Newgens making the game unplayable.

[Thorne]

Hello. I have been playing FM for a long time so I'd like to give my two cents about an issue that I believe deserves a lot of attention for FM18.

 

The issue is that newgens are not properly replacing existing players. It's actually an old issue but it didn't bother me much until FM17 as I was tactically illiterate and didn't care what role a certain player played or his what his stats were as long as he was considered good.

Now that I've learned a few things about tactics and know how important the roles are I've started to notice this huge difference between newgens and existing players up to the point where I can't find the players that fit my system, thus making the game unplayable.

For me it started in 8th season (although it would have probably been sooner had I managed a bigger club or one that relies on buying youth talent) when I finally got a big transfer kitty thanks to UCL qualification. I wanted to upgrade my AML Inside Forward, a very important part of my team.  When I filtered my search to AML position and Inside Forward role it returned 110 players. Out of those 110 only 4 (3.6%) were newgens, neither of them any good. At this point I was almost ready to quit but decided to continue due to the formation of a new 4-4-2 narrow tactic that I had good players for. It was only missing an attack minded MC, surely I will be able to find one of those? Well, no... turns out there aren't just newgen Inside Forwards missing,

This prompted me to do a little research on newgens vs existing players on all positions and I've discovered there was a difference in almost every position:

- GK:  lower First Touch

- DRL: lower Dribbling and Crossing

- CB: lower technical skills

- MC: lower Dribbling, Anticipation, Off the ball, Finishing

- all Advanced Playmaker roles (MC and AMC): lower Dribbling, Anciticaption, Off the ball

- AMRL:  lower Finishing, Passing, Off the ball, Vision

- FC: didn't notice anything there except that they're so good I'm trying to retrain one as Inside Forward and the other as an attacking MC.

 

I encourage you to check your saves and compare your newgens to the existing players still in the game or the ones in the starting database and report back the results. I'm sure there are plenty of more stats the newgens are much worse at or other Roles that go extinct, I was mostly checking the ones needed for my tactic.

This way they will hopefully look into this issue and finally fix it because I probably won't be buying the game again until they do.

 

 

[Seb Wassell]

The spread of newgens is something we carefully monitor internally. Whilst it is unreasonable to expect the original DB to be created exactly (in fact it is desirable to see variation) and conclusions can only be drawn from DB wide sample sizes we do aim for a general continuation of the spread seen in the first season. We do this on both a DB wide scale and a per-ability bracket scale.

GKs are a known issue. If you have examples of the others that you believe expose a certain trend please do head over to our bugs forum and open up a thread, posting details of the issue and examples illustrating it occurring in your save.

It is also worth mentioning that the generation of newgens is very different to the training of newgens. Either the AI or the human can fall short here and create a surplus/deficit of certain types of player. 

Additionally basing observations on what you find in-game as manager of a club often only reveals a very small percentage of the true picture. Scouting range, player interest, etc. all play a part in what turns up in your searches. These results are often not representative of the DB as a whole.

Cheers,
Seb.

[DP]

The way they look is also a problem. All the eyes appear to be the same making it feel there is little difference in the overall look from one to the other.

Wonder if this is being tweaked further in the upcoming patch? It's an odd one as they looked great last year. 

[mack4ever]

So because you didn't find many players who had Inside Forward as their best role you concluded that there are almost no inside forward newgens in the game?

Did it not occur to you that there are a whole host of newgens who are capable of playing that role exceedingly well but whose need a bit of training in it?

Personally I've always used a pair of Inside Forwards and in every single one of my long term saves have easily managed to keep my team stocked with world class players in that role.

[gavo01]

47 minutes ago, DP said:

The way they look is also a problem. All the eyes appear to be the same making it feel there is little difference in the overall look from one to the other.

Wonder if this is being tweaked further in the upcoming patch? It's an odd one as they looked great last year. 

This was my one major reason for not buying this years edition. They don't appear right, a total step back from last years and light years from FM14's regens. Even with the numerous hairpacks available from the community, they still look freakish.

And the fact that the powers at SI towers don't seem to be interested in improving international management, ie, a lack of any pre match training set up and better player interaction to name just two. However, that's an argument for another thread. 

[HUNT3R]

They way regens look has also been discussed to death elsewhere and is not what the thread is about.

[Guest]

The only generalization I can make about newgens is that they are like the white men in that movie. In other words: they can't jump. Jumping Reach is staggeringly low among newgens, even someone whose height is 190 cm (a bit over 6ft 2in) can have a Jumping Reach of 6.

 

Please note: this is an observation made by playing the game, not by studying the database.

[forameuss]

And why does this make the game unplayable?  The original post reads like "I have a system I want to play, I can't find players to play it, game is unplayable".  Change the system then.  It's all about adapting.

[Thorne]

14 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

The spread of newgens is something we carefully monitor internally. Whilst it is unreasonable to expect the original DB to be created exactly (in fact it is desirable to see variation) and conclusions can only be drawn from DB wide sample sizes we do aim for a general continuation of the spread seen in the first season. We do this on both a DB wide scale and a per-ability bracket scale.

GKs are a known issue. If you have examples of the others that you believe expose a certain trend please do head over to our bugs forum and open up a thread, posting details of the issue and examples illustrating it occurring in your save.

It is also worth mentioning that the generation of newgens is very different to the training of newgens. Either the AI or the human can fall short here and create a surplus/deficit of certain types of player. 

Additionally basing observations on what you find in-game as manager of a club often only reveals a very small percentage of the true picture. Scouting range, player interest, etc. all play a part in what turns up in your searches. These results are often not representative of the DB as a whole.

Cheers,
Seb.

Hello Seb.

I am not expecting the original DB to be recreated exactly but the numbers i am seeing are so much different it's a cause for concern. Don't you think there is a problem when you filter certain stats and only 3% of the players found are newgens? 

I gave examples for multiple positions and not just GK, there is a problem in almost every position but the biggest issue that I noticed is the lack of Inside Forwards and attacking Advanced Playmakers/MCs. Unless the newgen is world class he won't have the stats to play in those roles. I consider other issues (GK and DRL) more minor but it's still a very noticeable difference, again somewhere around 3%.

