This is probably my biggest issue with FM right now

[kevhamster]

I have a keeper on loan.  The manager of his parent club is having a hissy fit because he's been playing as a sweeper keeper, rather than a plain old goalkeeper.

I get the issue if I'm playing him in the wrong position altogether, but this is kind of ridiculous and really needs to be looked at.

[Lempicka]

I agree. It needs to be toned down a bit. I had a similar problem with a loanee CB. I was playing him as a central defender, but the parent club weren't happy because they wanted him to play as a no nonsense centre back.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Its because it's code, and not common sense. 

The promise is made during the loan discussion as to which role you have agreed to play the player in. If you don't play him in that role, thats a broken promise, and there will be repercussions. Cause and effect and all that. 

It can lead to wildly unrealistic outcomes, but the whole FM promise engine doesn't do context, which is a shame. 

[FrazT]

This has been brought up and logged in the testing phase and is under review.

[kevhamster]

11 hours ago, FrazT said:

This has been brought up and logged in the testing phase and is under review.

I'm pleased to hear this. I mean, in reality would his parent club be able to tell the difference between specific roles in the same position?  It's just a slight difference to the individual instructions. 

[DP]

12 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Its because it's code, and not common sense. 

The promise is made during the loan discussion as to which role you have agreed to play the player in. If you don't play him in that role, thats a broken promise, and there will be repercussions. Cause and effect and all that. 

It can lead to wildly unrealistic outcomes, but the whole FM promise engine doesn't do context, which is a shame. 

Just remove the code. I very much doubt there are many instances in real life of managers wanting a loan player played in a specific role. My guess is that it’s a conversation that rarely happens - FM has taken this into overdrive. 

Generally as long as a loan player is playing it’s fine. Why we have to complicate it in FM I have no idea - if this part was removed they’d be no issues. 

[FrazT]

22 minutes ago, kevhamster said:

I'm pleased to hear this. I mean, in reality would his parent club be able to tell the difference between specific roles in the same position?  It's just a slight difference to the individual instructions. 

It is nonsense IMO when a manager complain that his loan player is being played as a complete wing back rather than as a a wing back, as happened in my game

[kevhamster]

53 minutes ago, FrazT said:

It is nonsense IMO when a manager complain that his loan player is being played as a complete wing back rather than as a a wing back, as happened in my game

Couldn't agree more.  As I said, as long as the player is in the agreed position,  the manager of the parent team isn't going to know about what individual instructions  he's been given, as the role is just a set of individual instructions.

[JimmysTheBestCop]

always remove role when doing loans been doing that for the last 3 fm games. sometimes i even drop them to fringe it increases the cost slightly but worth it.

 

however we shouldnt have to change the role. think role should just be removed its kind of pointless.

Edited November 18, 2022 by JimmysTheBestCop

[Neil Brock]

1 hour ago, DP said:

Just remove the code. I very much doubt there are many instances in real life of managers wanting a loan player played in a specific role. My guess is that it’s a conversation that rarely happens - FM has taken this into overdrive. 

Generally as long as a loan player is playing it’s fine. Why we have to complicate it in FM I have no idea - if this part was removed they’d be no issues. 

There is logic that if a player is performing well then managers will overlook you not keeping the role/positional side of the promise. Appreciate in some positions it could do with some extra finesse (e.g., the standard and complete Wing-Back) but there's definitely real life factors of those types of loans and wanting a player to develop in a certain way. Say a playmaker type in midfield who is then used in an exclusively defensive capacity.

[KingCanary]

4 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

There is logic that if a player is performing well then managers will overlook you not keeping the role/positional side of the promise. Appreciate in some positions it could do with some extra finesse (e.g., the standard and complete Wing-Back) but there's definitely real life factors of those types of loans and wanting a player to develop in a certain way. Say a playmaker type in midfield who is then used in an exclusively defensive capacity.

That didn't happen in 22- I had a striker on loan who the parent club wanted to play as a target forward but I used him as pressing forward. He had 5 goals and 7 assists in 13 games but still got recalled. The extra kick in the pants was that they then didn't do anything with him- he played twice off the bench for them for the second half of the season. No logic to that.

