Is dynamic youth ratings for nations working how it should be?

[Mars_Blackmon]

45 minutes ago, CosmicCreepers said:

Yes. Absolutely. If you as a company partner with content creators including these ones. And you are aware what you have tweeted is inaccurate, and you allow them to interpret this, and you see the hype that is being generated about it, and you ACTIVELY CHOOSE NOT TO respond to this to manage expectations, and instead ride the PR benefit that you get from it, then: Yes, absolutely you are to blame. SI actively pushed promotion of its features through content creators, even partnering with some to allow them Early Access to make some videos. If you are going to use content creators to deliver your message, if your director is going to tweet this message too, and if you are not then going to correct people about it until a month after release when you've already taken their money. You are inherently responsible for and deserving of the backlash.

That twitter post from Miles is misleading you can contest whether you feel it is yourself, but what he promises in that tweet is something that will be a "game changer" for long term and build a nation saves. That is not what this is.

EDIT: And to be honest mate you really give the impression that you're just being contrarian for the sake of it. The fact that this thread exists and has had so much activity in it is evidence enough that a large chunk of the player base feels they were misled and let down with this announcement and the reality of what was released. You can argue semantics all you like, but it won't change how others feel about it.

I also suspect a Moderator should close this thread as it really has ceased to be a discussion about Youth Rating and more a load of people telling others they have no right to be annoyed about something, and suggesting they shouldn't give any feedback or discuss how a feature like this should work...which is not really constructive to anything.

The problem here is that you based that claimed from a clickbait video when data showed that it does impact it. No one said anything about how long it will take.

 

If you think it should be different then I would suggest it TBH

[FrazT]

The thread has been closely watched and at the moment there is no issue with the thread remaining open.  I would say that those of you who have made your points several times just to leave it and move on.  The points raised here have been noted.

[CosmicCreepers]

8 minutes ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

The problem here is that you based that claimed from a clickbait video when data showed that it does impact it. No one said anything about how long it will take.

 

If you think it should be different then I would suggest it TBH

No I didnt, i watched a video titled "The Remaining Features of FM22" (not clickbait) that went through the thread of posts by Miles with the hashtag #FM22Features, and made the judgement based on seeing the content of the tweet.

My point was: I don't have twitter, but i was still influenced by the tweet.

If your contribution to this thread is solely to try and suggest that people who are annoyed are stupid (which is the implication you are giving here), then you are not being constructive and i'd suggest you go spend your time doing something worthwhile instead. Because I mean you haven't actually made any suggestions or discussion related to this feature, other than to tell people they are wrong for not liking it or thinking it was misrepresented in publicity of the game.

I have made suggestions earlier in this thread before it got swamped with people who seem to just want to suggest there is a problem with any implication that the feature doesn't work in an enjoyable way. I have also made plenty of other suggestions and bug reports in this forum. Like i said: when the response received is: "oh we'll look into it" and then nothing happens, or there's some very defensive response about how things are complicated and need to be balanced, or how i dont understand some hidden and uncommunicated mechanic of the game that the person responding refuses to communicate to me, or you have a post from someone asking for feedback and suggestions that actively says "Hey its 9 months before we release our new game, but it's already too late for anything you suggest to be included in that one...at best we'll get to it in 21 months if at all", then why would I bother making any more suggestions? I contributed to the discussion about this feature here in this thread, I was interested in hearing what people thought about how the feature works and how it can be improved, sitting here just trying to belittle anyone who makes a suggestion or trying to find reasons why the current system works fine (which we all know it doesn't) is really just a cruddy thing to do, its not helpful to the discussion and it provides no useful input. It's purely designed to try and aggravate people who actually want to have a discussion and derail the topic from what it actually is. If you have nothing to say on youth rating, don't bother posting IMO.

Edited January 21, 2022 by CosmicCreepers

[Mars_Blackmon]

42 minutes ago, CosmicCreepers said:

No I didnt, i watched a video titled "The Remaining Features of FM22" (not clickbait) that went through the thread of posts by Miles with the hashtag #FM22Features, and made the judgement based on seeing the content of the tweet.

My point was: I don't have twitter, but i was still influenced by the tweet.

If your contribution to this thread is solely to try and suggest that people who are annoyed are stupid (which is the implication you are giving here), then you are not being constructive and i'd suggest you go spend your time doing something worthwhile instead. Because I mean you haven't actually made any suggestions or discussion related to this feature, other than to tell people they are wrong for not liking it or thinking it was misrepresented in publicity of the game.

I have made suggestions earlier in this thread before it got swamped with people who seem to just want to suggest there is a problem with any implication that the feature doesn't work in an enjoyable way. I have also made plenty of other suggestions and bug reports in this forum. Like i said: when the response received is: "oh we'll look into it" and then nothing happens, or there's some very defensive response about how things are complicated and need to be balanced, or how i dont understand some hidden and uncommunicated mechanic of the game that the person responding refuses to communicate to me, or you have a post from someone asking for feedback and suggestions that actively says "Hey its 9 months before we release our new game, but it's already too late for anything you suggest to be included in that one...at best we'll get to it in 21 months if at all", then why would I bother making any more suggestions? I contributed to the discussion about this feature here in this thread, I was interested in hearing what people thought about how the feature works and how it can be improved, sitting here just trying to belittle anyone who makes a suggestion or trying to find reasons why the current system works fine (which we all know it doesn't) is really just a cruddy thing to do, its not helpful to the discussion and it provides no useful input. It's purely designed to try and aggravate people who actually want to have a discussion and derail the topic from what it actually is. If you have nothing to say on youth rating, don't bother posting IMO.

The topic is "Is dynamic youth ratings for nations working how it should be?"

I've been saying it is based on the Information we have and how it worked in the past. I don't have to agree with you to have a discussion. That seems entitled.

[CosmicCreepers]

Mate, all the comments you have made have been comments that are actually about Youth Rating rather than the dynamic element of it. All this stuff about having to upgrade facilities across multiple clubs to get any noticeable effect. Thats a Youth Rating thing. That's not a DYNAMIC Youth Rating thing. The whole point of Dynamic Youth Rating was that it should be possible for you to do build a nation saves without having to jump across 10 different teams in a nation personally upgrading all their facilities. Whenever someone has responded to point this out you've changed to pick on another specific phrasing, and the conclusion of which is you've decided to focus on the fact that somehow you think reading a tweet from the director of a studio that says this feature is a game changer for these types of saves is not misleading. You've added nothing to the discussion, your contribution is a number of 2 or 3 sentence posts that just sound snarky. If you want to contribute go and do some research on this and actually make a compelling argument as to why you believe Dynamic Youth Rating is working, and/or make an actual reasoned argument as to why suggested changes are not great. Offer an alternative if you feel there is one. We aren't here as a measuring stick for your ego or your genetalia.
 