I realize that it can also be a training issue and the clubs aren't training players same as they do in real life but I have done a lot of searching found virtually no players that could be retrained in those positions with the exception of some forwards, so I don't think it's a retraining issue.

I guess I should have included in my original post that I have 23 scouts, 100% knowledge in all the major countries and included players who don't want to join my club in the search (have knowledge of almost 40k players) and the difference is so significant it didn't require any further research or database checking.

I will head to the bug forum but I also wanted to start a discussion here as this issue can be easily confirmed by people with saves in the future, the more years has passed the better. Simpy go to your Scouting, filter Position Natural Midfielder (Center) and add Dribbling, Anticipation and Off the ball. Or filter position Natural Attacking Midfielder (Left), Role is Inside Forward and Right Foot is Very Strong. How many newgens do you find? Let me know, please!

[Thorne]

13 hours ago, mack4ever said:

So because you didn't find many players who had Inside Forward as their best role you concluded that there are almost no inside forward newgens in the game?

Did it not occur to you that there are a whole host of newgens who are capable of playing that role exceedingly well but whose need a bit of training in it?

Personally I've always used a pair of Inside Forwards and in every single one of my long term saves have easily managed to keep my team stocked with world class players in that role.

No, I have concluded that after searching for Right Footed people that can play in AML position and people who have decent stats for Inside Forward role to retrain. I know how to play the game.

It did occur to me, why did you just assume that I didn't search for that when I listed there is a problem with almost every position! Did you just assume I was wrong instead of checking your save to see if there is a similar pattern?

Did it not occur to you that the % difference is so significant it would represent a problem even if there were people re-trainable in that role because it's just so far off reality! I can name you at least 30 Inside Forwards playing in the top leagues off the top of my head right now but in the future there will only be people who need training? Seriously...

I'm not saying there are no Inside Forwards in every game I'm pretty sure if I play my save long enough I will get the couple, what I'm saying is the game should be full of them, like it is at the start!

I'd still like to see some screenshots of your newgen Inside Forwards though  

[Thorne]

11 hours ago, forameuss said:

And why does this make the game unplayable?  The original post reads like "I have a system I want to play, I can't find players to play it, game is unplayable".  Change the system then.  It's all about adapting.

I actually have two systems now and I can't find players for either of them. In my 4-4-2 Narrow I'm playing with a Forward in MC position (7/10) and in my 4-2-3-1 I'm forced to play a weak player while I hope my other Forward learns the AML position.

I am adapting, but I shouldn't have to just because the game isn't tuned properly.

[HUNT3R]

52 minutes ago, Thorne said:

I actually have two systems now and I can't find players for either of them. In my 4-4-2 Narrow I'm playing with a Forward in MC position (7/10) and in my 4-2-3-1 I'm forced to play a weak player while I hope my other Forward learns the AML position.

I am adapting, but I shouldn't have to just because the game isn't tuned properly.

You're saying you already have a better player for the AML spot, so play him! It doesn't make sense to play a weak player if you have a better one right there. He'll learn faster while actually playing in the position too.

[Thorne]

Just now, HUNT3R said:

You're saying you already have a better player for the AML spot, so play him! It doesn't make sense to play a weak player if you have a better one right there. He'll learn faster while actually playing in the position too.

I'm not sure that's a good idea, he cannot play AML at all! I used him twice as a sub there and he looked confused. I'm waiting for him to learn at least a little before I will consider starting him (his current Inside Forward rating is 4/10).

I hope I can train him to at least Accomplished, his Report says he's re-trainable into an attacking mid, does that mean his versatility is high enough to be trained there also or am I missing something?

Won't be the end of the world if he doesn't learn, he's doing a pretty good job as a number 10 in my 4-4-2 narrow at the moment (4 assists in one game)!

[HUNT3R]

I've used MCs, AMCs, AMRs and STs at AML and none of them had any familiarity with the position. Okay, they make a stupid decision now and then, but overall, they did the job just fine.

[Thorne]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

I've used MCs, AMCs, AMRs and STs at AML and none of them had any familiarity with the position. Okay, they make a stupid decision now and then, but overall, they did the job just fine.

Didn't realize stats were more important than position/role familiarity. Not sure I would be comfortable with playing an OOP player like that over the entire season but it's good to know. I thought they would be making too many mistakes, putting themselves in wrong positions, etc..

Doesn't change my original concern though, can't build the entire team out of Forwards

[Josep Mourinho]

From my own observations I think this is an issue with how the attributes for newgens are distributed, I've found that even if I train a young newgen for years to be a Roaming Playmaker or a similarly offensive role, he'll still develop attributes like Tackling, Marking, Corners, Long Throws and I don't mean they'll have 7 or 8 points in those attributes, that's normal, I mean they'll end up with 12's and 13's all across the board which will take away from attributes more appropriate for the role I trained him in. This makes the game end up with unspecialized players for comparison when the game starts you'll have physical beasts, technical greats, specialized players.
Newgen players end up with dilluted attributes, forwards with have 12 Tackling, Centrebacks will have 13 Corners etc... Someone is gonna give me an isolated example of a real life Striker who's great at tackling, please don't, my point isn't that Strikers should never develop tackling or defensive attributes but that the majority shouldn't, specially if I don't train them to.

Personally I miss the old Training system that let me create training routines where I could just make sure my Forwards had no defensive training, I can't really recall if it stopped this from happening, but I'd love to see a tweaked and improved version of that.

[Ruh Roh]

I haven't put a whole ton of hours into this one but I can immediately think of at least a few things they have improved. More players are two-footed, which I think can be responsible for there being less pretty 17s and 18s on good players' attributes. The CM with 15 pace and 15 passing who never learned to dribble is, thankfully, hard to find.

