How are transfer values calculated?

[wazzaflow10]

18 hours ago, Smoo said:

You're completely missing the point about Stutter, His £9m transfer fee is not what I'm complaining about. The problem is after he moves to Liverpool his valuation is £26m-£31m, two weeks later his valuation doubles to £63m-£77m. He has terrible potential ability, at best a League One player.

No I quite think you're missing the point about Stutter. He could have been valued and sold for more if he had a longer contract. Liverpool clearly thinks much more highly of him than Chelsea did and that value reflects it.

 

18 hours ago, Smoo said:

You're talking about the real world. Football Manager is not the real world.

News to me.

 

18 hours ago, Smoo said:

The difference in reputation between Chelsea and Liverpool, in game, is marginal. Add to that I've won a League Cup and two FA Cup's in two seasons.

Congrats?

 

18 hours ago, Smoo said:

And I know how the mechanics work.

So post a bug on the bug forum with specific details about how it's broken.

 

18 hours ago, Smoo said:

My first post in this thread was explaining how the AI has an artificially high transfer value, and you have to unsettle a player to get a more realistic valuation. The problem with this is it stagnates the transfer market. Many players will end up never leaving their clubs because they never become unsettled and the transfer value remains too high, so no one bids for them. I don't think I've ever seen Haaland leave Man City. In reality, he will very likely go to Real Madrid in a few years. All the while, the AI can unsettle your players very easily. And a new addition to this years game is player mutinies every 6 months, demanding you let your best player leave. When does this ever happen.

Or wait until their contract runs down or they fall out of favor with the club? If you want to buy everyone's best in form player you're going to have to pay up now.

Secondly you're a human. You're significantly more capable of thinking 2-3 game years down the road. You're upset that the AI might have a small advantage to compensate for its inability to think? Keeping hold of players is not difficult. Renew key player contracts before they reach two years left. If they're adamant about moving let them have their temper tantrum and move on. Everyone will get over it. And, if a team is that interested you can get them to pay over the odds for a player. I've not once had a mutiny. Are you walking into a PL club with no badges and no mental attributes? Sounds like the players don't respect you if they're causing issues.

Everyone good is linked to Real Madrid. Mbappe has been a Real Madrid player for 3 years if you listened to Marca. Just because Halaand doesn't leave City (which btw he has a personal connection to) doesn't mean the transfer market is broken. I've seen plenty of transfer activity in the games I've played.

[XaW]

On 26/01/2024 at 20:07, wazzaflow10 said:

Totally fair then. I don't expect it to be an A+ grade. There should be some let down of letting that kind of player go that caps the fan reaction. Not knowing your club's finances but if that turned the club a huge profit I would expect a B there. Especially considering you got a 50% next sale clause too! (I'd hope the board gave you an A+ on that). I've seen grades change over time as results of the team go up and down. I'd hope that if your team went on a nice little run or the funds were reinvested into the squad the grade would improve after the initial sting wore off.

And yeah its never really causes enough problems that I think I need to report anything immediately. Always just kind of whatever as long as I win that grade doesn't matter. The match grades are much more annoying when you win 2-0 or 3-0 and get a C because the fans expected 4+ goals or something. Just little things. But when I get back to playing 24 (took a hiatus while the scouting is bugged) I'll see if I can compile some reports for the dev team.

It should be an A now... Too bad I left the club before it happened.

[wazzaflow10]

4 hours ago, XaW said:

It should be an A now... Too bad I left the club before it happened.

Oh my what a great piece of business that is. Well done. 

[vrig]

I just assumed the values set were always roughly what the club would sell them to you for, and that those values were heavily influenced by relations between the clubs.

Surprise, surprise, your club happens to have fantastic relations with itself, so the ballpark figures are notably lower for your own players.

[fat mole]

Thought I had a bug in my save as I had 2 players in my squad valued at £0. Couldn't figure it out but concluded it was because of club and player reputation. Quite sure I'm correct when I say that, feel free to correct me though!