[DP]

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

There is logic that if a player is performing well then managers will overlook you not keeping the role/positional side of the promise. Appreciate in some positions it could do with some extra finesse (e.g., the standard and complete Wing-Back) but there's definitely real life factors of those types of loans and wanting a player to develop in a certain way. Say a playmaker type in midfield who is then used in an exclusively defensive capacity.

It just seems a bit too much don’t you think? I can’t think of any recent examples in real life where this is an actual thing and it’s too sensitive in the game. Goalkeeper vs sweeper keeper 🥴

Given the game already has some bloat around conversations it’s a good contender to be removed. 

There are a few other things like ‘recommend a staff member’. A feature put in with good intentions but I think it’s important to remove things that may not be as relevant anymore - for the good of the game and to keep it streamlined. 

It was great to see the sweeper position removed a few years ago as something that wasn’t as relevant anymore and this is similar imo. If the player is playing completely out of position, fine, but not a role specific to a formation. It’s too restricting and bloaty. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by DP

[dannyfc]

I've found in the initial loan negotiations the parent club is usually willing to forgo the obligation to play a specific role if you request it. They usually add another 5% to the wage contribution to counter balance, but I prefer that for peace of mind and more tactical flexibility. 

I understand the logic for having it in but honestly it doesn't add anything to the game beyond being an annoyance. Would be better off just simplifying loan happiness based on playing time. I could be wrong but I don't think the in-game role choice impacts the players development anyway so feels a bit redundant. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by dannyfc

[Mars_Blackmon]

I like it, because I do the same to the AI. And there have been articles about players not wanting to play for a specific manager because of play styles.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Mars_Blackmon

[DP]

1 hour ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

I like it, because I do the same to the AI. And there have been articles about players not wanting to play for a specific manager because of play styles.

That’s very different than a player playing in a certain role though. Goalkeeper v sweeper keeper for example. That’s just silly. 

[Mars_Blackmon]

2 hours ago, DP said:

That’s very different than a player playing in a certain role though. Goalkeeper v sweeper keeper for example. That’s just silly. 

Well if you have a GK that like to push up than I can see him wanting to play SK instead of GK.

[DP]

8 hours ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

Well if you have a GK that like to push up than I can see him wanting to play SK instead of GK.

If a goalkeeper does this it’s more of a personal trait though. This is where traits and roles collide and the whole system has some flaws. 
 

Either way I don’t think the goalkeeper conversation above - about an on loan keeper - has ever happened. It needs toning down. 

[Neil Brock]

On 18/11/2022 at 13:55, KingCanary said:

That didn't happen in 22- I had a striker on loan who the parent club wanted to play as a target forward but I used him as pressing forward. He had 5 goals and 7 assists in 13 games but still got recalled. The extra kick in the pants was that they then didn't do anything with him- he played twice off the bench for them for the second half of the season. No logic to that.

Can't speak for FM22 as we checked the FM23 code - if you do notice this happening with overperformance in 23 do let us know. Thanks. 

[sander12]

This is an interesting one, as calling it a bug is incorrect. Such a case by case basis which is impossible to code for. 

 

IRL My club team recalled a young midfielder who was starting regularly as an 8 in the national league, we was on loan specifically to play as a 10(so he could replace a departing player), and be the talisman(taking set pieces, and being the instigator of attacks).  

[H_a_a_k_o_n]

On 18/11/2022 at 14:55, KingCanary said:

That didn't happen in 22- I had a striker on loan who the parent club wanted to play as a target forward but I used him as pressing forward. He had 5 goals and 7 assists in 13 games but still got recalled. The extra kick in the pants was that they then didn't do anything with him- he played twice off the bench for them for the second half of the season. No logic to that.

I had exactly the same "issue" as OP in Fm22. Used him as a sweeper keeper, and got complain that was being used in wrong position. 

Edit: my bad, i think i misread your sentence as "this bug was not in Fm22". Ignore my post.

