So whats new ? (nothing)

[CFuller]

Just now, wrezanini1 said:

So by reading this please go on and read my entire post that you just started reading.

Are you not agreeing with me that a better online feature would propel FM more than any new offline feature can ever do !

The biggest reason FM is not bigger is because it is simply very klunky online and playing vs friends is almost impossible. How this can be made I really don't know the best way but something needs to be done in terms of online modes !

Competing against friends or even random people online is what i miss by far the most ! 

As someone who has almost zero interest in multiplayer gaming in general (let alone Football Manager), I would honestly say no.

[wrezanini1]

Just now, CFuller said:

As someone who has almost zero interest in multiplayer gaming in general (let alone Football Manager), I would honestly say no.

Well that's you... and i am not saying id like to do it al the time but it would be a fun feature to have perhaps something that for sure would propel the game to another level (in my opinion.)

You are entitled to you're opinion but so am I. 

[santy001]

Considering I almost exclusively play FM online these days, including 15 seasons so far (2 in a Stoke-Leeds game, 13 in a Malmo-Halmstads game) on FM19 and on FM18 played close to 100 seasons of network games I can speak to just how almost impossible it is.

It turns out, it is in no way almost impossible.

- - -

To dissect things a little more, even if the game could somehow regularly splinter and fragment itself so that you could play your next 10 games and advance through the calendar, somehow suppressing the results of the other teams in your league, then allowing another player to do the same before putting it back together enormous rifts appear.

Signing player, signing staff, player contract expiry dates etc. Not to mention cup competitions, which you could end up with an end of season 10 game batch including the champions league final. But if the other player is also in the champions league, their path to the final won't be decided yet. So their games aren't played, but would have to have been played for you to play your games. You'd hit illogical happenings pretty quickly.

Simply put, it doesn't work. It couldn't work. It wouldn't be worth the effort of even trying to make it work. In fact, it'd be so butchered I'm struggling to even coherently organise all the thoughts of "jesus christ it would mess up X" so badly to be able to list them all.

- - -

Also its strange how you're mentioning that tactics from previous years work well with little changes, the aim of the FM series isn't to produce a new footballing meta every year. We don't go through the FM "Year of the formation" on a Chinese Year style "This is the year of the 442, if you were born in this year you are balanced in defence and attack but are weak to being outnumbered in the middle"

I actually think there could be a decent future in streaming or making compilations of network games. The only reason why I haven't done it myself is because the conversations me and the mate that plays FM with me have would get us kicked off Twitch and Youtube so fast. 

[wrezanini1]

7 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Considering I almost exclusively play FM online these days, including 15 seasons so far (2 in a Stoke-Leeds game, 13 in a Malmo-Halmstads game) on FM19 and on FM18 played close to 100 seasons of network games I can speak to just how almost impossible it is.

It turns out, it is in no way almost impossible.

- - -

To dissect things a little more, even if the game could somehow regularly splinter and fragment itself so that you could play your next 10 games and advance through the calendar, somehow suppressing the results of the other teams in your league, then allowing another player to do the same before putting it back together enormous rifts appear.

Signing player, signing staff, player contract expiry dates etc. Not to mention cup competitions, which you could end up with an end of season 10 game batch including the champions league final. But if the other player is also in the champions league, their path to the final won't be decided yet. So their games aren't played, but would have to have been played for you to play your games. You'd hit illogical happenings pretty quickly.

Simply put, it doesn't work. It couldn't work. It wouldn't be worth the effort of even trying to make it work. In fact, it'd be so butchered I'm struggling to even coherently organise all the thoughts of "jesus christ it would mess up X" so badly to be able to list them all.

- - -

Also its strange how you're mentioning that tactics from previous years work well with little changes, the aim of the FM series isn't to produce a new footballing meta every year. We don't go through the FM "Year of the formation" on a Chinese Year style "This is the year of the 442, if you were born in this year you are balanced in defence and attack but are weak to being outnumbered in the middle"

I actually think there could be a decent future in streaming or making compilations of network games. The only reason why I haven't done it myself is because the conversations me and the mate that plays FM with me have would get us kicked off Twitch and Youtube so fast. 

Well I think it can be done by simply putting rules in perhaps transfer windows have to be done in real time. I am not entirely sure but it doesn't necessarily have to be the same concept of FM that we have today. 

Perhaps a cloud based save where we both have to login certain agreed times a day/week until the "online" clock runs out and the "turn" is over and goes on with you making changes or not !

 

 

 

 

 

[AndreTheShadow]

I can see this topic has kind of moved on from Page 1, but I do have one thing to add:

 

I've played these games since Championship Manager 2 back in the late 90s, and I discovered that I enjoyed the game and its developments significantly more when I stopped buying it yearly. It gave me the time to really dig in to my saves, and enjoy the community contributions for much longer before tiring of it. It also effectively doubles the amount of new features for me to explore.

 

I realize this doesn't address all of your complaints, but it will mitigate some of them.

[Carninho]

8 minutes ago, wrezanini1 said:

Well I think it can be done by simply putting rules in perhaps transfer windows have to be done in real time. I am not entirely sure but it doesn't necessarily have to be the same concept of FM that we have today. 

Perhaps a cloud based save where we both have to login certain agreed times a day/week until the "online" clock runs out and the "turn" is over and goes on with you making changes or not !

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry but i think its a bonkers idea and it cant work. @santy001 did a good job to advise why, but like in previous posts in this thread you seemed to ignore anything that you think is negative towards your idea  

[santy001]

The immediate problems there though:

- Server costs (Battlefield servers cost around $300 a year, not unreasonable to think FM could cost something the same) I wouldn't want to pay that compared to the free model of online play now.
- It puts enormous impetus on players to actually schedule their "fun" or "enjoyment" in life.
- It your schedules do line up, one or more players are going to be stuck waiting for the other. 
 

Those are just 3 big issues even if all the other technical problems could be overcome. It would hammer the enjoyment out of it I feel. It would be prohibitive to actually then playing the game together, and even if that was somehow circumvented as well, you're still increasing the costs and making it a lot more complicated than it is now. 

