Zealand's "FM is broken video"

[Delicate Dave]

The are hundreds of things wrong with the game, but that doesn't mean it's not playable and I would expect the next version not to have as many. I do expect it to not have the same ones.

I have seen a lot of the year about graphics problems, formation & attributes being overpowered but I don't care about that much. I want the "computing" problems to be sorted. The accounts side is an absolute joke and the game does not display data correctly - I recently noticed one of my player's match form doesn't display the correct data in the tactics area without refreshing it. Form is a pretty important area when selecting a starting line-up.

[perpetua]

1 hour ago, Haiku said:

Rewriting the match engine from scratch to achieve statistically accurate data would be necessary, and attributes should be assigned based on data, not just on researchers' perceptions. OOTP has that, but football is different from baseball, and it is almost impossible to achieve a result where every attribute holds the same merit as in real life.

The problem isn't researcher perceptions, in my opinion.  Researchers are actually quite good at identifying strengths and weaknesses of players and expressing them verbally.

Where FM research isn't as strong is portraying this in terms of numerical attributes.  For one researcher 10 is weak, for another 7 is weak or 4 is weak.  Or a 10 for tackling is regarded as weak for a central defender whereas 15 is portrayed as strong, for an attacking midfielder a similar numerical representation is used while forgetting players who play these different positions should have attributes distributed differently (different mean and standard deviation). 

There is also the fact that when watching a player we observe attributes in combinations.  We see a player dribble on the pitch in real life, we don't only see his dribbling ability but also his vision, his agility, his pace, his acceleration, his balance, his decision making and even his weak foot being used in combination.  A player who dribbles a lot in real life doesn't necessarily have to have high a dribbling rating, strong physical attributes can be sufficient to make him dribble a lot.  A player who assists a lot doesn't necessarily have to have great vision and passing, he might just be really good at getting the ball behind the defense and cutting back to the penalty area to give his teammates a chance to tap in.  There is no real reason to give such a player a high vision or passing rating and turning him into a player who can potentially play like a midfield playmaker.

Unlike OOTP, our ratings have to get into more detail to reflect how a player achieves success more so than if he achieves success.  The batter in question has power because he has hit a lot of home runs.  These home runs are more likely to come against RHP than LHP so let's give a slightly higher power rating against RHP.  In FM research terms, we have to consider whether those home runs are coming against fastballs.  Which part of the strike zone is he especially mashing?  Is batter doing well to anticipate a first pitch fastball and taking a swing?  What about when pitchers adjust to how he achieved success and start him off with a changeup or splitter?  Is the batter sitting on the hanging curveball or hanging slider?  What about the difference in velocity of the pitcher's fastball and changeup?  Or how does he do against fastballs that are rising or fastballs that are tailing to the arm side?  This is closer to the detail that we need to look at in FM research with all the different attributes we have to rate.

With so many researchers across the world, it's never going to be easy having them all convert what they observe into numerical ratings in the exact same fashion.

Edited August 21 by perpetua

[Sunstrikuuu]

9 hours ago, perpetua said:

The problem isn't researcher perceptions, in my opinion.  Researchers are actually quite good at identifying strengths and weaknesses of players and expressing them verbally.

Where FM research isn't as strong is portraying this in terms of numerical attributes.  For one researcher 10 is weak, for another 7 is weak or 4 is weak.  Or a 10 for tackling is regarded as weak for a central defender whereas 15 is portrayed as strong, for an attacking midfielder a similar numerical representation is used while forgetting players who play these different positions should have attributes distributed differently (different mean and standard deviation). 

With so many researchers across the world, it's never going to be easy having them all convert what they observe into numerical ratings in the exact same fashion.

It's also just fundamental disagreements about what each attribute means.  I remember Keiran Tierney dropping from 19 Determination to 14 when he moved to Arsenal because the Arsenal researcher and the Celtic researcher disagreed about what Determination meant.

[kingjericho]

One thing I used to notice was that players based in Germany had a lot more varying attributes, i.e. their strengths were very highs (18-19) and their weaknesses were lows (5-6) instead of other researchers who tried to keep a more balanced profile. In my opinion having more exaggerated attributes meant a better portrait of the player in the ME. 