 

To summarise your input and responses to them:

Quote

Are people expecting to turn a small nation like san marino around in 5 years?

No, and no one suggested it. The issue that was stated is that in order to turn a nation round you have to jump across multiple teams in a nation, and you can't drag a team up by bringing more reputation and money to a league from one club. This is exactly the same mechanic as in previous FM versions and Dynamic Youth Rating has little to no impact on this.

Quote

Are people getting bummed out by a twitter "blurp"

Well most people who are annoyed about it view a tweet by the studio director in a thread of posts about features that also promotes an official live stream for promoting the game as an official statement about the feature (as it was intended by the poster). So ye people are bummed out by it.

Yes. That's literally the extent of your contribution to this thread and yet you're still feeling the need to chime in.

Edited January 21, 2022 by CosmicCreepers

[FrazT]

3 hours ago, I asked that everyone just moved on, so no more of the bickering please.  No more warnings.

[kevbk6222]

I think there is room to discuss what Dynamic Youth Rating should look like in future versions of the game. With that being said, I do think we deserve some sort of answer from SI on how the feature was promoted and how SI will better manage expectations in the future. I think it would be great if we could get straightforward answers from SI on a couple questions.

 

• When DYR was announced, fans immediately misinterpreted what the feature would turn out to be. Whether that was the fault of the tweet itself, or fans on these forums or reddit, or content creators on youtube, it doesn't really matter. Fans were misinterpreting the feature the minute it was tweeted out. Did SI recognize that fans were misinterpreting DYR in the immediate hours/days after it was announced? Yes or No? 
• If Yes, Why didn't SI correct this misinterpretation ASAP? Official responses from SI on this topic didn't come until months post-release, well after many fans were making buying decisions about the game. 
• If No, how is SI planning to improve their community outreach to stop this sort of response from happening in the future? This wasn't a small reaction, the videos by popular content creators talking about DYR have as many or more views that SI's own youtube videos promoting the game. SI were quick to comment on Zealand's video criticizing them on this feature, I'm sure they saw his original video where he misinterpreted DYR prelaunch as well. I cant be convinced SI didn't know the feature was being misinterpreted prelaunch, but that's just me. 

[santy001]

I think there should be a bit of clarity that any feature which is only mentioned in 1 tweet from Miles and does not make the FM websites "features" main page, or the lesser section on another link "gameplay upgrades" isn't a major feature and probably isn't of substantial consequence to the game. People will attribute their own weight to the tweets made by Miles. However, there's a perfectly logical argument that the more places in promotional material something appears, particularly if its included in the main branded features then its probably something the studio consider of note.

- - - - -

However, I've been around the community for a long time but ever since I joined one attribute has stood the test of time being misunderstood. I don't know how long exactly SI spent trying to educate the player base about the definition of the jumping attribute, but they spent so long and in FM14 still had to rename it to jumping reach - which didn't fix it.

To this day, there are still members of the FM community, particularly on places like reddit who completely misunderstand what this attribute means. 

What I do know however is that it has been over 20 years now and some players still cannot be set straight on this despite there having been countless explanations given, the correlating table researchers use to judge the attribute provided, a rename of the attribute and the inclusion of an in-game hover over tooltip that reads: 

Players will always gravitate to the way they think it should work, and are then somewhat annoyed when it doesn't work the way they think it does. As a researcher I've had countless people tell me attributes should be different because of XYZ and in the process they clearly demonstrate they have no idea at all what that attribute means. 

Scripting is another one that comes up, as do AI superkeepers and other conspiracies about the AI being favoured. SI could dedicate their entire studio to swatting aside player misconceptions 24/7 and still wouldn't actually resolve any of them. In one conversation I've seen about scripting in the game when the player was challenged on this they corrected themselves to "narrative" and took up the position that SI are able to create incredibly complex, calculating, dynamic narratives for player saves that will determine when you should lose certain cup finals in dramatic fashion rather than just admit they lost a game. They would rather ascribe the ability to create a truly revolutionary game AI that to the best of my knowledge does not exist in gaming yet at the feet of SI to cheat them out of a cup final.

If a content creator wants to make a video about how SI lied to the community about what jumping means in game, they'll probably dispute lying on that front pretty quickly too. But you can't control the ideas players put together in their own mind. 

[duesouth]

12 hours ago, santy001 said:

While its very likely too late for FM23 now

I'm assuming this was a typo and you mean too late for FM22?

[GreenTriangle]

16 hours ago, jurix said:

So play 10 seasons with a club to get them to a formidable state development-wise.

Resign and take over another side.

Rinse and repeat for 100 seasons to get a couple of clubs to the desired level. Gotcha.

That's exactly what we're arguing against. It's absolute insanity what you're proposing.

Developing a club is a challenge. Developing a nation should be a much more difficult challenge. Or is it ... too difficult ? Do we want it to be easy ?

[GreenTriangle]

8 hours ago, CosmicCreepers said:

Mate, all the comments you have made have been comments that are actually about Youth Rating rather than the dynamic element of it. All this stuff about having to upgrade facilities across multiple clubs to get any noticeable effect. Thats a Youth Rating thing. That's not a DYNAMIC Youth Rating thing. The whole point of Dynamic Youth Rating was that it should be possible for you to do build a nation saves without having to jump across 10 different teams in a nation personally upgrading all their facilities.

So, dear SI, this is the voice of the people: please make the game so easy that we can only develop a nation by developing one club. In fact, why should we need to develop a club ? It's too hard. Better you should give us the youth rating of Brazil as a gift after 5 virtual years.

[Novem9]

22 минуты назад, GreenTriangle сказал:

Developing a nation should be a much more difficult challenge.

Development or decline on the scale of a football nation should happen by itself imo. The impact of human player as just one of many clubs should be minor.
So it must be a relatively fast occurrence.

[GreenTriangle]

Of course. A real dynamic youth rating should not have as a goal "a chance for a human player to quickly build a nation". In fact, a dynamic rating should provide a slight increase in game difficulty due to AI's ability to build more powerful clubs (and, finally, even nations) than the human player expects.

