Spallo

Had to give my two (or more) cents to this topic. With 43 years old and five kids I seem to be worse off than the most of long time players or lets call us riper adults But I am a freelancer and have the luxury to work when there is the time for it - although I have deadlines and clients, there is a lot of freedom timewise - except for my bunch of kids of course, which are in the age range of 1 to 13. But still I can manage a few hours here and there for our one true love ... And I even play long-term-saves, but I never bought FM every year - my last version was 21 und before that even 14 and before that 10 if I am not mistaken. FM24 I had to get for obvious reasons. And so I logged quite a few hours on the different versions, play mostly with ridiculous databases, because I am in no rush to get seasons done. But most importantly - and some maybe get to call me not a good dad for that - FM looks not like an obvious game to younger kids So it is not that uncommon, that FM is goin through the days in the background, while the kids are storming through the house, doin their stuff, want stuff, argue etc. and here and there I do a few clicks Obviously my two older ones know what I am doin (but sadly are those new generation of gamers with no attention span whatsoever) and it gets tricky with the matchdays, but just simulating a week in this manner lets me get one or two more matchdays more in a real session ... I will play FM24 for the next few years, till the new engine-thing gets settled and maybe (just maybe) the match-engine gets an overhaul in the next few years. The latter, if sucessfull, would be an obvious reason to buy the newest one of course. Till then I will definitely have a youth-only challenge with daveincid realism pack and a mostly complete league structure of the whole of europe

In context you dont think FM now is at least semi-realistic, because what you said earlier. And such a statement is just hybris on your part which has nothing to do with the topic. You not just only clearly have not the slightest idea what the difference between facts and opinions is - no - you are obviously voicing an opinion on what the game supposed to be which "no-one should be able to disagree on". If thats not despotic in nature than I dont know what is. And thats it on this one, because arguing with someone like you is pointless

What hybris - amazing glimpse of someone who would rly like to be a despot and if FM is not at least semi-realistic I don’t know what is

As much as I dont get the urge to test such things, I dont rly get this argument either. Like I said in my last post - I assume that basically every decent human player does exactly that, because we know about the importance of physicals. That is not to say, that every player has to have god-like physicals, but that there is a tendency to pick players with better physicals above others. So where is this scenario, esp if it is created with "normal" gameplay, unrealistic?

But what would you prove, which is not known already? Every decent FM-Player does this in a way, but I would assume with better players. I always look for decent physicals and/or try to improve them by training, because I know that they are vital for sucess in the game. And if I dont have the ressources for good overall players, guess what players I try to get? And thats how it has worked in every FM which I own (2008 onwards). Sometimes more sometimes less. The only thing you could prove here imo is, that its gotten more OP over the years - maybe maybe not. Of course you have to run the test with other FMs too Is it an issue? I would say yes it is, but it is not at all game-breaking imo. Solving it is a whole other can of worms like stated earlier by more informed users than me.

Even if I contributed to this thread these are my thoughts exactly - FM does a very good job for a game with such a scope, even if it has stagnated a bit in recent years - I dont rly get the urge to break it at every opportunity.

This is just not the case. There are major performance losses for players out of position. The natural, accomplished, competent etc. labels are assigned with x-performance losses - the FM-Experiment guy tested this pretty extensively. Same holds true for fitness, sharpeness and morale to a certain extent. Roles and familarity are another thing though and there is no clear evidence which I know of, that they effect performance. But based of my own subjective and anecdotal evidence, players out of their best roles and with low familiarity seem to struggle. And I for myself think, that you can even see this in the ME - but could be just imagination on my part

Are we sure that is not already the case in the game? In my experience there are players in the game, that clearly stand out in the ME - thats obviously subjective, but I dont think that is a particular big problem of the ME. In every FM I played (2008, 2010, 2014, 2021 and now 2024 - I dont count CM) I had/have players that are pretty recognizable for one reason or another. You could of course come to another conclusion with your indiviudal experience. Like I said - I pretty much follow your argument for making the game more realistic - but I doubt it would be desirable because of what you have said about the somewhat hard to distinguish, lets say 30 to 90percentil players in attributes. And I do think actually, that FM does a good job at simulating the bulkload of players which are in these middle-tiers, because you can have relativ sucess with them or can do badly (in recent years admittedly less so). I am all for a better and more realistic experience, but I dont think there is an easy way to do this.

Yeah well - we dont know if the ranges are of linear increase. But it would surprise me if they were´nt honestly. I also think that most of the users will exactly interpret the values as such and I even think that the whole discussion about it stems in part from this. But I think it is not to be desired that apart from maybe physicals and some other attributes should be non-linear. After all it is still a game and this would make it more arbitrary or more untransparent if you will, as it already is. Of course you can argue that the ranges of absolutly no value would be linear in reality, but I dont think that would make for good game-design. Or it is completely the opoosite and it is already like this and thats why we have the problems I am fine that it probably will always be a mystery

Of course - I did not think of that, despite being in this screen quite a lot So the game is showing, that attributes are in fact more granular. And I think it is absolutly plausible, that the ME is using these values, because why you would want two different ones? I think the 1 to 20 range is a mere visual thing for us players and the game is using the "real" value. Which obviously changes absolutly nothing about the problem of scale

I clearly was not using the right words hear. Despite my relatively good english its not my native language I was merely pointing out, that the scientific term (which was I refering to) scale has nothing to do with numbers by definition. The meaning/conclusion of perpetuas post I did not question. The opposite in fact, because I do agree with the above. So as a nitpicker I just quabbled about the term rather then the argument - sry about that. Though the problem is, that its not the range (the right term for this) which is applied to the scale - i.e. 1 to 20. The Problem is indeed the distance between the endpoints of the scale. And I completely agree, like I said above, that a solution would be difficult if not maybe impossible, because of what perpetua has laid out. And some time ago I read somewhere in the forums (but dont know if this is true), that the lvl of attributes is more granular than 1 to 20 but the game is not showing that. So when we have the infamous perpetua (even if I am oblivious to that fact) here, can he confirm or debunk this please? So again sry - I just try to get a distraction from my work

Thank you for your research an insight, but here you are clearly way over your head it seems. When you talk about scale it has absolutly nothing to do with numbers you assign to this scale - the numbers are the range, which defines (in this case) the even distance between the chosen points, BUT not the distance between (in this case) 0 to 20. So no matter what numbers you choose, you have to define that distance at first. In here lies maybe the crux of this whole thread. To the topic - I also dont see that much of a problem with it - physicals are king for a long time now in FM and this does reflect some areas of real life football, but (severely) neglect others. The distributuon from higher to lower leagues does suggest or is (for me at least) an indication, that SI does know this, as some other users have pointed out. And I dont rly think its easily fixable if at all. But the real question is - what do we players make of this? And for some the answer is the reason of this thread

That’s obviously a bug so post it (with your savegame) in the bug-forum.

Thats Dedication I guess I would be fine with 30min too I think that in the last years SI has made big improvements to the quick-simulation. I have done some tests with full detail and quick-sim of playable leagues and for me the difference is almost not there anymore. So I go as big as possible - I might go even bigger when the mods-cycle is done with FM24

I run 378 leagues from 202 countries - all playable but only full detail for international club and nations competition and the cpountry I am managing in. It takes between 10 and 12min for a week to simulate, which is less then it took me to simulate all default leagues on fm2014 on my old laptop. Since I am very patient guy this is fine, even if it slows down to like 15 or even more min. My rig is comparable to yours - so you should be fine