then the net effect is that the board will sack them if they don't get the success, I don't think adding more board interference would really help anyone, particularly as it'd turn the "why does this club want so much for a £2 million rated youngster" to "WHY ARE SI STOPPING ME FROM SIGNING QUALITY YOUNG PLAYERS!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you know with great certainty that the player is going to be good in the future. In real life the player's future potential would be completely uncertain, which means that his value would be much less. Within the game it is only rational not to sell high potential 15-16 year olds even for preposterously large fees because the chance that they will turn out to be great is huge. There is simply too much certainty regarding a youngster's potential and his ability to reach it.

If you had as little certainty as in real life a sub £5m bid might seem more attractive as for all you know there might only be a 1/20 chance that the youngster is even going to be good enough for you first team.

In general why do you guys think it is so easy to take a non league team to BPL and UCL glory within very few seasons in the game? Obviously because it is extremely easy to identify young prospects and develop them and because the AI is very poor at squad building. I.e. the main edge the human players has over the AI is the ability to exploit the certainty of player potential and player growth. I'm surprised we are yet to see the likes of Whitehawk rise to glory in under 15 years given that it happens hundreds of times on every FM edition. Maybe we armchair managers are just better than the real life ones?

With all this said it is a daunting task to emulate real life scouting in a game. Even player attributes are unrealistically conclusive of a player's ability. It is quite handy that I can just send out a couple of scouts to look at a group of strikers and within a short time I have perfect knowledge of their finishing, composure, first touch, pace etc. stated as easy understandable 1-20 values. SI is going in the right direction by making scouting harder and using attributes as ranges, but clearly scouting and ability identification in game is still considerably easier (to put it mildly) than in real life. Obviously if these are made too hard/realistic the game would be much more difficult which could ruin the experience for many, so it might be in everybody's interest that the game doesn't resemble reality too much in this regard.

How do we know with great certainty though? Even the best youngsters from my academy are rated at 2.5-3 star potential, with black stars up to 4.5 or 5. They could be anywhere between "about as good as the first team" to "future club legend", as in real life. The real problem occurs when people are looking under the hood. In terms of the information the player has, there are very few players that you're "absolutely certain" about from a young age.

Even in the set of strikers example, even properly scouted the "better" looking strikers can end up being worse thanks to the impact of hidden attributes and complex attribute balance in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you know with great certainty that the player is going to be good in the future. In real life the player's future potential would be completely uncertain, which means that his value would be much less. Within the game it is only rational not to sell high potential 15-16 year olds even for preposterously large fees because the chance that they will turn out to be great is huge. There is simply too much certainty regarding a youngster's potential and his ability to reach it.

If you had as little certainty as in real life a sub £5m bid might seem more attractive as for all you know there might only be a 1/20 chance that the youngster is even going to be good enough for you first team.

In general why do you guys think it is so easy to take a non league team to BPL and UCL glory within very few seasons in the game? Obviously because it is extremely easy to identify young prospects and develop them and because the AI is very poor at squad building. I.e. the main edge the human players has over the AI is the ability to exploit the certainty of player potential and player growth. I'm surprised we are yet to see the likes of Whitehawk rise to glory in under 15 years given that it happens hundreds of times on every FM edition. Maybe we armchair managers are just better than the real life ones?

With all this said it is a daunting task to emulate real life scouting in a game. Even player attributes are unrealistically conclusive of a player's ability. It is quite handy that I can just send out a couple of scouts to look at a group of strikers and within a short time I have perfect knowledge of their finishing, composure, first touch, pace etc. stated as easy understandable 1-20 values. SI is going in the right direction by making scouting harder and using attributes as ranges, but clearly scouting and ability identification in game is still considerably easier (to put it mildly) than in real life. Obviously if these are made too hard/realistic the game would be much more difficult which could ruin the experience for many, so it might be in everybody's interest that the game doesn't resemble reality too much in this regard.

I wouldn't say I know for certain. I've already sold off two 4.5-5 star rated kids for 200,000 and 800,000 euros respectively because in the first case I have plenty of cover in his position, and in the second I felt the player was too slow for the position he would play (left wing). The kid I was referring to in the post however has amazing physical attributes for a 17-year-old, and will definitely play a part in the first team. I agree that it is far too easy for the player to know how good a prospect will be, but it goes both ways I guess - Ajax just happen to know there's a wonderkid in deepest darkest Montevideo who most likely will be an Eredivisie starter?

The whole system is too transparent, but taking that away will seriously affect gameplay so I think we just have to play as 'realistically' as possible. In real life, no team goes around handpicking 10 5-star 18 year olds for 5-10 million each so they can play in 3 years, that's the problem here I think and SI do what they can to limit this buffet-style management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been thinking today, it would be interesting to speculate about the psychological effect on the user of knowing that a player has a fixed potential, regardless of whether they know what it is exactly or not.

Imagine that in scenario A I know the player has a fixed potential, and in scenario B I don't know that, either because I am ignorant of it or because it isn't true.

I think in scenario B there would a decrease in target fixation for sure. I also think that my tolerance of players would probably increase, in the sense that I would be less likely to actively try and sell them. I think I would certainly have a wider range of targets with a lower willing spend for each.