And, in any case, a dynamic youth rating should NOT be linear but cyclical, based on growth and decline. The game should be able to generate so-called "golden generations", but then should be 2-3-4 years of slight decline. In fact, this is where the skills of a good FM player should be highly useful : not in the continuous generation of a higher YR but in keeping that YR over periods of decline.

Edited January 21, 2022 by GreenTriangle

[Novem9]

1 час назад, GreenTriangle сказал:

Of course. A real dynamic youth rating should not have as a goal "a chance for a human player to quickly build a nation". In fact, a dynamic rating should provide a slight increase in game difficulty due to AI's ability to build more powerful clubs (and, finally, even nations) than the human player expects.

And, in any case, a dynamic youth rating should NOT be linear but cyclical, based on growth and decline. The game should be able to generate so-called "golden generations", but then should be 2-3-4 years of slight decline. In fact, this is where the skills of a good FM player should be highly useful : not in the continuous generation of a higher YR but in keeping that YR over periods of decline.

This is exactly what I was talking about!  Every nation has ups and downs in its generations

[Henderson to deliver...]

Thread title should be renamed "Is dynamic youth ratings working the way I think it should be ?"

Anyway, hopefully the Miles tweet, the Zealand video and the robust discussion on here are all contributing to make DYR something that can be developed and evolved over the next few editions, maybe granular increases/decreases in the currently static attributes like TV money, game importance etc, the appointment of FA Technical Directors with different visions and so on.

If this could be incorporated into a much needed improvement in the international management side of the game, even better.

[Dbuk1]

Does anyone know what the state of football will be for each nation in 20 years time? NO because it's dynamic. One small example based on the Olympics in the UK. 20 years ago and before the UK as a whole was generally terrible at the Olympics apart from the odd top athlete. The government decided to use lotto funding to improve performance and now we are in the top 5 nation for medals won at every major championship.

My main point is no one knows the future of what one nation classes as important. The future makes the importance of things change based on many things. Some of them even failure. Just make everything the way it was advertised......DYNAMIC.

[CosmicCreepers]

  

8 hours ago, kevbk6222 said:

I think there is room to discuss what Dynamic Youth Rating should look like in future versions of the game. With that being said, I do think we deserve some sort of answer from SI on how the feature was promoted and how SI will better manage expectations in the future. I think it would be great if we could get straightforward answers from SI on a couple questions.

 

• When DYR was announced, fans immediately misinterpreted what the feature would turn out to be. Whether that was the fault of the tweet itself, or fans on these forums or reddit, or content creators on youtube, it doesn't really matter. Fans were misinterpreting the feature the minute it was tweeted out. Did SI recognize that fans were misinterpreting DYR in the immediate hours/days after it was announced? Yes or No? 
• If Yes, Why didn't SI correct this misinterpretation ASAP? Official responses from SI on this topic didn't come until months post-release, well after many fans were making buying decisions about the game. 
• If No, how is SI planning to improve their community outreach to stop this sort of response from happening in the future? This wasn't a small reaction, the videos by popular content creators talking about DYR have as many or more views that SI's own youtube videos promoting the game. SI were quick to comment on Zealand's video criticizing them on this feature, I'm sure they saw his original video where he misinterpreted DYR prelaunch as well. I cant be convinced SI didn't know the feature was being misinterpreted prelaunch, but that's just me. 

I think you're spot on here, but I think the answer that will always be given to your first point is "No", when in reality the answer is almost certainly "Yes" but no one at S.I. can say that openly. But still would be nice to here an answer.

7 hours ago, santy001 said:

I think there should be a bit of clarity that any feature which is only mentioned in 1 tweet from Miles and does not make the FM websites "features" main page, or the lesser section on another link "gameplay upgrades" isn't a major feature and probably isn't of substantial consequence to the game. People will attribute their own weight to the tweets made by Miles. However, there's a perfectly logical argument that the more places in promotional material something appears, particularly if its included in the main branded features then its probably something the studio consider of note.

Most people wouldn't have considered it warranting a "major feature" announcement as it's the sort of change that is a behind the scenes change that only needs a small tweak in how these numbers are calculated and updated. The main feature announcements are reserved for them actually justifying the things they put hours of work on like the Data Hub.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but if your Director tweets it out as being a "HUGE" (yes in caps) change for long term saves, then people are going to expect that it is a "HUGE" change as it is coming from a trusted source (the director of SI who is working heavily with the game and announcing a load of features on his twitter). It doesn't matter that it wasn't singled out for being a major featoure on the website, there is an expectation that if it is delivered as promotion from a high level SI employee who is doing all these tweets authorized that the reality matches what is promised.

 

3 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

So, dear SI, this is the voice of the people: please make the game so easy that we can only develop a nation by developing one club. In fact, why should we need to develop a club ? It's too hard. Better you should give us the youth rating of Brazil as a gift after 5 virtual years.

And to repeat again for you as well. No one has said they want an easy game where they can make a single nation powerful in 5 years. LITERALLY, no one. The only people that are even using this phrase are people who are just jumping in to say "hey you're wrong for feeling strongly about this i guess you want the game to be easy". What people have been pointing out is that, even on long term saves, you are not able to have the influence on an individual nation by staying at one club and making that club very successful. This was the implication of what a DYR would do: you make a nation more successful, you see an improvement in youth talent (over a long period of time). There's a number of people talking about saves they've taken to 20 seasons and failed to see a change, and confirmation from SI itself that in fact you probably won't see a change in most cases...Although weirdly in all the time you do spend trying to build your nation, you;ll actually probably see a load of other nations (where the combination of those static hidden values is right) Youth Ratings gravitate upwards towards 200 without the teams in that nation actually doing anything significantly different from the last 10 years of IRL football (see those 100 year simulations and this is evident).

The reality is that actually the only real way of building a nation is still to jump between clubs improving all their facilities on your own (well thats the same as previous FMs....so not a HUGE change), which is not the type of save that many people want when building a nation. Most people want to be able to stay at the same club, and drag the rest of the league up with them as they get the benefits from their success (extra revenue, extra european places etc) while they fight to win the highest competition they can, with as many youth grads as possible. This is what a Dynamic Youth Rating, or a new approach to youth candidates should do. It doesn't even need to be explicitly about the nationality of the players, it's mostly about having an academy that accurately reflects your standing in the game regardless of what nation your academy is in. For example if I am a team who is consistently performing on the top european stage, I would expect that the quality of players coming to my academy, being signed by my Head of Youth Development etc are of a level befitting that. And not even every year, just over a prolonged period it shoudln't be impossible for me to grow 4 or 5 solid players out of this academy.