[XaW]

2 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

On the contrary. 

It will be harder. 'cause you have to really scout a player, you have to really look for his personality and above all, you have to really gave him much starter app. 

Now (in the past edition, i don't know if something more is changed a part of tutoring), i can fill my reserve team of young player without ever looking at their personality. Cause they are useless in his grow. 

With good scout, you can have reserve team at the almost same level of first. 

There are many more player with e.g. a PA of 150 than model professional in game.

It's very very very hard in game bet on the wrong young. 

It's impossibile to 'burn' him. 

Yeah, no, there is no tutoring now, only the new more realistic "mentoring". So you can take Joe Newbie from the U18 and have him shadow Eden Hazard and hey presto, look at that! Joe Newbie are now Joe Hazardish. This means that it's harder to develop players (as it should!) because of their their personality. I'm an advocate for making youth development harder than before, and it's a step in the right direction at least.

1 hour ago, wrezanini1 said:

New training system ? ok... al i ever done is make my coach take care of training and hire the best coaches and i have done this system since i remember and I am actually never forced to do anything in training.

Social Media its a "nice" gimmick no more to call that significant is a joke.

Tactical system ? Yea sure more positions more names to those positions basically more quirks to make your tactic fail I have not actually seen a demonstration of these new positional names etc demonstrated to us by the ACTUAL match engine. So al you are doing is guessing and hoping that these descriptions actually do what they say they do, and by my experience this most of the time does not do what it says it does. 

I also agree that there are far too many newgens that blossom into great players. 

I have for sure put in some actual feature suggestions. Namely online turn based feature, so that you can play a save with your friend and you play 10+ games and he can come in whenever he wants and play his 10 games etc. Basically to combat time restrictions/real life and lag. 

You never asked for features you liked, only new or majorly changed features, and I proved it. No matter how you liked them, or indeed used them, there are still within what you asked for.

The new training system is a big deal and used correctly can have a major impact on both tactics and played development. I've still only scraped the surface of it, but I can already see some of the benefits from it. Having the assistant do it is a nice feature to have since not everyone want to do this, but they are lacking in a major part of management, in my opinion.

Social media is mostly a gimmick at the moment, I agree. However, it is such a major part of the modern football that is deserves to be in the game, though I would see it improved upon still. However, it is a new feature and it can actually give you some immersion into the FM world. That might not be important for you, but for some immersion is a major part of their gaming habits and enjoyment.

The new tactical system is one of the biggest changes in the game in years. Transitional instructions have majorly changed the premise of the tactical part of the game. If you really just think tactics in a guessing game, or that what you are expecting are not what you are seeing, then you really need to study football in real life. While there are the odd things here and there, and some annoying limitations due to this being a simulation, it is doing a really good job of replicating real tactical instructions. What I see most people are struggling with is the lack of understanding on how things work together and thus creating illogical instructions. Like asking a team to play out from the back without having any players offering shorter passes. This leaves the defenders with few other options than hoofing the ball upfield and users complaining about tactical instructions not working. Most of the time (bar bugs of course) when players ignore instructions the reason is because they don't have any possibility of following it.

Now, please give me 5 things that should have replaced them, in your mind, within the boundaries stated, of course.

While your asynchronous multiplayer idea would be a nice feature, i don't think it's technically feasible, like @santy001 have given concrete reasons for.

[BuryBlade]

I honestly can’t believe people actually think the new tactical and training systems are not major steps in the right direction!

Both features are incredible, helping the user understand more what their choices and inputs are doing and making the game more realistic and true to real life. 

In terms of the opening post, not really anything more to add because santy has done a great job breaking it down. The current system works. If you play the game as it’s designed, you never see the CA and PA as this requires the editor to view this. 

[wrezanini1]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

The immediate problems there though:

- Server costs (Battlefield servers cost around $300 a year, not unreasonable to think FM could cost something the same) I wouldn't want to pay that compared to the free model of online play now.
- It puts enormous impetus on players to actually schedule their "fun" or "enjoyment" in life.
- It your schedules do line up, one or more players are going to be stuck waiting for the other. 
 

Those are just 3 big issues even if all the other technical problems could be overcome. It would hammer the enjoyment out of it I feel. It would be prohibitive to actually then playing the game together, and even if that was somehow circumvented as well, you're still increasing the costs and making it a lot more complicated than it is now. 

Huge server costs for what ? Hosting a save game ? which you can download on your own computer and play it on your FM client :P No need for huge server costs at al. The only thing that needs to be done is that there just needs to be some sort of checksum so that the save when re-uploaded through the client is not edited by the other player to prevent "cheating".

It puts what enormous impetus on players to schedule? why cant they just the schedule to whatever they like ?

It could be a different kind of FM and not what you imagine it to be right now something like Fantasy Premier leagueish but in a fantasy mode with the FM engine where you can actually watch your games on your FM client and use the offline engine of the game.

 

Gosh i have never ever seen such a Uzi shoot every single complaint/idea community ever ! And why are everyone so sure that NOBODY would ever play the game in a different way than its been played for the past 10 years ? 

It feels like a competition who can shoot me the most and the hardest and has the most points. 

and then are the ones: ah i agree with everything that the guy that shot me down said (thanks for your constructive input) 

I sure did manage to get a reaction hahahaha

[grff]

An online game where you can progress through ten games whilst the rest of the game world stands still just isn't feasible. On one hand you want to be able to have fun playing online with friends/randoms but at the same time you want to be able to play 10 games/2 months further in the same world without them being present and and without any change/result/transfer you make effecting their game on return.

It is a nice idea if that's what suits your play style but it just isn't practical using the current FM world/build and would probably involve SI creating a game engine from complete scratch to even adapt to such a play style.

In essence, it would be like saying that you love playing Monopoly with 3 friends but want to be able to have ten turns in a row without them needing to be present. However, the player further into their turns would always have an advantage (buy properties sooner/can build houses & hotels quicker) unless the the other 3 players had their turns simulated by AI (which is the very thing you already have in FM now).

[rp1966]

50 minutes ago, BuryBlade said:

I honestly can’t believe people actually think the new tactical and training systems are not major steps in the right direction!