Are those things positive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people do focus too much on the PPA value, I often see young players being assessed as having the potential to be a 175+ CA player when their true PA score is below 120, of course this margin of error is reduced as a player gets older & it is between the ages of 19-23 that the big clubs tend to start considering making a move for a player tipped to have high potential.

I'd be interested to see how people get on with poaching players at 15 or 16 without the use of the IGE, external scouting tools or player tips based on real world knowledge, treating the game world as the only real world & relying on scouts (with FOW turned on) imo offers a more enjoyable way of playing & there are moments of real jeopardy when deciding on signing a teenage player with high perceived potential.

On my save I have a very talented 19 yr old midfielder who has just won player of the tournament while guiding England to victory in the French Youth Invitational & many of my trusted coaches rate him as high as 4* potential. With solid visible mental & physical attributes many would buy him in an instant & after 3 or 4 seasons they would have to accept that he was a waste of money as he is unlikely to progress beyond his current ability.

One of my favourite parts of the game is that shock of seeing how players turn out sometimes. In my current game a young leftback from Mexico was already World Class at 15 (as in, would be a leading player for most top division European sides). I was at the point of nearly signing him for a *cough* considerable fee when I realised I just didn't have the funds to justify signing him with years to go before he could arrive at the club. It's now been 3 seasons since then, and he's still with them and hasn't developed at all. I'm not quite sure what happened, I'm still interested in signing him (he's 18, his current club just mightn't be helping his development), but I'm getting the impression that there's either might be something wrong with him, or he's actually peaked before hitting 18. Already a quality player though, should be worth the game.

One of my favourite FM games involved two shock players hitting their peaks in their early 30s, having been nobodies in their mid 20s (~26-27ish). One actually won world player of the year, but both were legend level players in their 30s. One I released from my club as a failed prospect at around 24 (he cost me a pretty penny too), with him having a poor attitude, it seems that improved after leaving my club. The other I had a scout who demanded I sign him, but I ultimately couldn't free up the funds at the time. I was actually glad to see him face me in an FA Cup fixture against a Championship side, I thought (good thing I didn't waste my money on him). At a time when the debate on here was "FM can't produce late bloomers with a static PA", it was quite refreshing to see FM produce exactly that.

It seems though that much of the problem is people peaking under the hood, but ultimately if they want to ruin that side of the game for themselves, I really don't see the issue. People can do what they want in their games, but ultimately what gets me is when they do such things, then complain about it, i.e. "My super potential player didn't develop, why?!", "Why do Bayern want so much for this 15 year old wonderkid?", "How is it fair that my player is hampered by his static PA, he's soooooo good!". The whole point with the PA system is that it's there to limit things under the hood, and the way that the PCA and PPA systems work with the scouts are actually really cool within the game. CA/PA are there to balance the game world, CCA and PPA are for us to actually interact with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't say I know for certain. I've already sold off two 4.5-5 star rated kids for 200,000 and 800,000 euros respectively because in the first case I have plenty of cover in his position, and in the second I felt the player was too slow for the position he would play (left wing). The kid I was referring to in the post however has amazing physical attributes for a 17-year-old, and will definitely play a part in the first team. I agree that it is far too easy for the player to know how good a prospect will be, but it goes both ways I guess - Ajax just happen to know there's a wonderkid in deepest darkest Montevideo who most likely will be an Eredivisie starter?

The whole system is too transparent, but taking that away will seriously affect gameplay so I think we just have to play as 'realistically' as possible. In real life, no team goes around handpicking 10 5-star 18 year olds for 5-10 million each so they can play in 3 years, that's the problem here I think and SI do what they can to limit this buffet-style management.

Ajax happened to scout the top division of one of the best national teams in the world you mean?

Why should SI try and enforce artificial limits on the players just for people who cheat to see the under the hood values. The reason that's it's unrealistic is that spending the big bucks on unproven kids is likely to lose money, and will mean that you're deferring increase in quality, something that managers in the real world can hardly afford. In the game, if you went out and signed 5-10 random 5 star youths, even with the best scouts available, they still wouldn't all be stars, and you may not make your money back. The only issue is when you have people going around picking off the best young talents using the IGE or third party tools.

I have been thinking today, it would be interesting to speculate about the psychological effect on the user of knowing that a player has a fixed potential, regardless of whether they know what it is exactly or not.

Imagine that in scenario A I know the player has a fixed potential, and in scenario B I don't know that, either because I am ignorant of it or because it isn't true.

I think in scenario B there would a decrease in target fixation for sure. I also think that my tolerance of players would probably increase, in the sense that I would be less likely to actively try and sell them. I think I would certainly have a wider range of targets with a lower willing spend for each.

Are those things positive?