Background: Playing with a team called Fairford Town after downloading an extended English League database. They're a tiny club with awful facilities in everything.  Started in the English 9th tier and am currently about to start our 2nd season in the Vanarama National League -  the 5th tier. We're renting a stadium as ousr wasn't even good enough for the 6th tier. There's no history at all with this club and club rep is now around 2600. It was approximately 1300 when first starting the save.

For the past 3 seasons I noticed we had a player stuck on £0 valuation. I'd  get lots of bids for him of £0 but they were always from teams he didn't want to move to so it wasn't such a big deal. I don't know if the clubs a player was with previously impacts player rep, but he came up with  Stoke as a youth player which seems fairly good compared to our level of club.  For reference he's a real-life player called Ian Togo. We've just let him go to Macclesfield in the 7th tier as we have better players now. Obviously he's more valuable to them, and there's a new signing factor, he's suddenly worth £20-£190k.

More annoying was a Newgen we signed last season. Picked him up from an Irish amateur team called Home Farm and he was starting in midfield for us. He would have done this season too but I decided to let him go after he and his teammates were unhappy with me for not letting him move. I wanted to keep the squad harmony in tact in the end. We were getting £0 bids from teams 2 and 3 divisions above us. He was regarded as a star player for us, had 2 years remaining on his contract (part-time) and in-game it was saying he had a lot of potential to improve etc. He went to QPR in the Championship in the end and slotted into their U21 squad. His valuation is now £100k-£1m.

Like I said, thought it was bug, but delved into it and these 2 players had the lowest reputation of any of our players. First player rep was just under 1000 and still is, second one was just over 1000 but has immediately jumped to Home 1821, Current 2476 after moving.

Their reputation and ours played a huge part in all that by the looks of it.

I do find it a bit silly though, or paradoxical even. Putting what happened into a real-world kind of context, the second guy was famous enough to be known, wanted and assumedly scouted by Championship and League One clubs, yet his 'reputation' was the second lowest of all our players? He must have a reputation for these clubs to even be aware of him, and a pretty good one for them to want to sign him! Maybe they need to call 'reputation' something else? This siutuation with the second player was a bit of an immersion breaker for me.

Using this custom database and starting with a tiny club in it almost certain played a part in things, but I'm sure similar could be encountered in the standard game too. Found it all a bit disappointing. If you're good enough to be wanted by QPR, albeit their U21s, you really shouldn't have the lowest reputation and valuation in my squad. I've received small fees of around £10,000 for 2 worse players with less potential this summer in-game, and the most I could get for him is £0. Realistically he should be our record sale.

 

Edited February 27 by fat mole

[NineCloudNine]

@fat mole did you try to negotiate the price higher when clubs bid? Did the players want to move? Did you set an asking price in the transfer centre and see what the player thought of it?

[IWik8]

Tranfer values are really confusing. My players values seem to crash before every transfer window leading to loads of pathetically small bids from big clubs that unsettle my players but I can't sell them as I'm getting offers of £5m for players that would cost me £70m+ to replace. I keep on getting it so I decided to keep track of a few of my players values over a few months. It has nothing to do with contract length or anything as all of these players have many years left on their contract and I guarantee their values will go up again after the transfer window.

It means I spend every transfer window just rejecting endless really low bids. Very frustrating.

Edited March 1 by IWik8

[phd_angel]

On 01/03/2024 at 17:22, IWik8 said:

Tranfer values are really confusing. My players values seem to crash before every transfer window leading to loads of pathetically small bids from big clubs that unsettle my players but I can't sell them as I'm getting offers of £5m for players that would cost me £70m+ to replace. I keep on getting it so I decided to keep track of a few of my players values over a few months. It has nothing to do with contract length or anything as all of these players have many years left on their contract and I guarantee their values will go up again after the transfer window.

It means I spend every transfer window just rejecting endless really low bids. Very frustrating.

I love these graphs. I was always intrigued why FM doesn’t include them as these would be such an obviously important datapoint.