I'm sat in a Scotland save where I am consistently reaching the latter stages of the Europa League (i have been ranked in the top 15 of europe for the past 5 seasons in club rankings), whilst investing heavily in youth. My club has become known for developing youth, and it is part of the club vision. In 10 seasons at this level I have developed 1 player with a PA higher than 150. It's not really a satisfying outcome, and i'd contest any claims its "realistic" too. The only thing I'm asking for in my expectations of a feature like this, is that there's some meaningful ability for me to focus on developing my own talent that is rewarded in some way in the long term, rather than just forcing players outside certain nations to just have to buy in their entire first team and only realistically be able to develop one player to the standard they need in 10 years...and that player still only getting to a level where they are a Squad Player at best.

 

To elaborate more on what I mean about nationality not being important: as a top academy in europe, my Head of Youth Development/Director of Football should be looking around to sign players from other nations who presently would appear in weaker academies in their own nation. This is something that happens in real life. These top academies are signing 16 year olds from various nations, and they are coming up through their academies. That is the type of dynamic I want in a youth system. Not one that constrains me to a limited nationality, or one that artificially inflates a nationality beyond what is sensible (the game currently allows this even without DYR if you do that club jumping method to improve facilities everywhere).

Edited January 21, 2022 by CosmicCreepers

[forameuss]

23 minutes ago, CosmicCreepers said:

Most people wouldn't have considered it warranting a "major feature" announcement as it's the sort of change that is a behind the scenes change that only needs a small tweak in how these numbers are calculated and updated. The main feature announcements are reserved for them actually justifying the things they put hours of work on like the Data Hub.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but if your Director tweets it out as being a "HUGE" (yes in caps) change for long term saves, then people are going to expect that it is a "HUGE" change as it is coming from a trusted source (the director of SI who is working heavily with the game and announcing a load of features on his twitter). It doesn't matter that it wasn't singled out for being a major featoure on the website, there is an expectation that if it is delivered as promotion from a high level SI employee who is doing all these tweets authorized that the reality matches what is promised.

The problem with that is that common sense doesn't apply.  I agree that that should be the way it works, but with FM and SI, it doesn't.  Miles likes to have his twitter account live in this weird space between official and unofficial.  If you ask him - and plenty do in lovely terms - then he'll likely say it's a personal account and shouldn't be treated as anything official.  For me, it being announced there gave it a much lower status than if it was done in the usual channels.  After all, Miles historically has announced many minor quality of life changes, leaving the big stuff to the official marketing teams.  So it followed that this would have been pretty minor, at least to me.

However, I think that setup has always been a bit dangerous, and I'm surprised this is the first time it's really come back to bite them.  That tweet should never have happened, so it's wrong on SIs side.  People got carried away with what a few lines of text meant, so wrong on their side.  Wrong all round.

[CosmicCreepers]

  

2 minutes ago, forameuss said:

The problem with that is that common sense doesn't apply.  I agree that that should be the way it works, but with FM and SI, it doesn't.  Miles likes to have his twitter account live in this weird space between official and unofficial.  If you ask him - and plenty do in lovely terms - then he'll likely say it's a personal account and shouldn't be treated as anything official.  For me, it being announced there gave it a much lower status than if it was done in the usual channels.  After all, Miles historically has announced many minor quality of life changes, leaving the big stuff to the official marketing teams.  So it followed that this would have been pretty minor, at least to me.

However, I think that setup has always been a bit dangerous, and I'm surprised this is the first time it's really come back to bite them.  That tweet should never have happened, so it's wrong on SIs side.  People got carried away with what a few lines of text meant, so wrong on their side.  Wrong all round.

It's not only dangerous, it's legally questionable.

It doesn't matter if its "not how SI work". A customer isn't expected to know the inner working of SI when reading a promotional post. A promotional post is a promotional post. Ultimately as a Director you are responsible for decisions of your company, including Promotions, and if you promote a product made by your company on your twitter (regardless of whether you claim it is personal or not) it is by your role in the company determined as a promotional post.

As someone who is affiliated with the company, who is using their social media account to publish promotional media on behalf of the company, I am also pretty certain that UK law would consider this to be classed as "Marketing Material", and as such it is legally bound by the same restrictions as if it were published on the SI website. Now, if the company as a whole feels that his posts went too far, then they need to sort out their policy for what he is allowed to post and ensure that no one who is affiliated with the company is posting marketing material that hasn't gone through prior consent channels. HOWEVER, the fact that these posts were used to plug a live stream from an OFFICIAL S.I channel implies that this consent had already been given by someone.

 

Quote

So it followed that this would have been pretty minor, at least to me.

Also, in response to this: no one is of the illusion that a tweak to make Youth Rating dynamic was a "major change" in terms of the volume of work required to do it. We are all aware it does not take much effort to make a number change in a game. In terms of work input it is not a major change.

However, this is an area that players of the game have repeatedly requested, and Miles was well aware it would gain traction, and be considered a "major change" in how people are able to play the game (regardless of how little work went into it). That much is evident by making a tweet that includes the line "a HUGE change".

 

[GreenTriangle]

1 hour ago, CosmicCreepers said:

And to repeat again for you as well. No one has said they want an easy game where they can make a single nation powerful in 5 years. LITERALLY, no one. The only people that are even using this phrase are people who are just jumping in to say "hey you're wrong for feeling strongly about this i guess you want the game to be easy". What people have been pointing out is that, even on long term saves, you are not able to have the influence on an individual nation by staying at one club and making that club very successful.

Are you saying that all those who "developed a nation" so far (FM21, FM20, FM19 and so on) ... lied, because in reality they (here I'll quote you) "were not able to have the influence on an individual nation by staying at one club and making that club very successful" ?!?

Until now, the development of a nation has been possible. Really. Now, all of a sudden, isn't it possible without a DYR ? In fact, what could be additionally achieved with a DYR ? The even faster development of a nation. And you want to say that faster development wouldn't it make the game easier ?!?

[CosmicCreepers]

46 minutes ago, GreenTriangle said:

Are you saying that all those who "developed a nation" so far (FM21, FM20, FM19 and so on) ... lied, because in reality they (here I'll quote you) "were not able to have the influence on an individual nation by staying at one club and making that club very successful" ?!?

Until now, the development of a nation has been possible. Really. Now, all of a sudden, isn't it possible without a DYR ? In fact, what could be additionally achieved with a DYR ? The even faster development of a nation. And you want to say that faster development wouldn't it make the game easier ?!?