Why are you speculating on the psychology of under the hood systems. It's been shown before that the in game systems produce a good game world, with a realistic set of career trajectories, including strange ones, such as wonderkids that peak young, and golden older players that don't peak until late in their careers. If you're playing the game differently because you fear the term static, then that's your own problem. Unless you're looking at the values, it shouldn't affect you. You're perfectly welcome to do so if that's how you want to play the game, but complaining because you're looking at them is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Alex said, and as I pointed out also, people are putting too much stock in the star ratings. They are a tool as part of your information to evaluate talent, not any sort of absolute value or guide. A large number of the complaints about this area of the game revolve around star ratings. The game could, and probably should, look to revamp that method, but they should not be taken as indicative of anything other than a staff member's opinion about where a player could end up ability-wise given the best of possible cirucmstances. You still have to look at the attributes, match performance, physical development, training progression, etc. to get a clear idea. There is no where near the level of certainty of development that people like to think there is (YLT above, as an example) and quite often the main evidence used is the star ratings. I think we would all like to see some changes in this are to increase the "fog of war" but as it stands now it is still pretty vague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you speculating on the psychology of under the hood systems. It's been shown before that the in game systems produce a good game world, with a realistic set of career trajectories, including strange ones, such as wonderkids that peak young, and golden older players that don't peak until late in their careers. If you're playing the game differently because you fear the term static, then that's your own problem. Unless you're looking at the values, it shouldn't affect you. You're perfectly welcome to do so if that's how you want to play the game, but complaining because you're looking at them is ridiculous.

Well I'm certainly not complaining about anything, or fearing the term static, or looking at the values, so I'm not sure from which orifice you've plucked those ideas, I'm afraid.

I think you've missed my point entirely, friend. Your point about the composition of the database is correct, but irrelevant to what I have said. Would it help you if I clearly stated that CA and PA does a good, if not great job of regulating the database? Would you then feel less threatened by my hypothetical question?

I'm not speculating on the psychology of under the hood systems, I'm speculating about the effect on a player of having knowledge about how the under the hood system works. Simply having this knowledge WILL affect the way the user plays the game, consciously or otherwise, and your best attempts at arguing against points I haven't made won't change that.

Information drives decisions. Are you seriously saying that the information that PA is static has no effect on the decisions of the user? So there would be no change in the behaviour of the user if he discovered that PA was totally unfixed? I'm not sure why you have had such a hostile response to a very simple hypothetical question with its basis firmly in reality. Target fixation has been identified by SI as a cause of many users transfer market problems. I believe I have identified a factor that contributes to this.

EDIT: Any chance you could point me in the direction of exactly where it has "been shown before that the in game systems produce a good game world, with a realistic set of career trajectories, including strange ones, such as wonderkids that peak young, and golden older players that don't peak until late in their careers," as this is central to your claims. I certainly haven't encountered many, if any late bloomers for one thing. Thank you very much.

Just have to point out that you're wrong here.

Even in FM, the vast majority of youngsters who are predicted to have the potential to be world class will fail to get anywhere near that level.

See for yourself, next in game season use one of the editors to find all newgens from that years intake who have a PA of 170+, add them all to a shortlist, play another ten seasons and then look at the shortlist again. You'll find that a small number of them are playing at the top level, a lot will be at around Championship level, a good portion will be between the Championship and Conference, and a fair few will have retired early or are now playing non-league.

Even if you develop a player perfectly you'll rarely, if ever, see them adding more than about 90 to 100 points to their starting CA, so if you got a youngster with a PA of 199, unless their starting CA was damn near to 100 they'll never reach the level that their PA indicates they could. Chances are that they won't develop perfectly as they won't have the perfect set of hidden attributes, and they'll likely not be trained as efficiently as they can, and they may well suffer a few injuries that slow their development down a bit, and even if they came through to your youth team with a starting CA of 100 they'll most likely never make it past about 160/170 for CA.

Last time I did this test I found about 50 youngsters in one years intake who had a CA of 170+, so all in theory able to develop into a world class player. 10 years later I found:

Around half a dozen of them could be considered world class

A further 10 or so were solid top division players, nothing special but dependable footballers.

Five or six were still at top division clubs but very rarely playing or sitting in the reserves.

About a dozen had either retired before the age of 23 or were playing for semi-professional clubs.

The rest were scattered around somewhere below the top flight but above the semi-professional level.

Just because a player has a high PA, it in no way guarantees that they will ever be anything special.

Great post and great research. I think there are some quite significant questions that could be asked though. For instance, I would wager that the majority of those players who didn't make it had some combination of Injury Proneness, Inconsistency, Low determination or a Negative personality - all factors that are relatively easy for the user to identify. So while your experiment shows really well that high-PA doesn't guarantee a world star, it is not appropriate for making assertions about the ability of a human to develop those players, because their bias will be against those players who are the least likely to succeed.

How many of your 50 youngsters would have better development under a human than the AI? I don't think it is a stretch to say that all of them would, especially considering tutoring to shape their personalities.

And so while I think you have demonstrated that there isn't absolute certainty over the potential development of the player, I don't think you have proved Ylt wrong as you haven't demonstrated that there is not TOO MUCH certainty, which is what his claim is. I think my previous post here demonstrates that there is too much certainty, especially when compared with real life. I think the values that humans are prepared to pay, and the sums asked for by the AI in comparison with realistic real life figures are clear indications of this being the case on both sides.

I love the changes to scouting this year and I think they have definitely decreased the level of certainty, and it is an excellent step in the right direction.

The central point in this "level of certainty" debate should not be anything other than real life. Does anybody here believe that assessing the ability and development of a player is anywhere near real life levels of uncertainty? Of course, we shouldn't necessarily expect it to be, but there is no harm in discussion what would be positive progress.