Both features are incredible, helping the user understand more what their choices and inputs are doing and making the game more realistic and true to real life. 

In terms of the opening post, not really anything more to add because santy has done a great job breaking it down. The current system works. If you play the game as it’s designed, you never see the CA and PA as this requires the editor to view this. 

The trouble with both the tactics and training overhauls is that although they present things in a much better way to the player, they are just interfaces to the same underlying data structures that have been around for years. It's still largely cosmetic.

Although I can still enjoy the game, it's starting to feel like a retro-gaming experience.

FM feels like Sim City 4 did before it ran out of steam. It was the undisputed and unchallenged king of the genre and had nowhere to go without a significant generational shift in approach to the core game engine.  FM faces the same problem with making that shift as Sim City did.  For those that know the history EA tried a couple of new generation revamps that failed before giving up. Ultimately a new company took over the genre with Cities Skylines that is everything the next generation Sim City should have been.

 

This is the problem facing SI and why they are likely to persist with ever-more unsatisfying incremental changes to the existing game framework.  Trying to make the necessary generational shift would be make or break for the company; you can, perhaps, understand a reluctance to take that plunge. 

 

 

[XaW]

@wrezanini1: I think you forgot to answer this:

4 hours ago, XaW said:

Now, please give me 5 things that should have replaced them, in your mind, within the boundaries stated, of course.

Unless you fail to come up with the 5 things, that is?

[forameuss]

13 hours ago, rp1966 said:

The trouble with both the tactics and training overhauls is that although they present things in a much better way to the player, they are just interfaces to the same underlying data structures that have been around for years. It's still largely cosmetic.

Although I can still enjoy the game, it's starting to feel like a retro-gaming experience.

FM feels like Sim City 4 did before it ran out of steam. It was the undisputed and unchallenged king of the genre and had nowhere to go without a significant generational shift in approach to the core game engine.  FM faces the same problem with making that shift as Sim City did.  For those that know the history EA tried a couple of new generation revamps that failed before giving up. Ultimately a new company took over the genre with Cities Skylines that is everything the next generation Sim City should have been.

 

This is the problem facing SI and why they are likely to persist with ever-more unsatisfying incremental changes to the existing game framework.  Trying to make the necessary generational shift would be make or break for the company; you can, perhaps, understand a reluctance to take that plunge. 

 

 

That would be spot on if they weren't constantly working on that "generational shift" so that once it's in a good enough state, they'll release it.  Just like they've always done.

Apart from that...

[gerry58]

You have played this game toot much, leave it alone for a couple of years and then come back

[Tarrantino]

5 hours ago, gerry58 said:

You have played this game toot much, leave it alone for a couple of years and then come back

I agree with that. I’ve played 05/07/15 and soon 19. Gives a much better experience and you get to see different features. 

[Just-Wool]

Yeah I never get the mentality of "yearly incremental updates don't give me enough, so release it ever 4/5 years"

 

You can simulate that experience by buying it every 5/6 years as the incremental updates will make the game like new. Fm19 is not the same game as FM13.

[itay.bing]

23 hours ago, wrezanini1 said:

And why are everyone so sure that NOBODY would ever play the game in a different way than its been played for the past 10 years ? 

not NOBODY, but rather not enough players to make it worth the effort, both from the financial point of view nor resources (there is only a finite number of coding hours until the next game comes out) relocation.

23 hours ago, wrezanini1 said:

It feels like a competition who can shoot me the most and the hardest and has the most points. 

that doesn't lessen the points' validity. we aren't supposed to create a "united battlefront" against SI so they can implement bad ideas simply because we are "us" and they are "them". after all, we're only ordinary men.

[warlock]

6 hours ago, itay.bing said:

we are "us" and they are "them". after all, we're only ordinary men.

Upvoted for taste and discernment!

[Nacaw]

This thread was a weird read. Somehow everyone was accused of not knowing what PA is at some point, the Arsenal invincibles squad were said to be a worse team than Barcelona B based on Fabregas breaking into the team the next season and others arguing if PA is too easy to spot. Then we had a brief discussion of nature vs nurture, where apparently everyone can become Messi if they trained enough. Sure, you can become good and even great at a lot of things by training (repetition is the mother of skill), but someone who has more talent, which is what PA is meant to represent, will still be better than you if they train equally hard. I'm sure there were members of Messi's youth team that trained more than him, so why didn't they become as good as him? It's far too simplistic to suggest this is the only thing that matters IRL and certainly making a game based on that philosophy will create situations where everyone in a squad is at 200 CA. 

The suggested system already exists, with modifications, in Madden NFL and it results in exactly that. Basically, players are generated at various ratings, but they can all reach the 99 max potential. Every player earns XP based on game performance and can be born with traits that help them accumulate XP faster (we can call this personality). Those traits can also be gained by leading the league in a stat category. The game has other RL features that are not feasible in FM/football, (salary cap means you can't afford all 99 rated + 5-8 years from players enters the league until decline begins) which balance out this development style, but you still end up with very high rated squads. I dread to see something like that in FM. 

PA is by no means perfect, but in terms of making a realistic game, it's hard to imagine we can do much better. I mean, it would be cool to have some random 21-24 yo gain 60 PA to set him up for a Vardy style career path, but it's just sprinkle  

[FlorianAlbert9]

Sorry but you misunderstanding all the posts. 

I repeat again. 

First of all Fabregas was not in the 'invincible' Arsenal' season. 

Then Barcellona (First team, it's better to write all seeing that others seems ti change your post) was greater than Arsenal. 

So It was harder for a young enter in the first team, that It was the reason Fabregas left. 

Messi is another thing 'couse he was taking HGH so Barca waiting him for that, but at the time he was considered much more better than Fabregas yet (the same Fabregas and Pique said that).

Then if you read well my post, you would see that It would be very rare and hard to reach Messi's level (that to me he is not in first 50 players ever) cause i have suggested an higher level for rarer cases and above all cause Messi's start CA was very very high for a normal young to reach It.

The starting CA is the genetic for the big player.