Firstly: No i didn't say that and you know that very well. Secondly: as someone who primarily plays these types of saves, it is weird for you to imply that i'm trying to insult myself.

You are jumping to some very extreme conclusions that are not written anywhere. I have not said that "Developing a Nation" is impossible, what I have said is that these types of saves are dramatically limited by the current (and previous) approaches to youth development, and that the only reliable way to make a nation as a whole better is to jump around clubs improving everything. If you play a "build a nation" save at a single club in the older versions of the games you can invest up to 30 seasons (with 25 of those you being a top european club) and still not notice a massive growth in the other clubs in the league. And in most cases, if you left your club and simulated 5-10 years onwards you would watch that nation plummet despite all the infrastructure you have built there. This is not "realistic", and nor is it satisfying as a player. I am making no claims about anything other than "as a player of these types of saves, I find these limitations a big frustration and negative factor to my enjoyment of my saves."

EDIT: and i guess here i should clarify, because the quote you are using for me is meant to be a reference to "Improving a nations youth development", rather than "improving a nation's ranking in the game". They are two distinct things. Improving the rankings in the game is very possible with one club, and arguably at present too easy to do. Improving a nation's youth development with one club is almost impossible.

You appear to have missed the point in bold in the previous post so i will post it again:  No one has said they want an easy game where they can make a single nation powerful in 5 years. LITERALLY, no one.

You are the only one making these claims. I am suggesting (along with others posting in this thread, and in previous threads over the years), that the approach to youth development is restrictive and does not reflect the reality of youth development in a club that grows so significantly in stature that is is one of the highest ranked in the world for a decade, two decades or even more. Top teams that focus on youth development produce talent that is able to play at the level of a top league fairly consistently, whether that's through local talent or your youth staff having signed people. Top talents look towards top academies as places where they can get their opportunities. This is something that isn't presently dealt with properly in the game, and when you play long term saves in a nation with a low youth rating, you will find that you are not able to produce talent on a par with your standing in the world game. The suggestion is that some form of change to youth development is needed, whether that's Dynamic Youth Rating or a complete overhaul, to address this disconnect and make a more satisfying gaming experience in these long term saves.. NO ONE. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. Is suggesting we should have a magic cheat mechanic that can make one nation super powered in 5 years.

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by CosmicCreepers

[Dbuk1]

 

33 minutes ago, CosmicCreepers said:

Firstly: No i didn't say that and you know that very well. Secondly: as someone who primarily plays these types of saves, it is weird for you to imply that i'm trying to insult myself.

You are jumping to some very extreme conclusions that are not written anywhere. I have not said that "Developing a Nation" is impossible, what I have said is that these types of saves are dramatically limited by the current (and previous) approaches to youth development, and that the only reliable way to make a nation as a whole better is to jump around clubs improving everything. If you play a "build a nation" save at a single club in the older versions of the games you can invest up to 30 seasons (with 25 of those you being a top european club) and still not notice a massive growth in the other clubs in the league. And in most cases, if you left your club and simulated 5-10 years onwards you would watch that nation plummet despite all the infrastructure you have built there. This is not "realistic", and nor is it satisfying as a player. I am making no claims about anything other than "as a player of these types of saves, I find these limitations a big frustration and negative factor to my enjoyment of my saves."

You appear to have missed the point in bold in the previous post so i will post it again:  No one has said they want an easy game where they can make a single nation powerful in 5 years. LITERALLY, no one.

You are the only one making these claims. I am suggesting (along with others posting in this thread, and in previous threads over the years), that the approach to youth development is restrictive and does not reflect the reality of youth development in a club that grows so significantly in stature that is is one of the highest ranked in the world for a decade, two decades or even more. Top teams that focus on youth development produce talent that is able to play at the level of a top league fairly consistently, whether that's through local talent or your youth staff having signed people. Top talents look towards top academies as places where they can get their opportunities. This is something that isn't presently dealt with properly in the game, and when you play long term saves in a nation with a low youth rating, you will find that you are not able to produce talent on a par with your standing in the world game. The suggestion is that some form of change to youth development is needed, whether that's Dynamic Youth Rating or a complete overhaul, to address this disconnect and make a more satisfying gaming experience in these long term saves.. NO ONE. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. Is suggesting we should have a magic cheat mechanic that can make one nation super powered in 5 years.

 

Exactly this

Edited January 21, 2022 by Dbuk1

[GreenTriangle]

21 minutes ago, CosmicCreepers said:

Firstly: No i didn't say that and you know that very well. Secondly: as someone who primarily plays these types of saves, it is weird for you to imply that i'm trying to insult myself.

 The suggestion is that some form of change to youth development is needed, whether that's Dynamic Youth Rating or a complete overhaul, (...)

Yes, you didn't say what you said, even if you really said this. It's nothing "weird for me" because of course you know ("as someone who plays this types of saves") that an increased YR uncorrelated with another changes will result in an easier game. You could have said from the beginning that a lot of changes are actually needed, and these changes need to be correlated in such a way that the game doesn't get easier but is just as difficult (or even more difficult) than it is now. To be honest, I prefer a small and not very significant change to a big change that would allow anyone to transform Belarus into Brasil in just 10 years.

[CosmicCreepers]

45 minutes ago, GreenTriangle said:

Yes, you didn't say what you said, even if you really said this. It's nothing "weird for me" because of course you know ("as someone who plays this types of saves") that an increased YR uncorrelated with another changes will result in an easier game. You could have said from the beginning that a lot of changes are actually needed, and these changes need to be correlated in such a way that the game doesn't get easier but is just as difficult (or even more difficult) than it is now. To be honest, I prefer a small and not very significant change to a big change that would allow anyone to transform Belarus into Brasil in just 10 years.

"Uncorrelated with other changes" - I have LITERALLY said that the other changes are: a massive increase in standing of your club and your league in the game (sustained for a long period of time), and an investment in infrastructure and youth development. That is not "expecting an uncorrelated change in youth development", that is expecting a proportional change in relation to what is put into it. The scale we are talking about here is a long term save. We are not saying "oh i want instant top quality youth intakes when there is nothing to warrant them", heck im not even saying "give these teams regular top quality intakes", the extent of what im saying is "stop giving them awful intakes - give them intakes that as a whole average out to a level befitting their standing in the game". At the point we are talking about this having an impact it would not "make the game easier" because with the current mechanics of the game if you've maintained success for this long, you will already have more money than you know how to spend anyway and can freely go out and sign a team full of wonderkids if you so-wished. What it does do is add another dimension to long term saves where you can meaningfully decide to not buy in your players, but try to develop them through your own system....which is arguably harder to do (even with potential changes).