Problems that still remain: bravery's such a weird one, to the point where I just ignore it most of the time - how many decent players in the DB that aren't 5'7" flashy wingers have like 3 bravery? Then someone will have 20 bravery and pair it with awful det/work rate. Flair's another one the game should be less stingy with, especially since I don't think it develops that much.  Free kicks/corners don't correlate enough to technique. Strikers that are dominant in the air might be a little too rare.

[sporadicsmiles]

20 hours ago, Thorne said:

When I filtered my search to AML position and Inside Forward role it returned 110 players. Out of those 110 only 4 (3.6%) were newgens, neither of them any good.

Could this just be because of the way filtering works these days? Not every single player shows up in the search function (it depends on your scouting knowledge I guess) so regens, being less well known, may not show up. Alternatively, I am pretty sure you need to have some knowledge of the player to filter them by role. You might be missing a great many players.

Anyway, filtering by role does not make that much sense. It is much better to look for key attributes and get the player that fits what you want in. If that means a striker who can play on the flanks, or a wing back who is perfect, then so be it.

I can honestly say I have not noticed anything wrong with my regen stats yet. Maybe this is because I simply only consider buying those who have balanced stats. I tend to look at work rate, team work and determination first anyway, and if a player does not pass my standards there they do not get considered further. 

I think it should also be remembered that players with perfect attributes are rare, and players who are great but lack one or two key attributes that stop them becoming the best in the world are much more common. 

[Thorne]

22 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Could this just be because of the way filtering works these days? Not every single player shows up in the search function (it depends on your scouting knowledge I guess) so regens, being less well known, may not show up. Alternatively, I am pretty sure you need to have some knowledge of the player to filter them by role. You might be missing a great many players.

Anyway, filtering by role does not make that much sense. It is much better to look for key attributes and get the player that fits what you want in. If that means a striker who can play on the flanks, or a wing back who is perfect, then so be it.

I can honestly say I have not noticed anything wrong with my regen stats yet. Maybe this is because I simply only consider buying those who have balanced stats. I tend to look at work rate, team work and determination first anyway, and if a player does not pass my standards there they do not get considered further. 

I think it should also be remembered that players with perfect attributes are rare, and players who are great but lack one or two key attributes that stop them becoming the best in the world are much more common. 

No, it's not a scouting or a filtering problem. if it was I wouldn't find hundreds of newgen AML wingers, besides if you read my original post you would see I found a problem with almost every position including AMRL and the attributes important for an Inside Forward. No hints there?

Maybe you haven't noticed a problem because you weren't looking for the same type of players? Unlike you I don't have a team full of Ball winning midfielders.

I haven't been looking for players with perfect attributes either, but having multiple low numbers in a key attributes for a certain role is not good enough for me.

 

Anyways I did a quick database check to prove my point:

Starting database 88 players with at least 12 in key stats for AML Inside forward on Attack (Finishing, Dribbling, Passing, etc.. including Right foot).

My save (January 2025) has 61 such players, 0 of them are newgens (which looks like some youngsters actually had the right stats to develop this way and newgens don't)

There is one newgen that has at least 11 in those stats and 6 that have at least 10.

So that's 7 newgens with Key attributes at atleast 10 versus 88 existing players with Key attributes at least 12 (after 8 seasons).

There is definitely a problem.

[Guest]

2025 is not really far enough ionto the future to make a judgement, The Hand of God did a very detailed analysis a few years ago and iirc he started looking at the player pool 20 years on as that gives time for a full range of generated players to be created & developed.

Another factor to take into account should you decide to run a longer term analysis is the impact of manager preferred tactics as these do change, especially as new managers enter the game ehicg could see a reduction in the use of a particular position that indirectly impacts the number of players trained to be useful in that position.

[Thorne]

Well I plan to run the save for like 30 years and do the analysis & bug report then, but you seriously think there is nothing wrong with the game if there are 0 decent Inside Forwards to choose under the age of 24?

Won't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in the game.

[Guest]

7 seasons into a single save is too small a sample to make any judgement, could there be an issue? Yes. Have you proven an issue? No.

 

Edit: BTW, when running the save makes sure you activate auto-save & have it set to created a new save file each time at fortnightly or monthly intervals, you'll need these to track player development & to support your findings once you have enough evidence to post a bug report.

[Thorne]

I don't agree. The game should make sure there are certain types of players coming into the game, even if I'm terribly "unlucky".

I have encouraged people to check their saves or post screenshots of their newgen Inside Forwards and received nothing. If I'm so wrong why doesn't someone just disprove me rather than say something like 'I haven't noticed this'.

As for the rolling saves, I'm not about to do SI's work for them and check the development of players over the years. For me it is proof enough that players with certain combinations of attributes literary disappear for the game. If it happens on two of my saves I'm pretty sure they can check the rest themselves.

[forameuss]

1 hour ago, Thorne said:

Well I plan to run the save for like 30 years and do the analysis & bug report then, but you seriously think there is nothing wrong with the game if there are 0 decent Inside Forwards to choose under the age of 24?

Won't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in the game.

In real life you can't filter by attributes and positions like you can in FM.  Presumably they'd just get a player with the raw attributes and mould him into one.  So pointless to throw around the real life comparison in this sense.

1 hour ago, Thorne said:

I don't agree. The game should make sure there are certain types of players coming into the game, even if I'm terribly "unlucky".

I have encouraged people to check their saves or post screenshots of their newgen Inside Forwards and received nothing. If I'm so wrong why doesn't someone just disprove me rather than say something like 'I haven't noticed this'.

As for the rolling saves, I'm not about to do SI's work for them and check the development of players over the years. For me it is proof enough that players with certain combinations of attributes literary disappear for the game. If it happens on two of my saves I'm pretty sure they can check the rest themselves.

And this attitude doesn't help.  SI have said they're happy with the balance of players.  They do extensive testing in this regard.  Obviously.  So if you believe that they're wrong, then I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you.  You're running an infinitessimal amount of saves compared to the ones that have been started using the database and code - maybe yours is less balanced than some.  In that case, they'd probably like to see your worked proof as to why you think it's wrong so they can investigate.  Saying something is wrong, then saying that you shouldn't have to prove anything isn't exactly helpful.