[baris28]

I think whole topic was  about only some attributes  have an real influence in match engine calculation rather than how correct researchers giving attributes in those leagues. I'm sure researchers tries to do their best. As they love football and the game. 

Edited August 22 by baris28

[CrowManager]

On attributes as well, I'm just assuming because I don't know the engine, but FM23 had players make >significantly< more mistakes at lower levels, while FM24 just, they don't. So I assume that they can also tweak stuff like that in the engine without changing players' attributes too much.

[stoonley]

What researchers argue higher or lower attributes for a player is totally beside the point. It’s confirmed that a majority of the attributes we have DO NOT MATTER or affect gameplay in any form. We pay 50$ every year and the developers don’t have the integrity to come out and give an explanation. 

[forameuss]

3 hours ago, stoonley said:

What researchers argue higher or lower attributes for a player is totally beside the point. It’s confirmed that a majority of the attributes we have DO NOT MATTER or affect gameplay in any form. We pay 50$ every year and the developers don’t have the integrity to come out and give an explanation. 

"Confirmed"

Lol.

[stoonley]

From the 13k poster. You must not realize the multitude amounts of testing, from others that have posted and others such as myself that have not posted about it. I’m sure you are one of those that has not tested but spouts off 13k times how great the game is.

fact is no player in the world would make a premier league team with 1 passing. Yet a whole team of 1 passers can win the premier league. So keep laughing about it while simultaneously being apart of the reason why SI doesn’t fix or address very serious issues with the game.

[forameuss]

You're right, I should probably spend my time talking about the developer's "integrity" instead, then things will definitely change.

Here's a wee task for you champ since you're putting so much valuable work in.  Go find 3 posts of mine talking about "how great the game is".  Good luck with that.  It's been a solid 6.5 out of 10 for a long time and retains a lot of issues.  Amazingly enough though, deeply flawed testing methodologies don't mean as much as some people are so desperate for them to.  And that isn't necessarily the fault of the testers, they simply don't have the tools to be able to reliably test.  One party does.  Wanna guess who?

[stoonley]

Exactly you haven’t tested anything but you still spout of your bias. The developers are not the only ones that have the ability to test the game and how it works. Not sure if you realize that the game was meant for the players, so if the players are able to break the game then the game is broken. Like I said 1 passing on all 11 players and win the premier league. 
 

keep defending the indefensible about flawed methodology. I can play this game with out giving any thought to the technicals and win games. That from a players point of view should not be the case but it is.

Saying it’s flawed testing and not flawed game design is just laughable at this point.

[forameuss]

Glossed over that wee over-reach.  Top work.

No, I don't test.  I do that enough at work to have any desire to do it in my free time.  Plus I would never even attempt something like this because, again, you simply can't.  There are hundreds of variables changing every time you press continue in game, and the vast majority of those you can't control even if you wanted to.  That can't not taint any results.  It doesn't matter how many hyperbolic YouTube videos are made, and how many people spout it off as "fact".  

What it can do is potentially highlight something that SI can take a look at, because they have the tools to do so.  They've been pretty clear that's the case, and they've always encouraged it.  Most can't be arsed to do that. I believe in this case someone did.  Maybe they spotted something.  Maybe they didn't.  Guess it depends on their integrity or something.

EDIT: and for the record, the issue isn't with testing.  That's more than most do.  If it's used to provide targeted evidence to make it easier for SI to fix something, that's great.  But taking a flawed test as gospel then piling in on developers because of it kind of kills any point you might have had.

Edited August 26 by forameuss

[Repete]

 Put player weights back on players in 2025, This is a mistake!

And..  If my dog wakes up and starts acting weird. Ill call the vet. Caring for the health of my pet doesnt mean that my integrity is bad. If my 18 year old left back with 8 dribbling and 8 finishing is scoring and running around premier players then ill post it hoping for a resolution. Again that doesnt mean i have bad integrity. Now i see alot of people make videos about game flaws. Its likely not their bad integrity either.

Why would influencers who depend on this game for money complain about it unless they were trying to respond to their community with some integrity. I doubt they want the game to die. In their shoes I would put off the subject as long as i could untill the comments and post became more than they can ignore. Using some common sense here. help me out.