I have actually suggested the inclusion of graphs recording financial data over time (transfer value, club value, etc.). I have suggested this two or three times over the years, but SI developers never took it on board…

Edited March 3 by phd_angel

[fm_08/09]

This is a problem when one manages a small team! Big English teams buy all u20 talents from their teams. Keep them in the u20 squads never giving them any playing time! you can't buy them because their price tags are €100m+, and you can't loan them because they demand €1m a month (€10m/season).

In my save playing as Pro Vercelli, Milan and Inter hoard young players until they are too old! their values are €80m+ and require loan fees €1m+/month! add to this they always bid for my best players and unsettle them! they ask for higher wages which I can't afford! 

[KingCanary]

Sometimes I feel like I've got a handle on this game and then I see something like this. Don't get me wrong the guy looks like a talent but he's 23, started one game in the league this season for Brighton (and only has four Premier League starts in total across four seasons) yet has a valuation of £159-180m! 

In comparison 26 year old Evan Ferguson (who plays for my West Ham team) has scored 20+ league goals three years in a row for my league champion team is valued at £106m-£138m- so apparently the value of the best striker from the top team in the league is less than this dude who hasn't even started five league games his entire career. 

[fc.cadoni]

I am gonna leave this here.

Year: 2045

====

83 mil is far away from any reality.

[Marko1989]

It is somehow impressive how they even managed to develop a valuation system this bad

[Sunstrikuuu]

On 26/01/2024 at 14:17, XaW said:

I would assume the players reputation makes a massive impact, and that is reflected by the club he is at.

That's what I assumed too -- that valuation was basically a mix of contract terms and reputation.  Below, all reputation ranks are relative to Europe, so if I say someone's at the #11 club in the #2 league, I mean they're at the club with the eleventh highest reputation in Europe, which play in the second-highest reputation league in Europe -- in that example, Atletico Madrid in the Spanish First Division.  In this save, I'm managing the club with the highest overall worldwide reputation in the #1 reputation league.

1. 24 year old German (so high rep nation) MR/AMR/AML.  Under contract for 4 years, £250kpw at the highest-rep club worldwide in the highest-rep league worldwide.  183 CA, 193 PA.  9367, 8235, 9982 reputation.  Valued at £112-123m.
2. 24 year old Englishman (another high rep nation) ML/AML.  Under contract for 4 years, £325kpw at the 8th highest rep club worldwide in the highest rep league worldwide.  185 CA, 195 PA.  9336/8280/7677 reputation.  Valued at £247-269m.
3. 25 year old Belgian AML/ST.  Under contract for two years, £425kpw at the 9th highest rep club worldwide and in the highest rep league.  180 CA, 180 PA.  9380/8100/8544 reputation.  Valued at £238-285m.
4. 23 year old Mexican MR/AMR.  Under contract for 3 years, £120kpw at the 8th highest rep club worldwide in the highest rep league.  164 CA, 180 PA.  8393/7380/6737 reputation.  Valued at £263-315m.
5. 23 year old Ukranian ML/AML.  Under contract for 4 years, £275kpw.  At a club in the highest-rep league worldwide, but his club is not in the top 20.  161 CA, 170 PA.  8641/7245/7436 reputation.  Valued at £153-169m.
6. 25 year old German WBL/ML/AML.  Under contract for 4 years, £400kpw, at a top-five reputation club in either the second- or third-highest reputation league.  179 CA/179 PA.  9436/8044/7579 reputation.  Valued at £149-200m.

I think the first player in that list is pretty clearly the second-best, and has the highest reputation (he's the only player in the world between 23 and 25 who plays AML or AMR and has >180 PA, >160 CA with 9000+ World Reputation), but he's got the lowest valuation by a good bit.  There are two players in the world 23-25, AML/AMR, 160+ CA 180+ PA, 8000+ reputation.  Those are players 1 and 3.  Player 3's value is twice as high, though his contract is half his long, his PA/CA is lower and his reputation is lower across the board.

Let's look at natural centerbacks.  There are six with 8,000+ World Reputation, between 23 and 25, 160+ CA, 170+ PA.