Edited November 21, 2022 by H_a_a_k_o_n

[The3points]

On 18/11/2022 at 14:21, Mars_Blackmon said:

I like it, because I do the same to the AI. And there have been articles about players not wanting to play for a specific manager because of play styles.

See I can get it specifically in the midfield. Most 10s wouldn't want to play as a water carrier and a loaning club want to avoid their player being used too defensively. But no manager ever has gone "Why are you giving BPD, I want CD." If it is a change from RPM to BWM I get it, but most roles wouldn't be too insane for a loanee to play

[Mars_Blackmon]

On 22/11/2022 at 16:33, The3points said:

See I can get it specifically in the midfield. Most 10s wouldn't want to play as a water carrier and a loaning club want to avoid their player being used too defensively. But no manager ever has gone "Why are you giving BPD, I want CD." If it is a change from RPM to BWM I get it, but most roles wouldn't be too insane for a loanee to play

If I send a player to a club to play a specific position, I expect him to get trained in that position. The problem is that the user and AI use training differently. Humans will train a player at a role where they will get the best results in attributes no matter what roles the players play in the games. The AI will typically train a player at their current position, which is usually their natural position. The AI expects the human to train their player at the position they want him to play, but any user who does training manually does not train players on how the game was set up. This is something that doesn't get considered when people complain that the AI want their loanee to play in a specific role...

Edited November 26, 2022 by Mars_Blackmon

[The3points]

3 hours ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

If I send a player to a club to play a specific position, I expect him to get trained in that position. The problem is that the user and AI use training differently. Humans will train a player at a role where they will get the best results in attributes no matter what roles the players play in the games. The AI will typically train a player at their current position, which is usually their natural position. The AI expects the human to train their player at the position they want him to play, but any user who does training manually does not train players on how the game was set up. This is something that doesn't get considered when people complain that the AI want their loanee to play in a specific role...

I don't get what you mean fully. You're saying that the AI trains their players to play them in that role, but since the player trains in one role and plays in another the AI gets angry? 

So if the AI wanted him to play CM for example they'd train him at CM. But when the player trains him at CM but plays him at DLP that messes with the game rules because the AI thinks "he's playing as DLP so he's being trained as DLP?"

 

[Mars_Blackmon]

13 hours ago, The3points said:

I don't get what you mean fully. You're saying that the AI trains their players to play them in that role, but since the player trains in one role and plays in another the AI gets angry? 

So if the AI wanted him to play CM for example they'd train him at CM. But when the player trains him at CM but plays him at DLP that messes with the game rules because the AI thinks "he's playing as DLP so he's being trained as DLP?"

 

I'm saying that the AI don't train players like we do. For example, we might use a FB in our tactic but train the player in that role as a Wingback instead to develop him better. The AI is going to train the player in his natural position, which is the role that they demand you to play them in. So when the AI is requesting that you play their guy at full back, they are pretty much asking you to train/develop  him in that role but again we don't use training that way. 

 

Yes to the second question.

 

Whenever I send a loanee to a team, I request that they play in a position that I want them to train at.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Mars_Blackmon

[The3points]

2 hours ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

I'm saying that the AI don't train players like we do. For example, we might use a FB in our tactic but train the player in that role as a Wingback instead to develop him better. The AI is going to train the player in his natural position, which is the role that they demand you to play them in. So when the AI is requesting that you play their guy at full back, they are pretty much asking you to train/develop  him in that role but again we don't use training that way. 

 

Yes to the second question.

 

Whenever I send a loanee to a team, I request that they play in a position that I want them to train at.

Hmm OK, but I still don't get why that's too much of a problem. If the opposition asks for AP and you play RPM that isn't a significant difference in training as those roles require similar attributes. So even if they asked for AP and you played RPM, you'd still be training key attributes. So when the roles are similar it is a bit weird for the AI to throw such a fuss.

[podunkboy]

I don't agree to a loan requirement for a specific role, I will walk away from the loan offer if it's locked. Too many times I've given a player more-than-required playing time and then have the player recalled because I'm playing him in the right position but wrong role occasionally, and then you go and look and the recalling club doesn't play him at all.