Dr. Hook I think bringing the star ratings into this is a little unfair, as re-reading the thread I can't see that any complaint is directly relating to this. Few people have mentioned them at all. You are correct that this is often cited in these discussions, but I think there enough other points here for you to respond to. For instance, the star ratings have no bearing on the asking prices for players, which is a clear complaint in this thread, that they are unrealistically high. My point in relation to this is the question of why the user is unrealistically happy to pay so much? I believe this is a reflection of the fact that that it is too easy to identify which players have those qualities that lead to good development, such as consistency, personality, determination, injury proneness etc, and using this in combination with relative potential star ratings from a single scout can lead to well above real life levels of certainty about the development of the player. Arguing that there is a lack of certainty in the game, or even just arguing that there is a lower level of certainty than people think has no bearing on the question of "is the level of certainty too high?" You first need to ask yourself at what level it should be.

My secondary point in terms of these offers and asking prices is that there is actually the possibility that just the simple fact that a user is aware of fixed PA could lead to him making more illogical transfer decisions, such as fixating on the purchase of one specific player, or being to hasty to try and sell players. Do you have any thoughts on these points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I'm certainly not complaining about anything, or fearing the term static, or looking at the values, so I'm not sure from which orifice you've plucked those ideas, I'm afraid.

I think you've missed my point entirely, friend. Your point about the composition of the database is correct, but irrelevant to what I have said. Would it help you if I clearly stated that CA and PA does a good, if not great job of regulating the database? Would you then feel less threatened by my hypothetical question?

I'm not speculating on the psychology of under the hood systems, I'm speculating about the effect on a player of having knowledge about how the under the hood system works. Simply having this knowledge WILL affect the way the user plays the game, consciously or otherwise, and your best attempts at arguing against points I haven't made won't change that.

Information drives decisions. Are you seriously saying that the information that PA is static has no effect on the decisions of the user? So there would be no change in the behaviour of the user if he discovered that PA was totally unfixed? I'm not sure why you have had such a hostile response to a very simple hypothetical question with its basis firmly in reality. Target fixation has been identified by SI as a cause of many users transfer market problems. I believe I have identified a factor that contributes to this.

EDIT: Any chance you could point me in the direction of exactly where it has "been shown before that the in game systems produce a good game world, with a realistic set of career trajectories, including strange ones, such as wonderkids that peak young, and golden older players that don't peak until late in their careers," as this is central to your claims. I certainly haven't encountered many, if any late bloomers for one thing. Thank you very much.

Great post and great research. I think there are some quite significant questions that could be asked though. For instance, I would wager that the majority of those players who didn't make it had some combination of Injury Proneness, Inconsistency, Low determination or a Negative personality - all factors that are relatively easy for the user to identify. So while your experiment shows really well that high-PA doesn't guarantee a world star, it is not appropriate for making assertions about the ability of a human to develop those players, because their bias will be against those players who are the least likely to succeed.

How many of your 50 youngsters would have better development under a human than the AI? I don't think it is a stretch to say that all of them would, especially considering tutoring to shape their personalities.

And so while I think you have demonstrated that there isn't absolute certainty over the potential development of the player, I don't think you have proved Ylt wrong as you haven't demonstrated that there is not TOO MUCH certainty, which is what his claim is. I think my previous post here demonstrates that there is too much certainty, especially when compared with real life. I think the values that humans are prepared to pay, and the sums asked for by the AI in comparison with realistic real life figures are clear indications of this being the case on both sides.

I love the changes to scouting this year and I think they have definitely decreased the level of certainty, and it is an excellent step in the right direction.

The central point in this "level of certainty" debate should not be anything other than real life. Does anybody here believe that assessing the ability and development of a player is anywhere near real life levels of uncertainty? Of course, we shouldn't necessarily expect it to be, but there is no harm in discussion what would be positive progress.

Dr. Hook I think bringing the star ratings into this is a little unfair, as re-reading the thread I can't see that any complaint is directly relating to this. Few people have mentioned them at all. You are correct that this is often cited in these discussions, but I think there enough other points here for you to respond to. For instance, the star ratings have no bearing on the asking prices for players, which is a clear complaint in this thread, that they are unrealistically high. My point in relation to this is the question of why the user is unrealistically happy to pay so much? I believe this is a reflection of the fact that that it is too easy to identify which players have those qualities that lead to good development, such as consistency, personality, determination, injury proneness etc, and using this in combination with relative potential star ratings from a single scout can lead to well above real life levels of certainty about the development of the player. Arguing that there is a lack of certainty in the game, or even just arguing that there is a lower level of certainty than people think has no bearing on the question of "is the level of certainty too high?" You first need to ask yourself at what level it should be.

My secondary point in terms of these offers and asking prices is that there is actually the possibility that just the simple fact that a user is aware of fixed PA could lead to him making more illogical transfer decisions, such as fixating on the purchase of one specific player, or being to hasty to try and sell players. Do you have any thoughts on these points?

My response wasn't hostile, it was direct. You response however seems quite hostile to any questioning, and in fact seems to contradict itself. You start by saying that it was just about "the psychology" then immediately ask for a reference stating "my entire point is based on it".