1. 25 year old Italian at a top-5 worldwide rep club in either the second- or third-highest rep league.  176 CA/PA.  Under contract for 4 years, £325kpw.  9672 World Reputation (WR).  £135-156m value, £156m Asking Price.
2. 23 year old Spaniard at the a top-5 worldwide rep club in either the third- or second-highest rep league.  175 CA, 184 PA.  Under contract for 4 years, £170kpw.  8844 WR.  £105-129m value, £129m AP.
3. 25 year old Italian at the #1/#1 club/league.  177 CA/178 PA.  Under contract for two years, £450kpw.  8264 WR.  £106m value, £106m AP.
4. 24 year old Bosnian at the #1/#1.  185 CA/PA.  Under contract for 4 years, £235kpw.  10000 WR.  £99-119m value, £105m AP.
5. 25 year old Italian at the #1/#1.  181 CA, 182 PA.  Under contract for two years, £230kpw.  9010 WR.  £78-95m value, £78m AP.
6. 25 year old Brazilian at the #1/#1.  175 CA/PA.  Under contract for three years, £210kpw.  8083 WR.  £58m-£76m value, £76m AP.

Four of the six play for the user's team; those four are the four lowest in value and asking price.  The player who has the highest possible world reputation (10k of 10k) is only fourth in value, despite being the best player.  Asking price is kind of all over the place -- I include it because, even though it's obviously up to the user what to ask for, I think it's probably either reflective of or part of the AI's calculation when making offers.  It's also worth noting that I sold #2 on the list in the summer, so he's in the first year of his deal with Barcelona, and I could only get £59m, which was towards the top end of his value on his previous contract. 

Now striker: there are only four who meet those criteria above.

1. 25 year old Belgian at the #9 club rep team in the #1 league , under contract for two years £425kpw.  180/180.  8544 WR.  £238-285m value, £252m AP.  (he's #3 in the first list)
2. 25 year old Frenchman at the #1/#1, under contract for four years at £275kpw.  184 CA, 185 PA.  9415 WR.  £108-129 value, £124m AP.
3. 25 year old American at the #1/#1, under contract for four years at £250kpw.  179 CA, 180 PA.  9820 WR.  £104-125m value, £114m AP.
4. 25 year old Brazilian at the #2 rep club in the #3 rep league, under contract for four years at £135kpw.  170 CA, 180 PA.  8506 WR.  £92-116m value, £111m AP.

So for the first time in my looking here, the lowest-valued player is at an AI team.  His weekly wage is half that of the other players on that list, and his valuation is pretty close -- his AP is only £3m off the reigning winner of the European Men's Player of the Year, Champions League Player of the Season, Champions League Golden Boot winner, World Golden Ball winner and World Player of the Year. But maybe my initial thought was right, and wage is the dominant factor.

There are two central midfielders who meet the criteria.

1. 25 years old, Argentinian, #2 club, #3 league, under contract for three years at £300kpw.   170 CA, 171 PA.  9345 WR.  £74-89m value, £89m AP.
2. 25 years old, Welsh, #1 club, #1 league, under contract for three years at £180kpw.  172 CA, 174 PA.  8190 WR.  £65-71m value, £71m AP.

So that seems pretty reasonable.  The contracts are the same length, but one's a good bit more expensive than the other.  That player has a higher reputation, too, and a higher value and asking price.  That's basically what I'd expect, I guess.  But it's a small sample so let's open it up to players 25-30.

1. 29 years old, Portuguese, #3 club, #2 league, under contract for three years, £375kpw.  176 CA/PA.  9672 WR.  £204-244m value, £204m AP.
2. 29 years old, Spanish, #22 club (not a typo), #1 league, under contract for two years at £475kpw.  169 CA, 170 PA.  9146 WR.  £147-172m value, £147m AP.
3. 30 years old, English, #1 #1, under contract for two years at £675kpw.  187 CA, 188 PA.  10000 WR.  £95-103m value, £95m AP.
4. 28 years old, Portuguese, #1 #1, under contract for three years at £175kpw, 171 CA, 179 PA.  8799 WR.  £78-93m value, £93m AP.
5. 25 years old, Argentinian, #2 club, #3 league, under contract for three years at £300kpw.   170 CA, 171 PA.  9345 WR.  £74-89m value, £89m AP.
6. 25 years old, Welsh, #1 club, #1 league, under contract for three years at £180kpw.  172 CA, 174 PA.  8190 WR.  £65-71m value, £71m AP.