[Maaka]

Just going to chip in with my two cents about PA. Firstly, I agree that the current PA-system isn't perfect, but it's probably (or even most likely) the best option available. That doesn't mean it couldn't be tweaked, if it's for the better. I don't have the solution for what could make it substantially better, but I'd propose two small ideas that might be a slight improvement, not a revolution.

Firstly, "dynamic PA" should never - NEVER - be introduced. A hard ceiling/cap is just what it is. It's the maximum - if all other events fall into place - of what could be. This can never be exceeded. However, I'd like to see dynamics in the sense that when a new game is started (a new save game that is), the PA could be changed by a random number X (a percentage, with a maximum value of course, say 5%), so that the PA of certain existing players (it won't affect newgens in any way) can be different from one save to another, but once the save game is generated, the PA shouldn't change. This means that a player with a PA of 150 in the db, could have a PA of 150 in some saves, 158 in others, and as low as 142 in some (or somewhere in between). Now, that might not be much of a difference, but it would mean that the PA of known players most likely would differ from save to save. (Add some code to ensure that a player with 150 CA and 150 PA in the db doesn't get a lower PA than his CA, of course).

Second, I don't know if this has been mentioned before (it probably has), but would it be possible to have three - 3 - different PAs? One "technical", one "physical" and one "mental", so a player can have a great technical potential, but lacks the physical and/or mental ability to really succeed at the higher levels, or the other way around, low technichal potential, but with strong mental potential that would lead him to (possibly) making it at a higher level than otherwise suggested.

Of the above two, the second one is the one I feel would add most to the game in the long term, but I'd really like some opinions on the matter by those who have a far, far deeper knowledge of this than I do. The first one would "only" lead to more difference (albeit small) between saves, and only for the first 5-15 seasons.

[FlorianAlbert9]

@Maaka

For your first one:

Young player have already in the db a variable PA, so in one game you can have player X with 150 and in another Save he can have 160. 

For estabilished player It make no sense.

For your second one:

That will work only with free PA. 

With three fixed PA It would make no possibility do development players in different way and will make no sense made a mental training over a techinical one for example.

 

[Maaka]

41 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

@Maaka

For your first one:

Young player have already in the db a variable PA, so in one game you can have player X with 150 and in another Save he can have 160. 

For estabilished player It make no sense.

For your second one:

That will work only with free PA. 

With three fixed PA It would make no possibility do development players in different way and will make no sense made a mental training over a techinical one for example.

 

1 - sorry, I forgot to specify, those with variable PA wouldn't be affected, they're already, as you say and we all know, variable. I meant those with fixed PA. This may not make any sense to you, but my point was that it would possibly create different scenarios from one save to another.

2 - Why would it only work with "free PA"?
The point was that a player can have great technical talent, but lacks substantially mental "potential ability", so the technical talent wouldn't help him succeed in the major leagues, but he could be quite good in the lower leagues. Same for the other way around, a player who lacks the technical talent to become "a new Messi", but has potentially very good mental abilities, could still overcome his technical disadvantage and (in the right positions and roles) become a fairly good player anyway.

But more important, neither today's PA, nor what I've suggested, is meant to be seen as a number by you and me as managers. That kind of renders the point of "hidden numbers" moot..

And what I've suggested is in no way revolutionary, and I cannot remember to have seen or read any suggestion that makes a case for an alternative to the current PA system that would be a substantial upgrade on what we have today. And if we cannot replace it with something that's way better, there's no reason to replace it. Tweak it, though, that's another story.

[Nacaw]

10 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Sorry but you misunderstanding all the posts. 

I repeat again. 

First of all Fabregas was not in the 'invincible' Arsenal' season. 

Then Barcellona (First team, it's better to write all seeing that others seems ti change your post) was greater than Arsenal. 

So It was harder for a young enter in the first team, that It was the reason Fabregas left. 

3

It's not that we misunderstand, it's that you make no sense. There's no way we can understand your point. 

Fabregas joined Arsenal just before the invincible season. He didn't play in the league, and his big breakthrough was the following season. You said he left to enter the first team of Arsenal, but he didn't for a year at Arsenal, so that argument makes no sense. He arguably joined a BETTER team than Barcelona. A 17 yo starting for a team that went undefeated the previous season was a humongous surprise. Both Arsenal and Barcelona got knocked out in the CL 1/16 final next season and the following year the two teams met in the CL final. After an early red card, Arsenal went on to lose 1-2. Fabregas played the whole game. Fabregas was probably at a higher CA than Messi in the 04/05 and 05/06 season, their age 17 and age 18 seasons. It was only really at age 21 that Messi clearly became the superior player we know today. It's so easy to be biased towards Messi now, but I remember the time well and Fabregas stood out immediately when he entered the starting eleven at 17 years old. He was in the UEFA Team of the Year in 2006, 2 years before Messi's first selection in the same team. 

CA is made up stat, so you can disagree. But that isn't a misunderstanding  

 

 

[FlorianAlbert9]

@Nacaw no, if we are talking about 2005-06, Messi played few matches only for injuries.

The same Fabregas (and Pique) said Messi was another level when they played together.  The only problem is that the HGH that Messi have to take. 

https://archive.is/20080820045904/http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2005/04/FACF_CescFabregasPreview.htm

"Arsenal came for me, but at Barcelona I was just one of many."

Barca was a far better team that Arsenal that was a one season outsider. 

Messi had above him: Ronaldinho. 

Fabregas: who? Gilberto Silva?

[FlorianAlbert9]

4 ore fa, Maaka ha scritto:

1 - sorry, I forgot to specify, those with variable PA wouldn't be affected, they're already, as you say and we all know, variable. I meant those with fixed PA. This may not make any sense to you, but my point was that it would possibly create different scenarios from one save to another.

2 - Why would it only work with "free PA"?
The point was that a player can have great technical talent, but lacks substantially mental "potential ability", so the technical talent wouldn't help him succeed in the major leagues, but he could be quite good in the lower leagues. Same for the other way around, a player who lacks the technical talent to become "a new Messi", but has potentially very good mental abilities, could still overcome his technical disadvantage and (in the right positions and roles) become a fairly good player anyway.