"You could have said from the beginning that a lot of changes are actually needed" - buddy I've been posting in this thread since before all this Zealand drama, if you actually cared you would notice that my first post in this thread DID say this (you'll find it posted near the start of january) and made some statements about what I would personally expect to be considered as a part of youth development, and invited others to discuss what they thought about these and suggest their own view of what factors should be considered. But you're not here to actually contribute, you've just popped in the thread, read a couple of posts at the end and decided you think you know best and that everyone who has been prior to this having a decent discussion is an idiot who wants to ruin your sacred game for you (no one wants a worse version of the game. we all want it to improve. that is why we give feedback and were having this discussion). If you want to actually go and read some of the posts about this (Probably back on page 5 or 6) and make some meaningful discussion about how youth development in the game works, that is beneficial and satisfying for players of long term saves whilst also protecting whatever it is you seem so het up about protecting, then be my guest. But if you're just gonna sit here arguing semantics, and deliberately misinterpreting posts so you can feel powerful then stop wasting all of our time.

Edited January 21, 2022 by CosmicCreepers

[GreenTriangle]

lol, of course I read your posts. None of them bothered you to avoid reducing the difficulty of the game. All that bothered you was the idea that "the better my team performs, the higher the national youth rating is expected to increase." Don't you feel that as that rating grows, your career will become more and more easier ... and more boring ?

[XaW]

@CosmicCreepers/ @GreenTriangle - Please, we don't want to close this thread. Can you two continue this in a PM, please? You've both made your points quite clear for the rest of us, and we are starting to go in a loop here.

[Novem9]

2 часа назад, forameuss сказал:

The problem with that is that common sense doesn't apply.  I agree that that should be the way it works, but with FM and SI, it doesn't.  Miles likes to have his twitter account live in this weird space between official and unofficial.  If you ask him - and plenty do in lovely terms - then he'll likely say it's a personal account and shouldn't be treated as anything official.  For me, it being announced there gave it a much lower status than if it was done in the usual channels.  After all, Miles historically has announced many minor quality of life changes, leaving the big stuff to the official marketing teams.  So it followed that this would have been pretty minor, at least to me.

However, I think that setup has always been a bit dangerous, and I'm surprised this is the first time it's really come back to bite them.  That tweet should never have happened, so it's wrong on SIs side.  People got carried away with what a few lines of text meant, so wrong on their side.  Wrong all round.

This was very succinctly noted about space! 
Has SI advertised this feature somewhere? Officially?
I searched DYR request in Google and the only source related to SI is Miles' account. The rest is either third party resources or threads on this forum raised by members.

[CosmicCreepers]

9 minutes ago, GreenTriangle said:

lol, of course I read your posts. None of them bothered you to avoid reducing the difficulty of the game. All that bothered you was the idea that "the better my team performs, the higher the national youth rating is expected to increase." Don't you feel that as that rating grows, your career will become more and more easier ... and more boring ?

My last post literally pointed out that this has no impact on the difficulty of the game. To quote the last post that i have made this even more explicit for you:

Quote

The scale we are talking about here is a long term save. We are not saying "oh i want instant top quality youth intakes when there is nothing to warrant them", heck im not even saying "give these teams regular top quality intakes", the extent of what im saying is "stop giving them awful intakes - give them intakes that as a whole average out to a level befitting their standing in the game". At the point we are talking about this having an impact it would not "make the game easier" because with the current mechanics of the game if you've maintained success for this long, you will already have more money than you know how to spend anyway and can freely go out and sign a team full of wonderkids if you so-wished. What it does do is add another dimension to long term saves where you can meaningfully decide to not buy in your players, but try to develop them through your own system....which is arguably harder to do (even with potential changes).

Now we've been asked to stop having this circular discussion (thanks), so if you want to continue, i would welcome some actually thought out responses. :')

[CosmicCreepers]

6 minutes ago, Novem9 said:

Has SI advertised this feature somewhere? Officially?

Yes. A post by the director on an account used largely for the promotion of the Football Manager games, in a thread that is promoting features of the new game, whilst plugging a live stream that he is attending on an official channel of Sports Interactive is an official source.

[CosmicCreepers]

19 minutes ago, CosmicCreepers said:

Yes. A post by the director on an account used largely for the promotion of the Football Manager games, in a thread that is promoting features of the new game, whilst plugging a live stream that he is attending on an official channel of Sports Interactive is an official source.

So because there has been some debate about this semantically and i'd rather it be made clear and go back to talking about the actual Youth Rating/Feature part of this. Please see attached taken from the Advertising Standards Authority website. As Miles is an influencer, who is promoting the product, who has received a form of payment (through employment to SI) for his posts, it is covered by the Committee for Advertising Practice code for non-broadcast advertising. You can view this code here: https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/advertising-codes/non-broadcast-code.html

These are regulators for advertising and marketing, and their code is enforceable.

This particular post falls under point 3. Misleading Advertising of the code, which i have also attached an image of some of the relevant paragraphs.

There is no debate to be had about whether it is official or not. Legally, this is an official advertisement and is accountable to the same laws.

[fc.cadoni]

Things going completely wrong here. Ok, we all made our points; let’s see what the future holds. 

[Daveincid]

Gerade eben schrieb fc.cadoni:

Things going completely wrong here. Ok, we all made our points; let’s see what the future holds. 

It's Friday! Football Manager-Time!

[santy001]

8 hours ago, duesouth said:

I'm assuming this was a typo and you mean too late for FM22?

No, for anything that would constitute quite a hefty/considerable change to the workings of systems and need development time - I do think it would be too late for FM23 now. Less than a 12 month turnaround time seems too short for me. 

[CosmicCreepers]

^ And this is for releasing a game in which 90% of its functionality is going to purely be carried across from the previous version of the game.

Meanwhile, we can sit and watch indie developers with tiny teams and limited funding pump out a whole new game in the space of less than 9 months, and a studio like S.I. can't add one feature relating to a small part of the game in that same time period. Something doesn't add up here.

[santy001]

6 minutes ago, santy001 said:

anything that would constitute quite a hefty/considerable change to the workings of systems

 

1 minute ago, CosmicCreepers said:

can't add one feature relating to a small part of the game

Do you see the difference?

[CosmicCreepers]

Yes, I see that you are implying changing a handful of small calculations in the game and testing them for stability is "a hefty and considerable change".