So looking at it that way, I guess I'm... back to being confused.  The top two in valuation are way above everyone else.  #1 is £50m higher than #2, who's another £50m above #3.  #1 is not the best player, he doesn't have the most expensive contract or the longest contract, he doesn't have the highest reputation.  #2 is... probably the worst player on the list.  He's got the same contract length but earns a lower wage than #3 while being a significantly worse player with a significantly lower rep too -- yet he's valued at £50m more.

If we do a similar look at AMC, 25-30, 160+ CA 170+ PA, 8000+ WR, here's what we get:

1. 29 years old, Portuguese, #3 club, #2 league, under contract for three years, £375kpw.  176 CA/PA.  9672 WR.  £204-244m value, £204m AP.
2. 29 years old, Spanish, #22 club (not a typo), #1 league, under contract for two years at £475kpw.  169 CA, 170 PA.  9146 WR.  £147-172m value, £147m AP.
3. 29 years old, French, #50 club (also not a typo), #1 league, under contract for three years at £275kpw.  173 CA, 174 PA.  9370 WR.  £123m value and AP.
4. 28 years old, Argentinian, #1 #1.  Under contract for two years at £185kpw.  170 CA/PA.  9349 WR.  £102-122 value, £107m AP.
5. 28 years old, Portuguese, #1 #1, under contract for three years at £175kpw, 171 CA, 179 PA.  8799 WR.  £78-93m value, £93m AP.
6. 25 years old, Welsh, #1 club, #1 league, under contract for three years at £180kpw.  172 CA, 174 PA.  8190 WR.  £65-71m value, £71m AP.

I think we can basically discount club rep playing a major role here, except that club rep is a stand-in for competing for trophies and, presumably, the player playing well in lots of gametime in big competitions, thereby increasing their personal reputation.  It's also possible that in some of these the player earned their reputation with a different club, then moved to the lower reputation team (as is the case with both #3 and #2, who went from Monaco to West Ham and Barcelona to Tottenham respectively). 

If I look at the list of players of any position, 24-30, 160+ CA 180+ PA, 7000+ WR, there are 74 players.  Sorted by transfer value, the top 22 play for AI teams.  Refining to 8000+ WR, there are 26 players.  Sorting by Asking Price (a few of the players have a Not For Sale valuation), the top 9 play for AI teams, as does #11. 

I don't know what all goes into either the transfer valuation number or the asking price number (that can be set, obviously, but it's almost always set by the AI within a range bounded by the transfer value upper and lower bounds, and the player and his agent influence the user setting numbers too far outside that range).  But it's hard for me -- maybe I'm overly conspiratorial -- to look at all that and not think that one of the major factors is whether the player plays for a user's team.  It is entirely possible, likely, even!, that there's some user-controlled thing that I'm doing differently from the AI, and it's that factor that's responsible for the trend in valuation.  Maybe I'm underpaying my players.  Maybe I'm not manually setting asking prices for all my players as a matter of course to goose their transfer values (that, I think, would be unreasonable anyway).  Maybe it's something else.  But it's hard for me to look at two 25 year old strikers on four-year. £275kpw deals at very similar clubs and accept that the one who's got 500 lower rep, 17 less CA and 16 less PA is valued at £70m more than the other one.  It's also hard to look at these two AMLs:

1. 26 years old, #9 club #1 league, under contract for three years at £250kpw, 175 CA, 176 PA.  7240 WR (AI)
2. 24 years old, #1 club #1 league, under contract for four years at £250kpw, 183 CA 193 PA, 9982 WR (user)

And conclude that Player #1 ought to be valued at between £249m and £304m while Player 2 ought to be valued at between £112m and £123m.  Player 2 is younger, better, under control for longer, and has a much higher reputation.  Or:

1. 28 years old, #4 club #2 league, DM, under contract for four years at £275kpw, 167 CA 169 PA, 9185 WR (AI)
2. 28 years old, #1 club #1 league, DM, under contract for three years at £175kpw, 171 CA 179 PA, 8799 WR (user)

Should come out with Player #1 being valued at double Player #2 -- £187m to £93m.  Those are pretty similar players, though #2 is cheaper and better.