In any case, I wish I could provide you with those old threads, but I can't seem to find them (or any threads from the time period it seems). I don't know why you seem to think it was me that demonstrated it either, but in the future it's worth noting that adding information into quotes, i.e. adding to the front of it, is generally a bad idea. Whilst I was part of that particular discussion large parts of it were by other posters.

I am slowly putting together an analysis from FM15 though, hopefully that will put it into context a bit. The early work from that analysis so far has just shown that after an initial CA inflation (from real players), that the regens replace the real world players quite well, but I've not put together anything on the scatter of players at this point. The real question is a good way of going about the methodology, as tracking large numbers of players just isn't something that would be easy to put together for this version.

As for the psychology, again, that is the person's own problem. If they are affected and act illogically due to the information, then there's not a lot that can really be done for them. Much like when people feel a crisis of self from hearing debates about "determinism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Hook I think bringing the star ratings into this is a little unfair, as re-reading the thread I can't see that any complaint is directly relating to this. Few people have mentioned them at all. You are correct that this is often cited in these discussions, but I think there enough other points here for you to respond to. For instance, the star ratings have no bearing on the asking prices for players, which is a clear complaint in this thread, that they are unrealistically high. My point in relation to this is the question of why the user is unrealistically happy to pay so much? I believe this is a reflection of the fact that that it is too easy to identify which players have those qualities that lead to good development, such as consistency, personality, determination, injury proneness etc, and using this in combination with relative potential star ratings from a single scout can lead to well above real life levels of certainty about the development of the player. Arguing that there is a lack of certainty in the game, or even just arguing that there is a lower level of certainty than people think has no bearing on the question of "is the level of certainty too high?" You first need to ask yourself at what level it should be.

My secondary point in terms of these offers and asking prices is that there is actually the possibility that just the simple fact that a user is aware of fixed PA could lead to him making more illogical transfer decisions, such as fixating on the purchase of one specific player, or being to hasty to try and sell players. Do you have any thoughts on these points?

Well I'm not sure about fair, or unfair, it is just a discussion in an area where there is typically a lot of complaining and misunderstanding. While it is true that star ratings are not explicitly mentioned, they are all over this discussion because they are the primary way people evaluate potential as they are the mechanism FM uses to represent opinion. The star ratings also do have a bearing on the asking prices because the AI has ratings for its own players, which represent what they think the player's future is.

I get that you find that it is too easy to identify players that are going to be good. I disagree. I find it easy to find players that I think are going to be good, or that the AI thinks are going to be good (i.e. their asking price gives that away) but I don't find it easy to have a level of certainty that unbalances the game. I think this a) because there is uncertainty in the game and b) it is less than people imagine it to be. From my perspective it is a perfectly acceptable level of uncertainty. What I would like to see changed is the way it is presented to the user. I'd like to ditch the star ratings, at least as far as potential is concerned, and I'd like the game to go back to having AI teams refuse to accept bids for players they don't want to sell. I never liked the decision to have the AI propose silly money as a way to deter interest. Just better to have them not sell.

As for the psychological effect, I don't really know, and I don't think anyone does to be honest. How many of the hundreds of thousands of users will buy a player because they know a fixed PA exists and it might good? Who knows. I am not convinced it mattesr because unless you cheat and use GenieScout or something, the fixed PA could be anything for all you know and that amounts to the same thing. In my view it is perfectly acceptable to have players that you can identify as "going to be good" with "how good?" being the real question. Some will and should be total busts, and I think that does happen in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the assessment of PA, including a margin for error in scouting, should be based on the improvement in CA over the scouting period alongside comparative CA to his peers. This would also have to take some account of the quality of training and matches the player is receiving.

This would encourage / necessitate longer scouting periods. It would also make it more difficult to find that 190PA star who just turned up at Stevenage and allow for the Jeffers and Adus who improve rapidly at an early age - thus appearing to be future superstars when they are merely early bloomers.

As for how to avoid crazy quoted prices, maybe that's not possible, but by introducing less certainty and also increasing accountability it might put people off making stupid bids. By accountability, the board must be tougher on transfers that don't work. If you blow 12m on a 16 year old who turns out to be a talentless clod then that should weigh heavily against you either by the board's opinion or even by taking the final transfer say away from the manager (imposing a DOF to finalise signings etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there is a few issues that causes the problem with high transfer prices.

- No clubs need to sell. The economy in the game is way to forgiving, and the clubs that work on a “sign cheap player, develop player, sell expensive player” basis are virtually non-existing in the game. The second tier clubs should have to sell a big star from time to time to survive, and teams should get into trouble if they don’t reach their goals. IE. a few of the clubs around the forth place should have to sell some players when they fails to reach the Champions League.

-Players are still way to loyal. In my Athletic-save, a few players starts whining because they want to leave for bigger clubs. I tell them to stop whining, they whine for some time and then they are suddenly happy to sign a new contract with stupidly big clauses. I do waste a bit of wage this way, but I gain a lot of money out of seemingly thin air, so I have no economic issues. Some players should, even with no big interest, just tell you no when you want to resign them with no way to get out of it. Then you will be forced to sell just to get a few bucks out of it. On my holiday save, many League One type clubs had players scoring 20+ goals for them each season for 10 years. That would never happen in real life.