But more important, neither today's PA, nor what I've suggested, is meant to be seen as a number by you and me as managers. That kind of renders the point of "hidden numbers" moot..

And what I've suggested is in no way revolutionary, and I cannot remember to have seen or read any suggestion that makes a case for an alternative to the current PA system that would be a substantial upgrade on what we have today. And if we cannot replace it with something that's way better, there's no reason to replace it. Tweak it, though, that's another story.

I don't mean to be rude, sorry. 

However:

1) It no make sense 'cause there was a reason if we have - value PA only for young.  A variation of 5% in PA for mature player would be invisible in the game. A greater variation would be made using the negative also for mature.

 

2) works only for free PA 'cause in you system you need too many PA point to have sense in a fixed PA condition. 

I make you an example:

Take a player with a CA of 100 and PA of 130 (to make calculation simple). 

If you give him 130 in mental, 120 in physical and 110 in tecnique, you actually gave him 60 point of PA, the double of original PA. 

So you have to stay near the original e gave him 30 point / the 3 aspects: so you have a more close way to development him with no space for training certain attributes

[Tom8983]

This thread is hilarious, but also very frustrating. You already have dynamic PA. The PA number assigned to a player is the very maximum he can attain if his career goes very well, he gets a break with a big club, has a good season or three where he performs well etc etc etc. But that doesn't mean they *will* reach that maximum. Any number of things can stop them reaching it. Like not getting signed from Fleetwood to a premiership team to work with better coaches. Or injuries, loss of form, playing in a league where you're out of your depth etc.

You can't have everybody having the possibility of turning into a Messi/Ronaldo if their career goes well, because that's not realistic. Because Messi and Ronaldo just have more natural talent and potential. Look at Rooney, he had all of the same breaks, coaches, facilities as Ronaldo, but he turned into a fat chancer fortunate enough to have quality players around him rather than turning into Ronaldo. Phil Neville had the exact same experiences as David Beckham. Francis Jeffers =/= Anelka, Danny Murphy =/= Steven Gerrard. And so on, and so on, and so on.

[Maaka]

3 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

I don't mean to be rude, sorry. 

However:

1) It no make sense 'cause there was a reason if we have - value PA only for young.  A variation of 5% in PA for mature player would be invisible in the game. A greater variation would be made using the negative also for mature.

 

2) works only for free PA 'cause in you system you need too many PA point to have sense in a fixed PA condition. 

I make you an example:

Take a player with a CA of 100 and PA of 130 (to make calculation simple). 

If you give him 130 in mental, 120 in physical and 110 in tecnique, you actually gave him 60 point of PA, the double of original PA. 

So you have to stay near the original e gave him 30 point / the 3 aspects: so you have a more close way to development him with no space for training certain attributes

1 - it may make no sense to you, but why do you then suggest an alternative that's no different (pretty much the same variations to the PA for each save, larger for some, lesser for others)? Anyway, I just suggested it for making small (and, most likely none) differences from one save to another, but with a possibility of larger differences in some cases, which would make for greater variations between saves.

2 - I don't know about your maths, but your point of "double of original PA" is wrong. I don't get where you've gotten the 60 from, to make sense, you'd atleast have to add them up (130+120+110=360), divide by three, or to phrase it correctly, take the average of the three, anyway, that makes 120, which is 10 lower than the 130 you started with. But that's not the point, the point is that a player could have be exceptionally gifted technically, but with a low mental potential, meaning (as I've stated twice before) he probably wouldn't make in the majors. Likewise, a less gifted player technically, could make up for a lot of it by having the shere willpower (mental PA) to exceed his technical disadvantages, and therefore perform at a higher level than one would normally think. The physical PA would account for raw strength, the potential to train harder, maybe even have an influence on how much he grows in height when in the right age etc.

I get it that you don't agree, that's fine by me, I ain't gonna force you to like it.

[FlorianAlbert9]

@Maaka 

1) you say you wanna variation in different save. Ok, i told you that there are yet the - value PA in db for young. 

For mature the - value are non-sense 'cause they don't need development. 

An example: Player X, 27 yo, 155 CA. With fixed PA in db of 160. So with your idea, he should have a -85 PA that is 140-170. Ok, for a mature gain 5 point is hard so there was no really difference if he has 160 or 170 of PA 'cause he can't reach the higher one.

And using the - value PA means that a mature player would have more possibility to have an higher PA than the fixed one in db (that is near to his CA, due to be developed) 'cause, seeing the example, he can't have the range 140-155 and so he have 66% to have a bigger one. 

2. The point is the math. 

I try to make more simple

A player with 91 CA and 100 PA. 

You have two way:

A) set 100 PA to the 3 aspects. 

But now you have a player with actually 300 PA (i wrongly said double, but mean 3x) that excedeed the max PA of 200 - so even if you say that player cannot fullfil all the PA point this is very like have a PA free - it's the same concept.

B) take the difference PA-CA and make /3 

So in example case you have 100-91=9/3=3 so you have an average of 3 point for the three aspects, so 94 avarage.

Example: tecnique 92 pa, mental 91, physical 98. 

In this case your training would have effect only if you set phisical training.

That I mean when I said you have a very little space to develop player with training, 'cause in the current system you have the 9 point that you can spent in a more dynamic way thanks training.

That will be a great problem in the lower league where you have a little amount of CA/PA so in most of the case a lot of player will not grow at all.

Then with the new training system, where the 3 aspects are more linked that in the past, you will not choose to focus only on one of the three. 

 

It's math.

the thesis behind that idea doesn't matter, he could be right, but doesn't matter, cause It cannot work well in the current system.

 

[Maaka]

1) again, it wouldn't make much of a difference, no, I already said so, but it would possibly lead to small variations from save to save, there's lots of players with fixed PA in the db who are quite far away in CA terms. This (either sometimes randomly alter the PA by say 5% or have all fixed PAs replaced by negative values) would mean that the maximum level of a player could vary from save to save. That's the sole point of this suggestion. Nothing more, nothing less. No, it wouldn't make very much of a difference (because, either way, we - as managers - aren't supposed to know the PA anyway) for the most part, but in some cases, it could be the difference between a player - if all aspects of development goes well - becoming a fairly good Championship player or a England regular. Or he could happen to never reach the ceiling anyway, as would probably happen in most cases after all.