Or that the difference between these two strikers:

1. 24 years old, English, under contract for four years at £275kpw.  179 CA, 184 PA, 6672 WR (AI)
2. 25 years old, American, under contract for four years at £250kpw.  179 CA, 180 PA, 9820 WR (user)

Is £50m in favor of player #1.  #2's reputation is way higher, and they're otherwise pretty equivalent and on equivalent contracts (if actual accomplishments mattered, #2 has won a ton of individual awards and top scorer honors to go with domestic and European trophies; #1 has won zero personal honors and hasn't won a league title or Champions League).

Or:

1. 30 years old, centerback, under contract for four years at £73kpw, 150 CA 150 PA, WR 8250 (AI)
2. 25 years old, centerback/right back, under contract for two years at £450kpw, 177 CA 178 PA, WR 8264 (user)
3. 29 years old, right back, under contract for three years at £230kpw, 159 CA 161 PA, WR 8219 (AI)

ought to have Player 1 with a £101m asking price compared to Player 2's £76m asking price (and I don't have a clue where that asking price is coming from, because what's manually set is £106m) and Player 3's £158m asking price.  There's no reasonable universe where either player 1 or player 3 is worth more than player 2.

Or:

1. 24 years old, #22 club #1 league, DM, under contract for four years at £325kpw, 165 CA 166 PA, 6704 WR (AI)
2. 24 years old, #1 club #1 league, DM, under contract for four years at £210kpw, 178 CA 178 PA, 6750 WR (user)

Should have player valuations of £127-150m for Player 1 and £103-113m for Player 2.  Player 2 is cheaper and a much better player playing at a much better club.  Or:

1. 30 years old, CM/DM, under contract for two years at £220kpw, 164 CA 165 PA, 9020 WR (AI)
2. 25 years old, DCL, under contract for two years at £230kpw, 181 CA 182 PA, 9010 WR (user)

Is £50m in favor of Player 1.  Player 1 isn't just not worth £50m more than Player 2, Player 1 ought to barely be worth 50m, period, not the £126m he's valued at.  And Player 2 is, by a lot, the best left back in the world and ought to be worth a hell of a lot more than £78m.  But if we compare him to the second-, third- and fourth-best left backs in the world, we get this:

1. 25 years old, DCL, under contract for two years at £230kpw, 181 CA 182 PA, 9010 WR (user)
2. 28 years old, DCL, under contract for three years at £250kpw, 172 CA/PA, 9460 WR (AI)
3. 25 years old, DL, under contract for three years at £205kpw, 170 CA, 178 PA, 7923 WR (user)
4. 30 years old, DL, under contract for two years at £225kpw, 168 CA, 169 PA, 9240 WR (AI)

Player 1 is valued between £78-95m with an asking price of £78m.  Player 2 is valued at between £162-194m with an asking price of £165m.  That's a delta of close to £90m in the wrong direction.  Player 3 is valued at £70-77m with an AP of £70m.  Player 4 is valued at between £119-162m with an AP of £130m.  The AI players are older and worse and yet have values an order of magnitude higher than the user players.  There has to be a fudge factor happening here, because the gap in valuation between similar players seems to almost always be in favor of the AI, and usually significantly so.

Edited November 27 by Sunstrikuuu

[KingCanary]

On 27/11/2024 at 04:45, Sunstrikuuu said:

There has to be a fudge factor happening here, because the gap in valuation between similar players seems to almost always be in favor of the AI, and usually significantly so.

This has become my assumption too.

An example from my current save:

I have an excellent 23 year old Argentine DM. Ranked as a star player, coach reports rate him 4.5 stars, 35 caps for Argentina, part of a team that has won 3 Premier League titles in the past 5 years, always manages north of 40 games a season, vast majority of which are starts. He's got 3.5 years left on his £220k per week deal. Valued at £80-88m.