- Players development is way to logical and easy to read. Yes, your 4,5* talent might have high injury proneness or low determination that stops his progression, or you can forget him and let him rot in the reserves. I want to see 1-2* talents end up as world beaters that just had a slower development. Superstars at the age of 18 who stops their development there, or even decrease. This means signing youths is a way to exact science. If you know that the player they offer 20 million for is worth 40 in two years, you might not sell him. If the best 17 year old player in the game might end up as a mediocre Bojan, you might not want to use that much money on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as external software will clearly show the actual CA/PA figures of any player in the game, then this is how the game has to be otherwise it's simply too easy. I couldn't tell you these figures of ANY player in the game, as I don't use a Genie Scout, never use an in-game editor, and only use the main editor to change cosmetic details if they're wrong in-game.

I find my saves to be more enjoyable, as I'm not hoovering up all the best young talent, and I'm not unrealistically dominating year in, year out. It creates a balanced gameworld, where any young player I buy or try to develop might not have that 'great' potential, despite what the scouts say.

In this year's game, I've taken a team from the Conference North to the Premier League, but in the third season in the Premier, I'm still battling against relegation. I could have easily had a team full of wonderkids just reaching their early potential and gone on and won the league and Champions League by now, but that would have felt really shallow.

But that's just me, people can play the game as they wish. I do think though, the way they deal with values and purchasing of great young talent is pretty good, solely due to how easy it is to obtain the under the hood info about them. If I was to make one future suggestion, it would be to always keep CA/PA values hidden from users, regardless of what tools they use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For as long as external software will clearly show the actual CA/PA figures of any player in the game, then this is how the game has to be otherwise it's simply too easy. I couldn't tell you these figures of ANY player in the game, as I don't use a Genie Scout, never use an in-game editor, and only use the main editor to change cosmetic details if they're wrong in-game.

I find my saves to be more enjoyable, as I'm not hoovering up all the best young talent, and I'm not unrealistically dominating year in, year out. It creates a balanced gameworld, where any young player I buy or try to develop might not have that 'great' potential, despite what the scouts say.

In this year's game, I've taken a team from the Conference North to the Premier League, but in the third season in the Premier, I'm still battling against relegation. I could have easily had a team full of wonderkids just reaching their early potential and gone on and won the league and Champions League by now, but that would have felt really shallow.

But that's just me, people can play the game as they wish. I do think though, the way they deal with values and purchasing of great young talent is pretty good, solely due to how easy it is to obtain the under the hood info about them. If I was to make one future suggestion, it would be to always keep CA/PA values hidden from users, regardless of what tools they use.

Would prevent people from making database changes, and in a game that prides itself on moddability, that would be slapping the customers for no particularly good reason.

To be completely honest, I don't really get why people are bothered by people cheating at the game, if they want to play that way, and have a bizarrely easy game world without any of the interest of the transfer market, that's fine. The issue is just when people complain that clubs feel like holding on to their best young talent, when the only reason they know how good they could be is such things (i.e. in game editors, third party tools, etc.). To come on here and complain about such systems when you're using such is quite honestly bizarre, but I've seen people go on forums for other games and literally admit their disappointed in the quality of the pirated version of it, and directly ask the CEO of the company to make future versions (of the pirated version) work properly. Forums are odd places.

My take on the whole situation is that it's a good under the hood system that allows the database to be edited and changed in a good way, generates a realistic game world and works brilliantly as long as you're peaking under. But that should remain those users choice, and I would expect it does. Ultimately though, the cheaters don't effect anyone else, and as long as they aren't whinging that clubs want to hold onto their young talent they tend to vanish into the background a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My main gripe is that the management NEVER steps in for AI clubs, but it can step in when it comes to you.

Manage a random low division club from a low reputation country and the management will accept offers on your behalf as soon as a 500K offer is made.

Make a 1M offer for a high PA regen in the exact same clubs and now they somehow have the luxury to be able to reply back to you that they want at least 6.

Which, in real life, would potentially keep the club running for a number of years.

As Accrington Stanley (a League Two side, so not a ''random low division club'') noted, 10m would pay their annual wage bill for the next 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My response wasn't hostile, it was direct. You response however seems quite hostile to any questioning, and in fact seems to contradict itself. You start by saying that it was just about "the psychology" then immediately ask for a reference stating "my entire point is based on it".

In any case, I wish I could provide you with those old threads, but I can't seem to find them (or any threads from the time period it seems). I don't know why you seem to think it was me that demonstrated it either, but in the future it's worth noting that adding information into quotes, i.e. adding to the front of it, is generally a bad idea. Whilst I was part of that particular discussion large parts of it were by other posters.

I am slowly putting together an analysis from FM15 though, hopefully that will put it into context a bit. The early work from that analysis so far has just shown that after an initial CA inflation (from real players), that the regens replace the real world players quite well, but I've not put together anything on the scatter of players at this point. The real question is a good way of going about the methodology, as tracking large numbers of players just isn't something that would be easy to put together for this version.

As for the psychology, again, that is the person's own problem. If they are affected and act illogically due to the information, then there's not a lot that can really be done for them. Much like when people feel a crisis of self from hearing debates about "determinism".