EDIT: if you were considering that it wasn't a heft and considerable change you wouldn't be disclaimering all your posts with this when the last post about any substantial change was 6 pages ago.

Edited January 21, 2022 by CosmicCreepers

[santy001]

Ultimately your lack of understanding isn't my responsibility.

No one has actually even yet gone to put forward a comprehensive idea of what they would like to SI via the features request (I'm including your own post in FC Cadoni's thread in the feature requests within that).

Iteration (the handful of small calculations and testing them for stability) will take place no matter what. An actual substantial change to all the elements involved, how this could work for nations, how this should work for nations, well there's not been any suggestion on that front.

- - - - -

Of course, there is no onus on users to submit feature requests. However, its your chance to express your thoughts on something for the game with a centralised conduit through which the dev team can refer back to in the future should it be picked up. 

I'm sure some of you will be well aware of how the process works given Miles has tweeted about it in the past, but the feature request pool of ideas is huge. Ideas might be in there for quite some time and this means having your thoughts and ideas fragmented across multiple threads doesn't work if someone is coming back to the idea 6 months or 6 years later. So even in threads that are monitored, such as the feedback thread, you can't have part of it in there and then a feature request providing the other half. People make suggestions for things which are great ideas, but an underlying technology or feature needs to be developed first which can delay it. This is why its great to get it all drawn together in one thread that expresses it the way "you" (whoever it is reading this post) believes it ought to be.

[Mars_Blackmon]

15 hours ago, santy001 said:

I think there should be a bit of clarity that any feature which is only mentioned in 1 tweet from Miles and does not make the FM websites "features" main page, or the lesser section on another link "gameplay upgrades" isn't a major feature and probably isn't of substantial consequence to the game. People will attribute their own weight to the tweets made by Miles. However, there's a perfectly logical argument that the more places in promotional material something appears, particularly if its included in the main branded features then its probably something the studio consider of note.

- - - - -

However, I've been around the community for a long time but ever since I joined one attribute has stood the test of time being misunderstood. I don't know how long exactly SI spent trying to educate the player base about the definition of the jumping attribute, but they spent so long and in FM14 still had to rename it to jumping reach - which didn't fix it.

To this day, there are still members of the FM community, particularly on places like reddit who completely misunderstand what this attribute means. 

What I do know however is that it has been over 20 years now and some players still cannot be set straight on this despite there having been countless explanations given, the correlating table researchers use to judge the attribute provided, a rename of the attribute and the inclusion of an in-game hover over tooltip that reads: 

Players will always gravitate to the way they think it should work, and are then somewhat annoyed when it doesn't work the way they think it does. As a researcher I've had countless people tell me attributes should be different because of XYZ and in the process they clearly demonstrate they have no idea at all what that attribute means. 

Scripting is another one that comes up, as do AI superkeepers and other conspiracies about the AI being favoured. SI could dedicate their entire studio to swatting aside player misconceptions 24/7 and still wouldn't actually resolve any of them. In one conversation I've seen about scripting in the game when the player was challenged on this they corrected themselves to "narrative" and took up the position that SI are able to create incredibly complex, calculating, dynamic narratives for player saves that will determine when you should lose certain cup finals in dramatic fashion rather than just admit they lost a game. They would rather ascribe the ability to create a truly revolutionary game AI that to the best of my knowledge does not exist in gaming yet at the feet of SI to cheat them out of a cup final.

If a content creator wants to make a video about how SI lied to the community about what jumping means in game, they'll probably dispute lying on that front pretty quickly too. But you can't control the ideas players put together in their own mind. 

Ironically, the same can be said about youth rating and development in the past. People tend to ignore the other factors that matter like facilities, game importance and all of those nice things. It can be argued that those other factors that come into development should be dynamic also but this idea that youth rating being dynamic alone was going to make a “huge” difference doesn’t make sense to because of how the game works.

Based on my prior knowledge, the idea of youth ratings not being static anymore would help in development instead of what would happen in the past where you could max out facilities but handicapped by the youth rating. With that said, it wasn’t impossible to build up a a nation in the past. The change only meant less of a handicap IMO and made a nation like San Marino doable instead of nearly impossible. Meaning maybe they’ll challenge for a World Cup spot but definitely shouldn’t be winning it…

[janis]

So tell me, what is the HUGE change now for people who tend to play long term saves in FM 2022 in comparison to 2021?

Even with big nations like Belgium/England/... it sometimes seems to have a reverse effect on the youth rating. This whole new feature feels to me like a big gimmick.

[forameuss]

The "HUGE" change was that it wasn't dynamic and now it is.  It's really not much deeper than that.

[kjarus1]

On 16/01/2022 at 23:51, Bojanbbz94 said:

The great contradiction of FM, imho, is between 'realism' and the fact that the actual (unspoken) joy of the game is roleplaying. FM markets itself (correctly) as the most realistic and accurate football simulation on market. But actual saves in the game are are about making your own fun; about the journey that your manager goes on, about imagining press conferences, your relationships with your players or rival managers and all the rest of it to be much more important than they are on a mechanical in-game level.

FM is realistic in the sense that it attempts to accurately simulate football matches (it does this to varying degrees of success depending on the quirks of MEs, but that is the sincere aim). FM is realistic in that all of the SI researchers all around the world try very hard to make the most accurate and objective judgements about the players they research, and they are so successful at this that real life clubs use their database. I could go on about all the realism, and I don't want it to change.

But at the same time, on a fundamental level, it is a roleplaying game. To a certain extent, once you are a few years into a save, what should start happening is that the realism should be in the fact that the internal logic of the game becomes consistent. If a player wants to take a post-Soviet Eastern European nation with a small population and a weak economy, but turn one of its bigger clubs into a genuine and consistent force in the Champions League over the course of a few decades, then that should logically alter the course of football in that nation. I can't really see a strong reason for the game not allowing you to do that in the name of 'realism'; the very premise of the save isn't realistic to begin with, but that's fine because this is a roleplaying game.

India's Game Importance is set to 'Unimportant' and Pakistan's is 'Completely Useless'. Of course this is realistic: cricket and hockey are much more important sports than football there. But these are countries with absolutely gigantic populations. If somebody wanted to a long-term save as the national team manager of one of those countries and (inexplicably) consistently make the knockout stages of World Cups, then this should logically raise the profile of the sport in the nation, even if it was a very slow process of cultural transformation. And in the two examples I have picked, there is definitely the population there to support this imaginary newfound interest in football.
Again, from a roleplaying perspective I don't really see why you shouldn't be able to that. SI would have to decide the criteria for how these changes happen, and how fast they happen, and I appreciate that would have to be a subjective judgement call on the basis of game design. But as long as there were consistent and logical rules that influenced how these things worked, that would be fine.