[Thorne]

3 minutes ago, forameuss said:

In real life you can't filter by attributes and positions like you can in FM.  Presumably they'd just get a player with the raw attributes and mould him into one.  So pointless to throw around the real life comparison in this sense.

And this attitude doesn't help.  SI have said they're happy with the balance of players.  They do extensive testing in this regard.  Obviously.  So if you believe that they're wrong, then I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you.  You're running an infinitessimal amount of saves compared to the ones that have been started using the database and code - maybe yours is less balanced than some.  In that case, they'd probably like to see your worked proof as to why you think it's wrong so they can investigate.  Saying something is wrong, then saying that you shouldn't have to prove anything isn't exactly helpful.

This is a simulation of real life, not some imaginary post apocalyptic world where everyone turns into zombies with a receding hairline and nobody plays Inside forward. The scouting works the same way as it does in FM with maybe the exception of numbered attributes. And clubs do not mould players unless you're talking about the youth level, which is not the topic of discussion here.

I'm sorry but you're twisting my words here. I said I'm happy to prove something is wrong, just not go through the extensive work to find out why something is wrong. That's their job.

 

 

[forameuss]

Just now, Thorne said:

This is a simulation of real life, not some imaginary post apocalyptic world where everyone turns into zombies with a receding hairline and nobody plays Inside forward. The scouting works the same way as it does in FM with maybe the exception of numbered attributes. And clubs do not mould players unless you're talking about the youth level, which is not the topic of discussion here.

I'm sorry but you're twisting my words here. I said I'm happy to prove something is wrong, just not go through the extensive work to find out why something is wrong. That's their job.

I'm not twisting anything.  They do extensive testing of their own, and they've already said they're happy with the balance of generated players.  Like so...

On 3/1/2017 at 12:00, Seb Wassell said:

The spread of newgens is something we carefully monitor internally. Whilst it is unreasonable to expect the original DB to be created exactly (in fact it is desirable to see variation) and conclusions can only be drawn from DB wide sample sizes we do aim for a general continuation of the spread seen in the first season. We do this on both a DB wide scale and a per-ability bracket scale.

GKs are a known issue. If you have examples of the others that you believe expose a certain trend please do head over to our bugs forum and open up a thread, posting details of the issue and examples illustrating it occurring in your save.

It is also worth mentioning that the generation of newgens is very different to the training of newgens. Either the AI or the human can fall short here and create a surplus/deficit of certain types of player. 

Additionally basing observations on what you find in-game as manager of a club often only reveals a very small percentage of the true picture. Scouting range, player interest, etc. all play a part in what turns up in your searches. These results are often not representative of the DB as a whole.

Cheers,
Seb.

If you have a particular case that disagrees, you'll need to provide more proof than "i've looked in 2025 and there are none".  Do you really expect them to somehow come up with a different conclusion as to how happy they are with balance with just the evidence you've provided so far?

[Thorne]

1 minute ago, forameuss said:

I'm not twisting anything.  They do extensive testing of their own, and they've already said they're happy with the balance of generated players.  Like so...

If you have a particular case that disagrees, you'll need to provide more proof than "i've looked in 2025 and there are none".  Do you really expect them to somehow come up with a different conclusion as to how happy they are with balance with just the evidence you've provided so far?

Just a stretch but I'm guessing they don't do tests for this certain issue that I have...or I wouldn't have it?

And if you actually read the post which reply you were quoting, you would have known that I plan to do more than just 'look in 2025' and complain.

[forameuss]

1 minute ago, Thorne said:

Just a stretch but I'm guessing they don't do tests for this certain issue that I have...or I wouldn't have it?

And if you actually read the post which reply you were quoting, you would have known that I plan to do more than just 'look in 2025' and complain.

But you also said you don't plan to do their work for them, and intimated that they should be looking into it themselves.  Which is it?  If you're going to go much further, document what you've found and put it to them in a way they can investigate, then great.  I'm sure they'll be delighted.  The attitude of "I'm not doing their job for them" probably won't delight them so much.

No idea what you mean by the first part.  Read the post Seb put up.  They test on a much wider scale the generation of players, which is pretty much the part you're disagreeing with.  And presumably they're happy enough with the balance aside from known issues (which they also mentioned).  So either this is an issue they haven't noticed - in which case they'd need saves uploaded and probably investigation and proof of your own as to what the issue is - or they don't consider it an issue at all.  

[MBarbaric]

5 minutes ago, forameuss said:

But you also said you don't plan to do their work for them, and intimated that they should be looking into it themselves.  Which is it?  If you're going to go much further, document what you've found and put it to them in a way they can investigate, then great.  I'm sure they'll be delighted.  The attitude of "I'm not doing their job for them" probably won't delight them so much.

No idea what you mean by the first part.  Read the post Seb put up.  They test on a much wider scale the generation of players, which is pretty much the part you're disagreeing with.  And presumably they're happy enough with the balance aside from known issues (which they also mentioned).  So either this is an issue they haven't noticed - in which case they'd need saves uploaded and probably investigation and proof of your own as to what the issue is - or they don't consider it an issue at all.  

give man a break let him check what he thinks is wrong, post it on bugs forum and someone from SI that monitors will see if it merits a look from them or not at all... discouraging community that might benefit community isn't really helping nor SI nor the community.

[HUNT3R]

Yeah, it's a bit (more than a bit) harsh, forameuss.

@Thorne If you do plan to simulate further into the future and come up with anything significant, I'm sure SI will be glad to take a look. They do run their own long term tests but help is always appreciated.

Just remember to start a thread in the bugs forum, post your findings and upload the save to their FTP.

[Thorne]

I'll take it to bugs forum now, yeah. (when I finish my research)

Thanks HUNT3R and no hard feelings forameuss

[santy001]

People seem to really underestimate the power of retraining which leads to some of these complaints. If I'm buying youngsters, its very rarely for their natural position as a youngster, as I let Pogba go I was really struggling to find that 6ft+ midfield powerhouse to drive up the pitch from midfield, so I bought a 19 year old German striker who was 6'4" retrained him to become my new BBM, and by age 21/22 he's now a natural midfielder.