Haha, fair enough. My response was quite hostile, and the first draft even more so, I'm not going to deny that. I'll admit I can be quite abrasive. Surely you can see, however, that your post to me relied on dismissing arguments that people other than me had made? I was quite antagonised by you saying "that's your problem" and for some reason accusing me of "fearing the term static" when I wasn't even complaining in the first place, just asking a question. :thup:

I'm not sure what you mean about adding information into quotes? I didn't alter any that I used.

I don't think it was you that demonstrated it! You said "it has been shown," not "I have shown." I'm just asking where it has been shown. I was under the impression that late bloomers were something that it is widely accepted is not manifested well in FM. I'm open to being corrected here, so if you do happen to come across the threads in question then please let me know, I love a good read.

This is just a nit-picky point, but you've misquoted me. I didn't say "your entire point is based on it" as you have quoted me as saying. I said they "are central to your claims," which they are, both in that post and in your subsequent post #93. If you want to paraphrase me, which is fine, don't use quotation marks. I am not expecting you to waste your time by searching through old threads, but if you (or someone else) can't support your claim that "It's been shown before that the in game systems produce a good game world, with a realistic set of career trajectories, including strange ones, such as wonderkids that peak young, and golden older players that don't peak until late in their careers." then obviously the points you make that depend on this are just speculation at best. I am not being arsey, I would genuinely like to see this, because it contradicts what I thought was common knowledge. I'm not accusing you of lying, or just imagining up points to fit your argument, or just pretending that you have evidence of something you don't, I just genuinely have not seen this. Obviously if I were to see it then it would change my perspective somewhat. :thup:

I'm looking forward to your analysis and I love when people put effort into things on here, so thanks! Bare in mind of course that the development of players under AI control is in no way representative of development under a human player, and so the two points of "a good game world" and "suitable human controlled development" are largely separate points which people seem to be incorrectly approaching as one.

For the record, although I'm not sure you were accusing me, I have dissatisfaction with some of these elements despite not "cheating." I think your most recent post seems to imply that only somebody who cheats could be dissatisfied, so just realise that you are wrong on this point. Good man.

Well I'm not sure about fair, or unfair, it is just a discussion in an area where there is typically a lot of complaining and misunderstanding. While it is true that star ratings are not explicitly mentioned, they are all over this discussion because they are the primary way people evaluate potential as they are the mechanism FM uses to represent opinion. The star ratings also do have a bearing on the asking prices because the AI has ratings for its own players, which represent what they think the player's future is.

I think you are overlooking the fact that there is the issue of the players potential and the issue of the players development, as defined by factors like injury proneness, consistency and personality. Although the changes this year have been good, it still remains too easy to discover these traits on a report card. For instance it is too easy to decide to forgo signing a higher potential but inconsistent and injury prone youth player in favour of a lower potential but consistent and rarely injury prone player. The question of which players will develop best is quite easily answered in this context. The predicted potential of a player at any given time is only one element, and not the main one, unlike your post suggests. I appreciate that they are very much a part of this whole discussion, but I think more interesting points have been raised.

In terms of your last point there regarding asking prices and star ratings. There was a post on here by a user who created identical players, differing only in their potential ability. I forget the exact conditions, but the result was a screenshot of the players in the scouting view, and their star ratings were perfectly ranked in order relative to their PA figure, and the asking prices were also perfectly ranked in descending order of the PA figure. It's a post I can probably find, if no-else already knows where it is. The two issues are that 1) the scout gets it exactly right, relatively, and 2) the AI team have it exactly right in terms of the figures they ask, again relatively. Do you think either of those things sound correct to you? Perhaps this has been changed since then, which would be good, but I think it is an interesting demonstration of how the system can work, albeit a crude one that relies on *sigh* unrealistic inputs. Please note, I do think that there should be a relatively clear consensus within football on which players are the future stars, and therefore most valuable. However as things stand it seems this consensus is too closely dependent on the actual PA figure, when maybe an ideal situation would be that somehow it is entirely unrelated.

I get that you find that it is too easy to identify players that are going to be good. I disagree. I find it easy to find players that I think are going to be good, or that the AI thinks are going to be good (i.e. their asking price gives that away) but I don't find it easy to have a level of certainty that unbalances the game. I think this a) because there is uncertainty in the game and b) it is less than people imagine it to be. From my perspective it is a perfectly acceptable level of uncertainty. What I would like to see changed is the way it is presented to the user. I'd like to ditch the star ratings, at least as far as potential is concerned, and I'd like the game to go back to having AI teams refuse to accept bids for players they don't want to sell. I never liked the decision to have the AI propose silly money as a way to deter interest. Just better to have them not sell.

As for the psychological effect, I don't really know, and I don't think anyone does to be honest. How many of the hundreds of thousands of users will buy a player because they know a fixed PA exists and it might good? Who knows. I am not convinced it mattesr because unless you cheat and use GenieScout or something, the fixed PA could be anything for all you know and that amounts to the same thing. In my view it is perfectly acceptable to have players that you can identify as "going to be good" with "how good?" being the real question. Some will and should be total busts, and I think that does happen in the game.