2) The point is broader than one player with 91 CA and 100 PA. A player with 91 CA and 100 PA are unlikely to develop much anyway, because he has come pretty close to his ceiling already. To further expand on the point (I haven't mentioned it before), it could also be a three-way CA, but anyway. I assume you don't really believe I meant that having 100 PA tech, 100 PA mental and 100 PA physical would equal a 300 PA total? If so, I don't see any point in discussing this further.
So I assume you actually understand that a 100 PA in all three categories would indicate a 100 PA in the current system. Furthermore, we - as managers - still aren't supposed to know any of these PA values, that's an important thing to remember. A youngster coming through the ranks could have a CA of 100, and (to go with what I suggested earlier we'll stick with the single CA but a three-way PA) a TPA of 160, PhPA of 165 and MPA of 120, that would be a PA of roughly 150 in ordinary terms. But said player would be a very technically gifted young boy, so with the right training facilities and so on, he could become on par with good Premier League players in that aspect. However, his relatively lower mental potential would mean he's less likely to succeed at that level, so he might end up as a technique wonder in the Championship, or even have some success in another foreign, less physical but more technical league, where his mental disadvantage might not hinder him too much.
Or, to make it simpler, the CA could - as I mentioned - be split three-way as well, as long as the end result becomes pretty much the same as I outlined above.
Another player, still a youngster coming through the youth system, could have a CA of 100 (yes, him too), and a TPA of 120, PhPA of 180 and MPA of 150 (avg, 150 PA), meaning he won't be as good a dribbler as Messi, but his high physical ability would mean he could grow tall and strong, and a fairly high mental potential would mean, if he got the right mentoring and training, could make in the big leagues by being very professional and determined, always giving his best, not letting his below average technique become a hindrance for his success.

[santy001]

@Maaka 

In regards to your first point, there's definitely thoughts I can see to people thinking a bit of variance on the set PA could be a good way to go. It would indeed after all create potential variation, and 5 or so years ago I'd probably be extremely inclined to agree.

I really think that going forward though the variation, or perception thereof, will come further and further through the attainment of PA and the way in which players develop. It's an iterative process, each year it will undoubtedly improve. I think it will end up feeling much more organic and true to life that unforeseen impacts prevent a player getting there. It's worth mentioning that in general, it is already very much the case that players aren't a sure thing in FM19. 

What the community is very good at however is zeroing in on those who are extremely likely to be well set to be successful in the game. I don't think there's ever going to be a way to combat that, but strictly speaking it's not something that needs combating. We won't ever know for sure until we're after the fact with players and the heights they reach but some players have always been likely to succeed so long as they got the chance at an appropriate point in their career. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

@Maaka

1) so you simple want more player in db with -value in PA. It's ok for me (even if I thinks that is against the SI's current concept of PA)

 

2) again: you cannot create your own math. 

It's simple: if you have that player of your example with " TPA of 120, PhPA of 180 and MPA of 150 (avg, 150 PA)" 

You cannot use that Avg PA, isn't a part of the formula. You have to count how many point the player have to development. That is: TPA+PhPA+MPA - CA. So in that case, you excedeed the max possible PA.

What i said, it isn't that is a bad idea, but that It doesnt work in the actual CA/PA system. So You have to re-vamp all the system to make that works.

[Nacaw]

12 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

no, if we are talking about 2005-06, Messi played few matches only for injuries.

The same Fabregas (and Pique) said Messi was another level when they played together.  The only problem is that the HGH that Messi have to take. 

https://archive.is/20080820045904/http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2005/04/FACF_CescFabregasPreview.htm

"Arsenal came for me, but at Barcelona I was just one of many."

Barca was a far better team that Arsenal that was a one season outsider. 

Messi had above him: Ronaldinho. 

Fabregas: who? Gilberto Silva?

That proves absolutely nothing, other than Barca's perceived CA of Fabregas was low. Even in the same article there's a contradiction, claiming Fabregas was "one of Spain’s most luxurious talents"

Yes, Gilberto Silva, World Cup winner, 93 caps for Brazil, starting 11 of the only team in EPL(1992+) history to go undefeated. 

Both Barcelona and Arsenal were in the top 5 teams in the world during those seasons, to say one was a far better team is simply not backed up by statistics. 

You are welcome to your opinion, but please don't try and pass it around like it's facts. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

44 minuti fa, Nacaw ha scritto:

That proves absolutely nothing, other than Barca's perceived CA of Fabregas was low. Even in the same article there's a contradiction, claiming Fabregas was "one of Spain’s most luxurious talents"

Yes, Gilberto Silva, World Cup winner, 93 caps for Brazil, starting 11 of the only team in EPL(1992+) history to go undefeated. 

Both Barcelona and Arsenal were in the top 5 teams in the world during those seasons, to say one was a far better team is simply not backed up by statistics. 

You are welcome to your opinion, but please don't try and pass it around like it's facts. 

As i say, you misunderstanding.

I discuss the fact that Barca knows the real PA of Messi, so, even if i was weaker than Fabregas at the time they play together, they kept the argentinan and left go the spanish.

Imho there is no PA IRL (and that is my opinion).

But that Messi was weaker than Fabregas is false, 'cause facts say the contrary. 

You cannot take older FM version  over the words of professional and Fabregas himself.

So when you say: "other than Barca's perceived CA was low" is the pont .

The season the follow the Fabregas departure don't matter for the point.

For this i say you misunderstanding the point.

[RedHot]

you're both missing a point....barca didn't sell fabregas, but fabregas left to join arsenal, maybe because he thought he won't have a chance establishing himself as first team regular at barca.

 

[RBKalle]

I sort of understand (and share) the OP's sentiment...

After so many years of playing CM/FM (FM18 was my 20th anniversary edition) there IS a feeling of "been there, done that" repetitiveness. Which, on the other hand, is exactly the same thing I experienced with FIFA (1995-2004) and PES (PES3-PES2014).