Couldn't find a left back I liked the look of so bought a right back I did like the look of, got him working on the PPM to develop weaker foot, unlearned runs with ball down the right and retrained him to left back. A huge amount of youngsters coming through my own youth set-up from 16 onwards are being retrained to other positions to see if they can make the grade where I would prefer them to be based on what I can see. 

I tend not to see the AI do this too much.

[noikeee]

One of the reasons I'm growing a little disillusioned with my long term career is this. The one major thing I've noticed, again, like in FM16, is a lack of availability of proper inside forwards compared to the original DB (good at their "wrong foot", good at finishing, off the ball, dribbling, pace, vision).

This is a bummer for me because I often tend to rely on this kind of players. Okay I can retrain them, and I do, but it takes months or sometimes seasons; and even players from other positions with this combination of skills seem surprisingly hard to find - you either have out-and-out forwards, or playmakers, not so much combos of them (whilst the original database is STACKED with this kind of players). And even if you adapt tactically to use different kinds of players, it breaks immersion a bit to see the game world suddenly populated with players that are considerably different from the ones you've used for the first 10 seasons or so of gameplay.

I'm not surprised to learn there's other issues beyond inside forwards. I wanted to raise a bug report again, like I did for FM16, with indepth analysis through a scouting tool, but just haven't had the patience/time.

I do understand it's very hard to get this right from SI, but still, it's annoying. And I think this has NOTHING to do with the human falling short at training players, this is a widespread issue throughout the entire DB once the regens have taken over. Training of players by the AI might have something to do with it, but I think the root of the problem is mostly the generation of the players itself.

[Neil Brock]

Again really need this raised on the bugs forum with examples so our team can investigate further.

Thanks. 

[Rugrat123]

to be fair when comparing the pool of players at the start of the season you may be neglecting the fact that some of those players will be the culmination of years of retraining and and developing, for a few quick examples Mousa Dembele from striker to cm or bale from lb to lw. also as the game progresses playing styles change in the 90's you wouldn't have had many false 9's or ball playing defenders but as a new style becomes more popular players will be trained to suit that style. in fm terms its probably gonna depend on managers and hoyd preferred formations

[enigmatic]

On 3/3/2017 at 10:33, santy001 said:

People seem to really underestimate the power of retraining which leads to some of these complaints. If I'm buying youngsters, its very rarely for their natural position as a youngster, as I let Pogba go I was really struggling to find that 6ft+ midfield powerhouse to drive up the pitch from midfield, so I bought a 19 year old German striker who was 6'4" retrained him to become my new BBM, and by age 21/22 he's now a natural midfielder.

Couldn't find a left back I liked the look of so bought a right back I did like the look of, got him working on the PPM to develop weaker foot, unlearned runs with ball down the right and retrained him to left back. A huge amount of youngsters coming through my own youth set-up from 16 onwards are being retrained to other positions to see if they can make the grade where I would prefer them to be based on what I can see. 

I tend not to see the AI do this too much.

This

"Inside forward" is a pretty specialist position most teams don't use IRL, particularly further down the pyramid, and so most inside forwards actually are converted strikers or   wingers playing the other side. But  plenty of regen strikers are accomplished at AML/R, often on the opposite side to their stronger foot which means they'll quite happily play that role and can usually be retrained pretty easily to become natural in this role. To be honest, anyone struggling to find regens they can make use of at inside forward after a few seasons simply has unrealistically high expectations. You don't have to be "natural" or have 14+ finishing/otb/technique to be very prolific there, and if you're only seven years into the game then most of the newgens will still have room for improvement.

There was a statistically well-documented issue in FM16, but it appears to have been addressed; I actually had the opposite problem in England U21 management where all the best newgen wide attacking midfielders for two tournaments' worth of youth players were only natural on the "wrong side" for their foot (I much prefer wingers).

 

The other side of the "it can be trained" debate is that the AI probably doesn't do enough retraining, and its training programmes do seem a bit over-specialised towards roles compared with how real life players improve which contributes to most of the apparent newgen anomalies. Newgen centre backs, for example probably should start with low technique when they're raw teenagers that wouldn't get starts in League 2, but even as their key attributes rise and they blossom into low-end Premiership standard centre backs, their technique barely seems to gain a point from when they first appeared as a 17 year old. IRL raw teenage centre backs at Premiership academies spend a huge amount of time working on exercises which (incidentally) improve their technical ability and passing (even whilst they're unlikely to ever learn to shoot or dribble particularly well) which is why most of them end up with 10+ technique by the time they're in the first team, even if they're not a specialist ball-playing defender and won't ever be good enough to play for a big club. Doubtless if you actually wanted to spend training/CA points on technique for your own centre backs you could bring them up to the level most RL top division players are rated at, but the AI won't with theirs.

Whether this is better or worse than having your average newgen hitting their 140 potential with much-improved technique but without having sufficiently trained up their glaringly bad starting values for marking or concentration to be able to deal with your strikers is another question...

[noikeee]

11 hours ago, enigmatic said:

This

"Inside forward" is a pretty specialist position most teams don't use IRL, particularly further down the pyramid, and so most inside forwards actually are converted strikers or   wingers playing the other side. But  plenty of regen strikers are accomplished at AML/R, often on the opposite side to their stronger foot which means they'll quite happily play that role and can usually be retrained pretty easily to become natural in this role. To be honest, anyone struggling to find regens they can make use of at inside forward after a few seasons simply has unrealistically high expectations. You don't have to be "natural" or have 14+ finishing/otb/technique to be very prolific there, and if you're only seven years into the game then most of the newgens will still have room for improvement.

There was a statistically well-documented issue in FM16, but it appears to have been addressed; I actually had the opposite problem in England U21 management where all the best newgen wide attacking midfielders for two tournaments' worth of youth players were only natural on the "wrong side" for their foot (I much prefer wingers).

No, this is ******** (the bit in bold). Just check the original DB. The majority of wingers, at any level, are set so that they can play in the other flank as well. If not accomplished than at least competent. You don't see that in regens.

