WizbaII

Some people here are bemoaning the removal of shouts. Just because you use them, it doesn't mean everyone else does. You never stop to ask yourself, "why should I need a 'Shout' to tell a fake player to 'Concentrate More'. If my virtual player will not work hard unless and until I 'Shout' at him...does that not seem a little...idiotic?" This is supposed to be Football Manager, not Social Interactions Manager. You are supposed to win matches based on football knowledge, not because you insist on using 'Shouts' on your players. Or is it fine for something to be silly, as long as it brings "immersion"? You've just been told that Shouts will only return if they work properly. Why that would be bad news to you is something I can't understand, especially when you are claiming to have high standards for FM games. As far as the design builds, they look good. Obviously, we are not seeing the full picture, so being critical of SI on this is misguided. Right now, quite a few people are looking at the egg that SI have shown us, and criticizing it for not being a chicken. Well, the game comes out later this year, it's not coming out tomorrow. Criticizing a design build doesn't make you smart, it just shows that you have nothing better to do. It lacks color and "personality"? That's because it's a design build. It looks simple? Well, I think that's the point. The UI doesn't have to look like the cockpit of an airplane in order to be good. But I want a design that is so good that I will never have to click more than once! That's not possible.

Fatigued players will still sprint when necessary, like when a defender needs to chase a ball that beats the offside trap. They are just less likely to press and more likely to lose concentration. In other words, fatigue should affect attacking players more than it affects defenders. I would expect that a fresh attacking player is more likely to beat a tired defender in the dribble, but then again the fresh attacker was usually on the bench because he's not as good of a dribbler to begin with. So I think stamina will affect the number of forward runs and the likelihood of pressing, so you'll notice it most on forwards, less on midfielders and fullbacks, and least on central defenders.

I believe I have experienced that, too. For me, I've noticed it happens if my computer has been on (or sleeping) for at least 24 hours. It goes away if I shut my computer off for 5 minutes and then restart.

I don't understand this discussion. FM have gone to a lot of trouble to enable different playstyles from those who like to watch every second of their game to those who want to watch the game in 5 min to those who want to simulate the match in 5 seconds. What is the point of this discussion? If the point is to suggest that FM 12 is better than FM 24 or 25, then I disagree.

The game already has a growth rate for each player. That rate just isn't shown to you as a single number because it is affected by many factors and therefore always changing. This is similar to how, when you play the game normally, PA isn't shown to you, either (well, at least not in a direct way). The primary problem with all of your arguments is that you are arguing about a number that is not available in the main game. You're having an argument about a value that only people who use the Editor would even understand. Whereas in the main game, the game makes it clear that the PA of each player is not exactly known, and even if it is known, it may not be reached. This is why the game shows you stars instead of a number, and why there is CA as well as PA. The second problem with your argument is that you don't seem to truly understand what PA means. This is weird, because my guess is you understand exactly what the word "potential" means, yet you don't understand what Potential Ability means. As far as I can tell, you understand PA better now than when you first posted. But the fact that you are trying to advance a Growth Rate idea shows that you really don't understand what PA actually is. PA is completely different issue from PG (or GR as you sometimes call it) and talking about PG does nothing to explain why PA should not exist. Even though, yes, they are both topics that are related to a player's ability. Even players that have a high growth rate still have a limit. What you're really attempting to say, when you talk about PG, is that you think PA should be dynamic. But you've already been given reasons by others for why dynamic PA doesn't work and you just haven't truly accepted them. If Messi didn't have a limit, then he would be scoring 200 goals a season by now. Once you can address these two problems in your argument, only then will you understand why static PA hasn't been removed in years and never will be. If you want to have a discussion about whether FM accurately models player development over time, that's valid. For example, you can argue about how Jamie Vardy's unusual development could be replicated in the game. Or maybe you can argue that 35-year-olds (Messi, Benzema, Lewandowski) are deteriorating too quickly in game whereas in real life they are shining. But you cannot argue that players don't have limits. That argument is doomed to fail, because it contradicts real life. It is wrong. In real life, players have limits, and that is why clubs spend 100 million to buy that special player from another club even though they already have 50 players of their own.

At this very moment, I am using Trap Outside because the opposition has wingers that want to cross into a small forward, so I'm just going to go ahead and let them do that. I personally would not use Trap Inside unless I was playing with a back 5.

The chatting AI's responses are undoubtedly impressive, and I can understand what all the fuss is about. Based on what I read in the previous posts, it has the ability to produce responses that only a football expert would find generic. However, as far as FM goes, AI will not be truly revolutionary until it learns to write code, or at least can be trained to analyze which parts of the ME are best and worst in replicating real football. When AI can have a significant effect on the ME itself, then I'll be truly intrigued.

Yeah, I could see an argument being made to fine players for poor training. But if you think a player is good enough to make the first 11, and they have a poor performance, then the fault is yours for selecting them in the first place. If someone has to get fined, then it should be the coach who selected that player.