Let's face it: sports games are repetitive by design. Sure you can spice them up with cool additions, new features, visually impressive bits, immense rosters and in-depth dynamics, but the CORE of a football management game will ALWAYS be: pick a club, buy some players, get them to play attractive/effective football, win matches and competitions. Rinse and repeat til you get bored with it and start all over again.

So, I don't begrudge FM for, say, not having a "real-life simulator" like FIFA Manager (if I want to worry about money and relationships in a game, I'll play the Sims, thank you). I don't care one bit about the online (there are plenty of mobile games that do that in a leaner way).
What I get relatively mad at is the lack of actual PROGRESS in the core mechanics of the game!

In 2019 we're still stuck with the very basic (and arbitrary) CA+PA+Reputation concept that existed in the very first game 25 years ago.

I wish AI (and myself) would be lured into spending 60M on a striker who had a great season despite average attributes, NOT because scouts "see" his PA is 178 so he is worth that money... Conversely I wish we'll finally see a FM iteration where lower-league football is awful and top-level football is good. Where world-class players don't fall asleep on long balls behind the defensive line, don't take 2 minutes to (mis)aim a cross, don't stand idly in the six-yards box instead of attacking the ball etc etc.

I also wish the same league-specific bugs weren't in FM25 like they were in FM15, but I can also understand there are priorities... Still, the fact that in smaller nations a random 16yo prospect is more expensive than the league's best players is still something that'd have been fixed a looong time ago.

I'd rant on, but I guess I've made my point.

I don't want a brand new game (because FM has everything a football management game should have. It has done so for years IMO and some of the new additions are even redundant IMO). I'd want a BETTER "old" game.

Il 28/11/2018 in 17:37 , santy001 ha scritto:

Also its strange how you're mentioning that tactics from previous years work well with little changes, the aim of the FM series isn't to produce a new footballing meta every year. We don't go through the FM "Year of the formation" on a Chinese Year style "This is the year of the 442, if you were born in this year you are balanced in defence and attack but are weak to being outnumbered in the middle"

That is, however, something that has been happening a lot...

 

[FlorianAlbert9]

43 minuti fa, RedHot ha scritto:

you're both missing a point....barca didn't sell fabregas, but fabregas left to join arsenal, maybe because he thought he won't have a chance establishing himself as first team regular at barca.

 

 

It doesn't matter. 

The point is Fabregas was not better of Messi at the time they played together. 

[Maaka]

4 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

@Maaka

1) so you simple want more player in db with -value in PA. It's ok for me (even if I thinks that is against the SI's current concept of PA)

 

2) again: you cannot create your own math. 

It's simple: if you have that player of your example with " TPA of 120, PhPA of 180 and MPA of 150 (avg, 150 PA)" 

You cannot use that Avg PA, isn't a part of the formula. You have to count how many point the player have to development. That is: TPA+PhPA+MPA - CA. So in that case, you excedeed the max possible PA.

What i said, it isn't that is a bad idea, but that It doesnt work in the actual CA/PA system. So You have to re-vamp all the system to make that works.

I can't create my own math, but it's fine if you do it? Ok, I get it.

I understand that you don't agree with this, fine, but I merely suggested a basic outline for a change, what I'd like to see is someone with deeper knowledge of the system (meaning they actually work with it to some extent) have a quick look at it, and if they think it's somehow feasible, then elaborate on how it possibly could be implemented, someone like @santy001 or others.

Regarding Santy, 
 

10 hours ago, santy001 said:

@Maaka 

In regards to your first point, there's definitely thoughts I can see to people thinking a bit of variance on the set PA could be a good way to go. It would indeed after all create potential variation, and 5 or so years ago I'd probably be extremely inclined to agree.

I really think that going forward though the variation, or perception thereof, will come further and further through the attainment of PA and the way in which players develop. It's an iterative process, each year it will undoubtedly improve. I think it will end up feeling much more organic and true to life that unforeseen impacts prevent a player getting there. It's worth mentioning that in general, it is already very much the case that players aren't a sure thing in FM19. 

What the community is very good at however is zeroing in on those who are extremely likely to be well set to be successful in the game. I don't think there's ever going to be a way to combat that, but strictly speaking it's not something that needs combating. We won't ever know for sure until we're after the fact with players and the heights they reach but some players have always been likely to succeed so long as they got the chance at an appropriate point in their career. 

If the development in programming makes the quoted point obsolete, then nothing's better than that. I merely suggested it to have a bigger chance of more variation between saves, so it would be less "rewarding" to just google online for lists of wonderkids, top players etc., as it might be that the same list wouldn't apply to two different saves, that's all.

[Lawlore]

Reading this thread start to finish, I would be interested to know if @wrezanini1 ever played Football Manager Live? Between the fantasy elements, the online play-at-your-own-pace style, and the discussions about development, it seems like the black sheep of the FM family would've been right up your street.

[RedHot]

6 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

The point is Fabregas was not better of Messi at the time they played together. 

this comparison is not fair....you're comparing apples with peaches. Messi was/is a forward while Fabregas  a midfielder. Both of them were good in their position. Keep in mind the fact Messi had hormones treatment many years; frankly speaking when he arrived at barca his CA was very technically gifted dwarf and PA the most technically gifted dwarf ever. As dwarf you don't become professional footballer.

Out of topic: many teams in late 90's and not only were involved in doping. Many high profile players were subject to doping. Juventus was renowned for having a pharmacy bigger then hospitals had. Patrice Evra after leaving Juventus said something like "if you wanna play til 40 you gotta play for Juventus".  Ronaldo moves to Juventus. Juve doctors said Ronaldo has biological age of a 20 years old. 

[wrezanini1]

Well, it can be also after 20 years of playing the game its like second nature.

As an example i took over Hertha Berlin in my first save on fm19. First season 6th place im in season 2022 and have won Bundesliga every year except the first season and champs league 3x in a row now.....

So whats the challenge ? I mean sure i have done saves in England taken a non league team up too Premiership. In previous editions i wanted to win al the major trophies in every major country, England, Germany, Italy, Spain, France. And then World Cup and Euros with National team. And it never takes me longer than max 2 seasons to win everything there is to win. 