There may be more inside forwards at top level than lower down, and it may be a bit more common in other countries beyond the UK, but even managing throughout the lower leagues in the UK, I had no problems finding inside forwards for about 12 seasons until the original players are phased out and the regens take over. This is the exact same experience I had in FM16.

It's true a decent amount of regen strikers are also accomplished at AML/AMR, but the problem is the wingers aren't.

Quote

The other side of the "it can be trained" debate is that the AI probably doesn't do enough retraining, and its training programmes do seem a bit over-specialised towards roles compared with how real life players improve which contributes to most of the apparent newgen anomalies. Newgen centre backs, for example probably should start with low technique when they're raw teenagers that wouldn't get starts in League 2, but even as their key attributes rise and they blossom into low-end Premiership standard centre backs, their technique barely seems to gain a point from when they first appeared as a 17 year old. IRL raw teenage centre backs at Premiership academies spend a huge amount of time working on exercises which (incidentally) improve their technical ability and passing (even whilst they're unlikely to ever learn to shoot or dribble particularly well) which is why most of them end up with 10+ technique by the time they're in the first team, even if they're not a specialist ball-playing defender and won't ever be good enough to play for a big club. Doubtless if you actually wanted to spend training/CA points on technique for your own centre backs you could bring them up to the level most RL top division players are rated at, but the AI won't with theirs.

Whether this is better or worse than having your average newgen hitting their 140 potential with much-improved technique but without having sufficiently trained up their glaringly bad starting values for marking or concentration to be able to deal with your strikers is another question...

There may be a shortage of position retraining with the AI, which SI and people replying to these threads always bring up, but I really don't think that's the key issue. Check out the original DB, loads of teenage real-life youngsters are set so they can play in 4 or 5 positions. Regens simply are generated less versatile from the very beginning.

As for specific attributes, particularly on defenders, I suspect an issue is the AI assign too many players to roles like "defensive/limited centre back/full back", because FM often thinks those are the best roles, even for players that are a fair bit more complete than that. So the end result is you keep on exaggerating these player's shortcomings throughout his entire career, and focusing only on their better attributes, and you end up with centrebacks with 16 marking and 16 tackling, and 5 passing; or fullbacks with 16 marking and 16 tackling and 5 dribbling. Which are great players if you want to play 1970s style hoof-it-up-ball, but not for modern top level football which often requires playing out from the back, and/or technically gifted fullbacks providing width.

[enigmatic]

Not sure why you're accusing me of talking "utter ****" when you've gone on to make a completely separate point. You don't need players to be competent on both flanks to be good inside forwards, you need them to be accomplished or better on the opposite flank to their strongest foot. And FM17 - unlike FM16 - appears to generate plenty of these types of players, most of which are primarily strikers rather than wingers, which seems fair enough considering an inside forward is much closer to being a striker played wide than a classic line-hugging, byline-crossing winger. You even get "wrong footed" players who can't play the classic winger role on the other side! It's only about a third of natural AMs in the starting database that are accomplished or better on the opposite side, and only about 10% of Ms accomplished or better at AM on the opposite side. Many of them are forwards with an extra position or classic wingers that can play OK on the other side if they cut back to put in crosses rather than the ideal natural IF with great goalscoring abilities the OP appears to be looking for

The AI using the DCB training too much sounds plausible. The AI certainly highlights it as the "best role" far too often, even when it's a borderline-world class player whose physical stats stand out far more than their (average, not weak) passing and decision making. But the standard training on centre backs doesn't really improve the technical abilities most defenders need at the top level (passing, technique) very much either.

[upthetoon]

i noticed this problem in FM16. what I did was just a play a striker in the inside forward role. they do just fine.

but if you are looking at specifically requiring the player profile to show good ratings for inside forwards or finding very specific stats, then you have a problem.

[herne79]

21 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

You don't need players to be competent on both flanks to be good inside forwards, you need them to be accomplished or better on the opposite flank to their strongest foot

You don't need them to be accomplished or better.  You simply need them to have the right attributes for the role.

[Thorne]

13 hours ago, enigmatic said:

This

"Inside forward" is a pretty specialist position most teams don't use IRL, particularly further down the pyramid, and so most inside forwards actually are converted strikers or   wingers playing the other side. But  plenty of regen strikers are accomplished at AML/R, often on the opposite side to their stronger foot which means they'll quite happily play that role and can usually be retrained pretty easily to become natural in this role.

I didn't reply to the post you were quoting because he clearly missed the part where I'm retraining two players into different positions (one of which has no knowledge of the new position whatsoever) so how is me underestimating "the power of retraining" leading to my complaint? Just another of those posters that think they know better than the rest which makes SI believe there actually isn't an issue and won't do anything about it. Yeah, really helpful.

I never even suggested there was a problem with generation of newgens, it could as well be a (re)training issue although the numbers I am seeing make me suspect it is the former. I'm guessing club won't train players to be a certain role if their stats are poor in that role, right? I'm well aware that most inside forwards are converted strikers or wingers but what if the clubs aren't retraining them because they wouldn't be very good at that role?

 

13 hours ago, enigmatic said:

To be honest, anyone struggling to find regens they can make use of at inside forward after a few seasons simply has unrealistically high expectations. You don't have to be "natural" or have 14+ finishing/otb/technique to be very prolific there, and if you're only seven years into the game then most of the newgens will still have room for improvement.

Thanks for being one of those posters and just wondering but did you base your assumption on the few players from your U21 save? Were they even Inside Forwards or just wingers with the wrong foot? Let's see the screenshots. And since you prefer to play with wingers how would you even know that there are plenty of forwards to be retrained?

Let's just do a quick database check of my game and see if there's anything interesting...

It's June 2025 so full 8 seasons has passed. The database has 42041 players, 30205 of which are newgens (71%). I will limit my all my searches to right footed players only (30726 - 73%, a bit lower than it should be but lets ignore that for now).