In comparison Arsenal have a 30 year old Billy Gilmour. Scouts rate him at 3 stars, Arsenal have him as a squad player and it shows in his appearances where he starts between 25-30 games a season. Contract has 2.5 years left, paid £140kp/w. Value? £152-179m.

So according to the game my 23 year old Argentine international with the best years of his career ahead of him is worth about half of this 30 year old squad player.

[Sunstrikuuu]

17 hours ago, KingCanary said:

This has become my assumption too.

An example from my current save:

I have an excellent 23 year old Argentine DM. Ranked as a star player, coach reports rate him 4.5 stars, 35 caps for Argentina, part of a team that has won 3 Premier League titles in the past 5 years, always manages north of 40 games a season, vast majority of which are starts. He's got 3.5 years left on his £220k per week deal. Valued at £80-88m.

In comparison Arsenal have a 30 year old Billy Gilmour. Scouts rate him at 3 stars, Arsenal have him as a squad player and it shows in his appearances where he starts between 25-30 games a season. Contract has 2.5 years left, paid £140kp/w. Value? £152-179m.

So according to the game my 23 year old Argentine international with the best years of his career ahead of him is worth about half of this 30 year old squad player.

Antoni, my 26 year old regen GK -- 180 CA, 182 PA, 9935 world reputation -- is valued at £32m.  He is the only GK in the world with 150+ CA and 7000+ world reputation.  He has 72 Spain caps and was World Goalkeeper of the Year.  He is the 36th most valuable goalkeeper in the world.

[scythian12]

On 27/11/2024 at 05:45, Sunstrikuuu said:

...

Excellent overview and a lot of work, I wonder if the devs would ever make the effort to give just a smidge of feedback. Maybe one purely anecdotal observation from my side: I have the impression players' market value who have switched clubs more often for higher actual fees tend to stay / climb higher than those who have been only transferred once in their youth for a comparatively small fee. But there absolutely seems to be a player offset factor - however a video game economy will always be tilted / a human will always quickly exploit video game economies (as a matter the most important currency in them is not the virtual euros but the player's time, but that's not to give SI any funny ideas).

On a meta level, I would argue in this particular instance not only is it futile because of the inherent inbalance of video game economies to the human actor, but also counterpoductive from a gameplay perspective - one of the source of enjoyment of the game is simply to see number go up, monkeh brain happy and full of endorphins. But in this instance monkeh sad as banana of virtual monkeh apparently always longer and yellower than human player monkeh's, that makes monkeh not want to play game, number stay level not go up. Yet monkeh looked for long time in forest for best banana but banana of virtual monkeh always more ripe.

[Sunstrikuuu]

10 hours ago, scythian12 said:

On a meta level, I would argue in this particular instance not only is it futile because of the inherent inbalance of video game economies to the human actor, but also counterpoductive from a gameplay perspective - one of the source of enjoyment of the game is simply to see number go up, monkeh brain happy and full of endorphins. But in this instance monkeh sad as banana of virtual monkeh apparently always longer and yellower than human player monkeh's, that makes monkeh not want to play game, number stay level not go up. Yet monkeh looked for long time in forest for best banana but banana of virtual monkeh always more ripe.

I wonder if maybe there's a gameplay argument for having the fudge factor.  As much as we like to focus on globetrotting and LLM and stuff -- and I enjoy those saves sometimes -- I'd bet that a solid majority of FM play is essentially dynasty mode.  Get your chosen club to the top and keep it there.  When you get bored, start a new save.  And in those saves, the player is likely to have a bunch of really frickin' good players.  And, if a 23 year old World Best XI midfielder on a long contract is valued appropriately, the AI can't afford to buy him.  Transfers are part of the fun of the game.  If the AI can't afford the user's players, the user's squad gets very stagnant and the game's less fun.

[whatsupdoc]

Other club's players have a relative value. E.g. If you look at a local rivals players their valuation will be much higher.