Truly FM is still a great game, i mean i play it at least 500-600 every ediiton.

The training i dont really touch, ive hired coaches so that ive got between 4-5 stars and players truly become great after 2-3 seasons. 

I dont know where i am going but its so rinse and repeat feeling ive had past 5-6 years. 

[Mons]

@Maaka, you make some good points. Always nice to read something thought-out and well-explained.

One small thing re your second point of separate CA and PA for physical, mental and technical. Is this something not already possibly catered for in terms of starting attribute spread? If a player starts with a workrate of 6 and a teamwork of 8, it's extremely unlikely that either will go up to the mid-teens. Especially keeping in mind that attributes are weighted separately in terms of CA/PA take-up, i.e. an increase in pace takes up more CA points than an equivalent increase in, say, bravery or long throws.

Or are you arguing that a player should have a defined improvement range per attribute type? Player A and Player B started with roughly the same physical and mental attributes, as well as roughly the same PA, but Player A would improve much more in his physicals while Player B would have larger improvement margins in his mentals.

[ryanlion28]

 

"Meaning if i get a player that has ability of PA of 120 and i make him score 35 goals in the premiership his PA will not change one bit ! And to me that is unrealistic and flawed it should be that his PA should increase if he scores 35 goals in the premiership !"

I actually agree with this point but not in terms of PA. Like already explained that isn't how PA works, but what I would like to see is player value and a higher level of clubs interested in a player if he is playing really well.

 

For example,on FM18, my first season managing Newcastle Dwight Gayle scored about 37 goals for me, at the end of the season only Championship clubs showed any interest in him, and that was nothing to do with the season he had, it's just that's Dwight Gayle's level based on his attributes.

 

Realistically, if Dwight Gayle was top scorer in the Premier League, i'd  expect him to be rewarded at the end of the season with interest from a club playing in Europe.

You could argue that that may be considered a one season wonder incident in real life and there may not be any real interest for him but there are other examples on FM where i've had a player just playing well above his attributes for a few seasons and yet his value barely changes and nobody wants to sign him.

 

There's probably better examples but of the top of my head Danny Drinkwater signing for Chelsea is an example of this. Does his attributes make him good enough for Chelsea? No, but did his form for 2 seasons at Leicester make him deserve that opportunity, i'd argue yes.

 

Wilfried Bony maybe as well, was really good for Swansea and ended up becoming a back up at Man City because of his form.

[FlorianAlbert9]

 

i have never look to player's previous club stats before buy a player.

That's is something very wrong.

And AI make the same.

[Maaka]

4 hours ago, Mons said:

@Maaka, you make some good points. Always nice to read something thought-out and well-explained.

One small thing re your second point of separate CA and PA for physical, mental and technical. Is this something not already possibly catered for in terms of starting attribute spread? If a player starts with a workrate of 6 and a teamwork of 8, it's extremely unlikely that either will go up to the mid-teens. Especially keeping in mind that attributes are weighted separately in terms of CA/PA take-up, i.e. an increase in pace takes up more CA points than an equivalent increase in, say, bravery or long throws.

Or are you arguing that a player should have a defined improvement range per attribute type? Player A and Player B started with roughly the same physical and mental attributes, as well as roughly the same PA, but Player A would improve much more in his physicals while Player B would have larger improvement margins in his mentals.

Tbh, I really haven't thought everything through yet, not at all, it was just something I thought of while I wrote the first part of my original post in this thread..

But, yeah, to have it make sense, the CA and PA should be connected, so a three-way split of the PA should mean the same for the CA. But the PCA and PPA in-game should, in my opinion, be shown (or told by scouts/staff) as a single value (in stars, sure, no problem) like today, meaning that it would take an average of the three different ones, maybe weighted somehow if that's better.
This would mean that it would be as you say, a defined range for the three attribute areas with examples as you show.

[santy001]

6 hours ago, ryanlion28 said:

For example,on FM18, my first season managing Newcastle Dwight Gayle scored about 37 goals for me, at the end of the season only Championship clubs showed any interest in him, and that was nothing to do with the season he had, it's just that's Dwight Gayle's level based on his attributes.

 

Realistically, if Dwight Gayle was top scorer in the Premier League, i'd  expect him to be rewarded at the end of the season with interest from a club playing in Europe.

You could argue that that may be considered a one season wonder incident in real life and there may not be any real interest for him but there are other examples on FM where i've had a player just playing well above his attributes for a few seasons and yet his value barely changes and nobody wants to sign him.

Over the last couple of years I've had players who have performed very well and been signed by bigger clubs despite having nowhere near the requirements to perform at the champions league level in terms of raw CA. 

It typically takes more than 1 sustained season, and it typically needs a player to be younger rather than Gayle who would by the point you're talking about be close to 29.

There's other factors at play as well though, one being will clubs think you're willing to part for a reasonable sum and will the player accept reasonable wages. It tends to reflect quite well that general deadzone that typically a lot of players can end up in where post-25 even quite good performances don't necessarily bring in much interest. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

8 ore fa, santy001 ha scritto:

Over the last couple of years I've had players who have performed very well and been signed by bigger clubs despite having nowhere near the requirements to perform at the champions league level in terms of raw CA. 

It typically takes more than 1 sustained season, and it typically needs a player to be younger rather than Gayle who would by the point you're talking about be close to 29.

There's other factors at play as well though, one being will clubs think you're willing to part for a reasonable sum and will the player accept reasonable wages. It tends to reflect quite well that general deadzone that typically a lot of players can end up in where post-25 even quite good performances don't necessarily bring in much interest. 

But IRL there are more example like Gayle: as Milan supporter i remember:

Javi Moreno, who came at Milan at 27, after only a good season in la Liga with Alaves. 

Lapadula, came at 26, and he never played before a Serie A season.

And many others only in Milan (the most, as the 2 above, failed, Indeed i'm against a PA that changed with performance).

[FrazT]

This thread has now lost it's way and is going round in a loop.  Let's all move on.