• Number of existing players Nautral at AML: 410
• Number of newgens Natural at AML: 247
• Number of existing players Accomplished at AML: 185
• Number of newgens Accomplished at AML: 996

Looks like it's a training issue after all, I mean all those accomplished AML's just waiting to be retrained into inside forwards, right? Let's do a stat search then! I'll pick Passing, Finishing and Vision, not because I feel those stats are the most important for an inside forward but because it's a good combination of stats for one that you won't see in many other roles. And since 14 is being to greedy let's just go with 11.  Adding Finishing, Passing, Vision = at least 11 to my search:

• Number of existing players with those stats and Natural at AML:  164/410 (40%)
• Number of newgens with those stats and Natural at AML: 1/247 (0.4%)
• Number of existing players with those stats and Accomplished at AML: 45/185 (24%)
• Number of newgens with those stats and Accomplished at AML: 29/996 (2.9%)

 

I'll be posting the bug report shortly...

[Thorne]

8 minutes ago, herne79 said:

You don't need them to be accomplished or better.  You simply need them to have the right attributes for the role.

Then why does the game suggest he won't do good there by giving him a star or a half star rating for his role?

[herne79]

2 minutes ago, Thorne said:

Then why does the game suggest he won't do good there by giving him a star or a half star rating for his role?

It's a guide which can be a little misleading in my opinion.

The bottom line is that the only thing impacted by how natural (or not) a player is at a role is the Decisions attribute.  This is why @HUNT3R said above:

On ‎02‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 04:57, HUNT3R said:

I've used MCs, AMCs, AMRs and STs at AML and none of them had any familiarity with the position. Okay, they make a stupid decision now and then, but overall, they did the job just fine.

If you want to really explore in detail how that works, this is an excellent thread which explains it all in detail.  The example used in there is of a fullback being used as a striker.

Just remember that the AI doesn't think out of the box like this.  But us human managers can, which is one of the numerous advantages we have over the AI.

[noikeee]

41 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Not sure why you're accusing me of talking "utter ****" when you've gone on to make a completely separate point. You don't need players to be competent on both flanks to be good inside forwards, you need them to be accomplished or better on the opposite flank to their strongest foot.

You're making a completely separate point, too.

What I said was ******** (okay admitedly I'm being a bit aggressive with choice of words here) is that inside forwards in real life are rare at lower levels. Search the original database and you'll clearly find out that's not really the case. A huge amount of players with a good combination of attributes for this role are set as at least competent in their "wrong foot" wing.

Quote

And FM17 - unlike FM16 - appears to generate plenty of these types of players, most of which are primarily strikers rather than wingers, which seems fair enough considering an inside forward is much closer to being a striker played wide than a classic line-hugging, byline-crossing winger. You even get "wrong footed" players who can't play the classic winger role on the other side! 

It might be "fair enough" but it's still very different from the original database, though. This breaks immersion, specially around the seasons in which the transition from original players to generated players occurs.

Quote

It's only about a third of natural AMs in the starting database that are accomplished or better on the opposite side, and only about 10% of Ms accomplished or better at AM on the opposite side. Many of them are forwards with an extra position or classic wingers that can play OK on the other side if they cut back to put in crosses rather than the ideal natural IF with great goalscoring abilities the OP appears to be looking for

Widen up your search to include players that are "competent" and you'll notice bigger differences. Regens are simply far less versatile, usually with like 1 or 2 positions natural or accomplished, and then 1 awkward, maybe. Whereas original players with often have 1 or 2 positions natural or accomplished and then 3 or 4 more competent. This can be useful as obviously it's quicker to retrain a competent player than a very awkward one in a position.

But this not just about finding the "ideal player the OP is looking for". It's about keeping a believable database that doesn't go wildly outside the parameters of the original one, so that we get a relatively seamless transition from original to generated players. This is a simulation, after all. It would be different if we had a feature that in the future, as football develops, different types of players become more in fashion. But this isn't happening by design, it's happening by accident. In every career, with the same traits.

[enigmatic]

4 minutes ago, Thorne said:

I didn't reply to the post you were quoting because he clearly missed the part where I'm retraining two players into different positions (one of which has no knowledge of the new position whatsoever) so how is me underestimating "the power of retraining" leading to my complaint? Just another of those posters that think they know better than the rest which makes SI believe there actually isn't an issue and won't do anything about it. Yeah, really helpful.

I never even suggested there was a problem with generation of newgens, it could as well be a (re)training issue although the numbers I am seeing make me suspect it is the former. I'm guessing club won't train players to be a certain role if their stats are poor in that role, right? I'm well aware that most inside forwards are converted strikers or wingers but what if the clubs aren't retraining them because they wouldn't be very good at that role?

 

Thanks for being one of those posters and just wondering but did you base your assumption on the few players from your U21 save? Were they even Inside Forwards or just wingers with the wrong foot? Let's see the screenshots. And since you prefer to play with wingers how would you even know that there are plenty of forwards to be retrained?

Let's just do a quick database check of my game and see if there's anything interesting...

It's June 2025 so full 8 seasons has passed. The database has 42041 players, 30205 of which are newgens (71%). I will limit my all my searches to right footed players only (30726 - 73%, a bit lower than it should be but lets ignore that for now).

• Number of existing players Nautral at AML: 410
• Number of newgens Natural at AML: 247
• Number of existing players Accomplished at AML: 185
• Number of newgens Accomplished at AML: 996

Looks like it's a training issue after all, I mean all those accomplished AML's just waiting to be retrained into inside forwards, right? Let's do a stat search then! I'll pick Passing, Finishing and Vision, not because I feel those stats are the most important for an inside forward but because it's a good combination of stats for one that you won't see in many other roles. And since 14 is being to greedy let's just go with 11.  Adding Finishing, Passing, Vision = 11 to my search:

• Number of existing players with those stats and Natural at AML:  164/410 (40%)
• Number of newgens with those stats and Natural at AML: 1/245 (0.4%)
• Number of existing players with those stats and Accomplished at AML: 45/185 (24%)
• Number of newgens with those stats and Accomplished at AML: 29/996 (2.9%)

 

I'll be posting the bug report shortly...