None of this would damage the integrity of FM's database or the 'realism' of the global situation at the start of a save. For the overwhelming majority of players (myself included) who really only ever manage in major European nations, nothing would ever change anyway. But I don't really see a strong justification for not allowing the option.

In a game where taking no-mark English teams from no-mark English towns with tiny populations and transforming them into top-flight mainstays within the course of decade (sometimes winning consecutive promotions from the National League North/South to the Championship or League One) has been a much publicised and celebrated thing for years, I'm not sure I can understand 'realism' being used as the justification for Game Importance or Economic Factor being set values that can literally never change once you load the database.

I would like to bump this comment, I think it explains well the desires of our community and the logic behind the desired DYI and how we want it to work. Someone should make this as a thread in the feature request so it reaches the decisions makers of SI.

[vikeologist]

Some people have raised their ideas in the feature requests. The trouble might be that we all have different ideas. Well, no might about it. We do have different ideas.

I am considering my suggestions to take this feature forward, but maybe I'm going to wait to see how the feature plays out over a long save, and won't finalise it until after the March (or whenever) update. 

I suppose it depends whether SI want to tweak the feature, or do it a completely different way in FM23 onwards. (Or something else).

Anyway, I'm sure the decision makers at SI are being reached in this thread. It didn't do any harm for the thread to come off the boil for a few weeks given the unhelpful direction it had been going in.

[FM21_Scout]

I was one of the people who mostly bought the game to see what Dynamic Youth Rating would be like. I was very disappointed to find out that it didn't work as promised.

Some people want different things out of this game. I personally don't care about the realism factor. I want to take random countries like Fiji and make them football powerhouses like Brazil. Some people want to make something like that impossible. Both sides could be accommodated by making different modes.

A true dynamic youth rating has to have the tv money be dynamic too though. I currently make countries like Fiji good in my games through the editor. They can produce great national teams, but the problem is that the local clubs have no chance of ever competing with the big dogs of Europe because the European teams will buy their best players for nothing due to having more tv money. Any attempt to make DYR a thing, has to include Dynamic TV Money.

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by FM21_Scout

[CosmicCreepers]

I would also like some element of stability/difficulty still after the 10 year mark though. It seems like in most of these saves I've run, you get to a point after 10 years where you have so much money you have to try really hard to actually spend it... and even if your team isn't at the level of having world class talent, you can still make a fairly big impact in the big tournaments (like the champs league) with some savvy tactics and potentially even win it.

I want to see it work, but if its going to work I think they also have to make the game more interesting to play in longer term saves, or else it's gonna get boring before you get to a game length that could achieve this. I think I increasingly feel like the game has just got itself into a comfortable position where it feels risky from SIs perspective to tinker too much with the broader range of features that need to be ironed out for a dynamic youth rating to reach a level I'd find really satisfying (although i mean the basics of just making it possible is easy)...and honestly i can't ever see them taking the risk as long as interface gimmicks and database updates keep selling games.

[HUNT3R]

1 hour ago, CosmicCreepers said:

I would also like some element of stability/difficulty still after the 10 year mark though. It seems like in most of these saves I've run, you get to a point after 10 years where you have so much money you have to try really hard to actually spend it... and even if your team isn't at the level of having world class talent, you can still make a fairly big impact in the big tournaments (like the champs league) with some savvy tactics and potentially even win it.

I want to see it work, but if its going to work I think they also have to make the game more interesting to play in longer term saves, or else it's gonna get boring before you get to a game length that could achieve this. I think I increasingly feel like the game has just got itself into a comfortable position where it feels risky from SIs perspective to tinker too much with the broader range of features that need to be ironed out for a dynamic youth rating to reach a level I'd find really satisfying (although i mean the basics of just making it possible is easy)...and honestly i can't ever see them taking the risk as long as interface gimmicks and database updates keep selling games.

This is best put in the features requests section.

[CosmicCreepers]

As previously mentioned: i havent sat and thought out a plan on how to fix long term saves. I have placed smaller suggestions and bugfixes in these sections and nothing happens with them.

I'm a paying customer just making some observations about a feature that fell a bit short for me, not a game designer being paid to fix whatever underlying issues there are with long term saves nor have i been given any sufficient level of knowledge of what is going on in the backend calculations to be able to make a suggestion that is in any way useful.

Directing people to the features requests section every time they happen to say one slightly negative thing is not actually helpful, it builds more frustration than it solves.

Edited February 24, 2022 by CosmicCreepers

[HUNT3R]

2 hours ago, CosmicCreepers said:

Directing people to the features requests section every time they happen to say one slightly negative thing is not actually helpful, it builds more frustration than it solves.

I think you've misunderstood. It has nothing to do about whether something being said is negative or positive. What you posted could be used in the game to improve everyone's experience. Posting it in the feature requests section will ensure that SI sees it and can discuss the potential for it to be included in the future.

[duesouth]

Somewhere between this thread and the original bug thread, someone suggested a slider for DYR - so those wanting no changes in small nations DYR could set that - and those who want to see movement after having a decent period of success could set it the other way.  I suggested this to SI in mid-December and just got this feedback:

"It is a new feature and it's an iterative process. Some aspects haven't worked as expected among the community. The aim behind youth generation at present won't really reach a point for it to have sliders that allow different aspects to work in different ways. Thanks for the suggestion and we'll keep it in mind moving forward."

Shame, as it was the only way I could see both sides of the debate that have clearly formed in this thread being happy.  Indeed, the more I've thought about this and other issues in FM, having a far more customisable game feels like the way forward for me.

[kjarus1]

Hello,

The winter update has made some changes to DYR:

- Tweaks to how Dynamic Youth ratings work, including some rebalancing and allowances for smaller nations to receive boosts within realistic parameters

Could someone elaborate on this more or do some tests? Does it mean that long-term small nations saves' are now viable?

[davehibb]

On 25/02/2022 at 07:43, kjarus1 said:

Hello,

The winter update has made some changes to DYR:

- Tweaks to how Dynamic Youth ratings work, including some rebalancing and allowances for smaller nations to receive boosts within realistic parameters

Could someone elaborate on this more or do some tests? Does it mean that long-term small nations saves' are now viable?

Yeah, would definitely like to know more about the updates to this feature.