I don't just think that it is too easy to identify players that are going to be good, this is an element of it. I also think it is too easy to identify which players will develop well, or at least better or worse than others. And just to be really clear, it would be more correct to say that I think it is too easy to identify players that are going to be good relatively speaking, for example in comparison to my current squad. Sometimes the star ratings can give away the potential, and like you say sometimes the high asking price is enough of a clue that you are onto a winner. Along with these there are plenty of other factors, certain combinations of which can lead to an almost guaranteed star for your team. Not necessarily for world football, but for your team. I think it is very hard on this game to have an unsuccessful transfer policy. Ignoring the potential stars, this relates to the ease with which the user can identify the presence of factors that lead to good development. This is one of the issues that I thought you may have chosen to address instead of the potential stars.

About the level of certainty. Is it fair to say, considering that I talk about a realistic level of certainty and you talk about an acceptable level of certainty, that you feel that the current system is as realistic is as possible right now, but that you would expect it to improve in the future as always? As I said before, it is unfair to expect a totally realistic system, so perhaps we agree here? I am posting from the perspective that if we were all talking about the hypothetical perfect version of the game, then no matter how grandiose the ideas, it would make the small changes that are needed more obvious, and the progress more directed. I hope you and others don't see my posts as complaints, I am just passionate about the potential of FM. I could wholly agree with you that the level of certainty is acceptable considering certain limitations such as composition of the database, but still maintain that it is highly unrealistic in comparison to real life, which it is. I think both are excellent points to make in the pursuit of improvement.

A final point on the psychology element. SI staff have posted on here, for example, that many people think the game is cheating them due to "retention bias," which means they notice and pay more attention to last minute goals against them, for example. Games are all about psychology and the motivations and interests of the players, and I know 100% that SI appreciate this because they are game designers. They have also used the term "target fixation," which I mentioned before, and actually I'm sure my point about the knowledge of a fixed potential resonates with some of them in this regard. This weekend I have a date with an over-qualification of psychologists, and so I'll bring this up with them and see if I can't return with a much more specific description of the phenomena I am describing. Sorry I can't do better for you now, although I do believe it matters.

I do think there is a few issues that causes the problem with high transfer prices.

- No clubs need to sell. The economy in the game is way to forgiving, and the clubs that work on a “sign cheap player, develop player, sell expensive player” basis are virtually non-existing in the game. The second tier clubs should have to sell a big star from time to time to survive, and teams should get into trouble if they don’t reach their goals. IE. a few of the clubs around the forth place should have to sell some players when they fails to reach the Champions League.

-Players are still way to loyal. In my Athletic-save, a few players starts whining because they want to leave for bigger clubs. I tell them to stop whining, they whine for some time and then they are suddenly happy to sign a new contract with stupidly big clauses. I do waste a bit of wage this way, but I gain a lot of money out of seemingly thin air, so I have no economic issues. Some players should, even with no big interest, just tell you no when you want to resign them with no way to get out of it. Then you will be forced to sell just to get a few bucks out of it. On my holiday save, many League One type clubs had players scoring 20+ goals for them each season for 10 years. That would never happen in real life.

- Players development is way to logical and easy to read. Yes, your 4,5* talent might have high injury proneness or low determination that stops his progression, or you can forget him and let him rot in the reserves. I want to see 1-2* talents end up as world beaters that just had a slower development. Superstars at the age of 18 who stops their development there, or even decrease. This means signing youths is a way to exact science. If you know that the player they offer 20 million for is worth 40 in two years, you might not sell him. If the best 17 year old player in the game might end up as a mediocre Bojan, you might not want to use that much money on him.

Some interesting points here, and I largely agree with you. Especially over player development being too easy to read (too easy doesn't necessarily mean easy.) I think you are spot on that if young players flopped more frequently for users, especially ones that the AI asked a lot for, then they may have more fear next time around, balancing their interests more realistically.

On the bolded, our friend Some Guy! has suggested that this has already been shown to happen. Hopefully someone here remembers the thread, and this would certainly affect the way I play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . .

Interesting post, there. I can reduce it to this and be happy: can the game be better in this regard? Yes. Would I like it to improve in this regard? Yes. Does it work pretty well as is? Yes. At least, I can live with it and make it work and it doesn't kill my enjoyment. Obviously you feel the same else you would not have put the in the hours that allow you to develop a nuanced perspective. As for certainty levels and all that, we can just agree to disagree, I think, and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which, in real life, would potentially keep the club running for a number of years.

As Accrington Stanley (a League Two side, so not a ''random low division club'') noted, 10m would pay their annual wage bill for the next 20 years.

Ye...that's kinda my point...

The AI never gets that.

I'm not saying it's unrealistic for that to happen to me. I'm even used to it and expecting after years of LLM managing and I do indeed find it perfectly normal.

But why don't I have the luxury of being able to do the same in small clubs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people actually complaining like they accept the same bid off the AI.

Someone quoted that 4 mil for shaw scared everyone off well AI have to fluctuate that price in order to scare humans away.

So what's the problem????? In real life 4 mil s stupid money in the games 4 mil isn't stupid money 30 plus mil is.

Why should you be able to buy anyone you want????

Then the topic changed to scouting

I actually like the scouting but yh it can be better

But the OP was about transfers not scouting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should you be able to buy anyone you want????

Because every player has a price. Just sometimes the factors that generate the price aren't quite correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because every player has a price. Just sometimes the factors that generate the price aren't quite correct.

Every player does, but if the club thinks they have one of the best players of his generation, that price may well be £70+ mil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...