Feel free to. But you're comparing a cohort of players mostly under 21 and still refining their technical game to a cohort of players increasingly over 30 and gaining enough technical points as they lose their pace for their CA to stay high enough for them not to retire, despite a number of people pointing out already that this isn't the most scientific comparison.

More relevant facts I can glean from running related searches on a 2028 database is that (i) you get plenty of regens with those technical abilities by that stage and (ii) more of the regens with those technical abilities are right footed than left footed, which I'm pretty sure is a step change from the previous database.

As others have noted, these comparisons have been done before, with much more valid samples comparing the start of the game and somewhere in the 2030s when there are no "real" players left, and SI appears to have acted on them.

 

[noikeee]

29 minutes ago, herne79 said:

You don't need them to be accomplished or better.  You simply need them to have the right attributes for the role.

This might be true to some extent, but there's a few problems:

- Is this realistic anyway? Why do the reseachers put so much effort in rating each and every player 1 to 20 in every position, if the game barely penalizes you for it? Why does the UI make you believe, wrongly, that a player cannot play a role at all if he's not accomplished in that position?

- As far as I know the penalty is all purely in the Decisions attribute. What if I specifically want players capable of good decisions?

- The fact there's a large availability of regen strikers that can play the role, still isn't a great fit. Typically these guys are out and out finishers, and not so much the combo of finisher/creators you see in the original DB as inside forwards, even at lower levels. I'm thinking of guys with attributes around 10-12 for Dribbling, Pace, Acceleration, Finishing, Composure, Off the Ball, Vision, Passing, Technique, First Touch, Agility. Okay, to find a player that ticks every single one of these boxes will always be difficult, but there are plenty original players with only 1 or 2 shortcomings in this area. Whereas as regens appear, it becomes harder to find them even if you don't look at positional ability, the strikers don't quite have the creator attributes, and the wingers don't quite have the finishing/composure/off the ball attributes.

[enigmatic]

6 minutes ago, noikeee said:

You're making a completely separate point, too.

What I said was ******** (okay admitedly I'm being a bit aggressive with choice of words here) is that inside forwards in real life are rare at lower levels. Search the original database and you'll clearly find out that's not really the case. A huge amount of players with a good combination of attributes for this role are set as at least competent in their "wrong foot" wing.

Specialists forwards used for tactical reasons because they're well suited to playing the inside forward role are a very different beast from traditional wingers that have filled in on the opposite side a few times and are thus considered competent there. Plus you can get your opposite winger competent pretty quickly if you need. I think the OP has been very clear he's looking for the former rather than the latter.

 

I agree that newgens are as versatile as many existing players, but it's really not as bad as you're making out (apart from centre backs it's pretty rare to see an outfield newgen that isn't accomplished in at least one other position) and at least part of it is intentional, because retraining is a thing. Same goes with other more glaring differences between newgens and existing players like the large proportion of newgens that have very high potentials, and the proportion whose very high potentials aren't matched by an at least halfway decent level of professionalism or ambition. I assume that's intended as a feature rather than a bug, and the same goes for players not being born ultra-versatile. It's only really annoying when you're an international manager and can't retrain players.

[xtradj]

Some good points on here

I always try and sign 4.5 to 5 star players and newgens or at worse 4 star (potential)

Does it actually make a difference from a three star player?

Well firstly signing any 4-5 star potential newgen costs an absolute fortune (way more than real life) and do you genuinely get more value for money than a theee star one?

ive had plenty of saves where three star players have scored more and been in better form than 4/5 star players. Doesn't seem to make any difference to me

[noikeee]

5 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Specialists forwards used for tactical reasons because they're well suited to playing the inside forward role are a very different beast from traditional wingers that have filled in on the opposite side a few times and are thus considered competent there. Plus you can get your opposite winger competent pretty quickly if you need. I think the OP has been very clear he's looking for the former rather than the latter.

If you notice my reply above to herne79, you'll understand why this is a problem - regen specialist forwards are rarely good enough at creating, and regen traditional wingers are rarely good enough at finishing. So it becomes hard to find players that can combine both abilities, which you'd ideally want as inside forwards.

In FM16 I had one extra problem that I had a system of switching tactics pretty intensively, and pretty much needed all my wingers to be good at ML, AML, MR and AMR, capable of both performing as traditional wingers or inside forwards, depending on opponent's weaknesses. Difficult but possible with original players, much harder with generated players.

 

Quote

I agree that newgens are as versatile as many existing players, but it's really not as bad as you're making out (apart from centre backs it's pretty rare to see an outfield newgen that isn't accomplished in at least one other position) and at least part of it is intentional, because retraining is a thing. Same goes with other more glaring differences between newgens and existing players like the large proportion of newgens that have very high potentials, and the proportion whose very high potentials aren't matched by an at least halfway decent level of professionalism or ambition. I assume that's intended as a feature rather than a bug, and the same goes for players not being born ultra-versatile. It's only really annoying when you're an international manager and can't retrain players.

It's not a feature. Whether regens aren't generated versatile enough at the beginning (which I believe is the real source of the problem), or not retrained enough by the AI, the end result is the same: less availability of versatile players compared to the original DB. This breaks immersion a bit. It's not the job of you, the human manager, to retrain every player of the DB. And when you go hire players, even with the intent of retraining them, it takes time to do so. Often months or even years.

It's not just annoying if you're an international manager, it's also annoying when you have systems built up around players who become more rare in the DB. Happened to me in FM16 and now in FM17 as well, to a lesser extent. I've now started from scratch, season 1, with a bunch of wingerless systems, now let's hope in 15 seasons time the DB doesn't run out of quality attacking wingbacks...

[herne79]

22 minutes ago, noikeee said:

What if I specifically want players capable of good decisions?

You retrain to improve their position familiarity - make them accomplished or natural - to avoid the penalty to their Decisions attribute.  Not ideal in the short term perhaps, but it doesn't tend to take long.

And I'm not ignoring your other questions, they just seemed to be quite rhetorical .