Spallo

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

I used to do the same - argueing with people who clearly don’t understand the basics of what the seem to talking about. @GreenTriangle clearly has no idea what you @Costav are saying so just leave at that, because you can’t argue with opinions who disguises as smth more. Maybe it’s the dunning Kruger effect - who knows

Without specifics it is hard to tell. Is your DoF handling transfers for you (aka online-safe-house-rules)? If so, my guess would be, that said players are about to be get cut from the first team. If you are in charge of the second team and we are talking about players from there, it is maybe an indicator of you being in charge of the sale of said players. I suppose it is the first situation, so you have to check your responsibilities and take charge at least for saying yes or no to a Dof transfer-decision.

It is obvious, that SI f'd up the scouting in FM24 ... But there ist a somewhat sketchy but workable solution (at least for me), which provides a bit of realism and avoids the searchfunction and is entirely possible without recruitment-focuses. I think many FM-players, including veterans (I consider myself one), dont rly know about the possibility to get teamreports from your scouts. I learned about them some months ago ... If you go to another team, you can get them for there first, second and youth-teams (you have to get them seperately). You can assign one scout and depending on there adaptability (and maybe knowledge but I doubt it) they get you the reports in 5 day to weeks. In there you get player scouting-reports which give you (depending on their ability) a good guess of the players which you maybe wanna scout further. It is of course heavily dependend on player input, because you have to demand the reports for yourself and cant automate the process. The good thing is, that you cant scout teams (without costs) out of your scouting-range. So this method can be used in LLM as well on teams in your division/lvl. I exclusively scout like that for the last few weeks - every now and then I take some time and scout systematically teams from different leagues (all of their teams) which takes time and doesnt give you guaranteed success. And you obviously scout many players without interest, if you are not at the top of the food chain. I like the process of assessing the players myself because there is the element of failure and you are defintily dont catch all wonderkids that way. You have to have good scouts and many of them - but the downside is obviously, that with more scouts you take hours to evaluate the reports. I like the method, because I plan meticously and sometime can take an hour for assessing just one player and if he is worth to get on my shortlist So I guess it is not fpr everyone, but at least it provides us with a somewhat realistic approach to scouting ...

To be the arrogant ***** here … This is not philosophical. It is rather complete rubbish, because either terms are not absolut ones. They are concepts which are solely placed on subjective assessment of situation, interests, preferred outcomes etc. And there are no successful choices because the term on its own is without any sense. There are only subjective successful outcomes of choice that are made with a certain goal in mind. of course this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread

But he specifically had asked about a journeyman save and not LLM in another way. But it’s funny - I plan to start on lvl 20 in England with some house rules and made the setup yesterday regarding the question - you have to have a little backstory and start from there. I had a journeyman save back in the day (with a huge custom database wit about 150 countries) where I started as a rly young Cuban manager - Oscar pereira was his Alias. He had a hometown and started to manage from there, got poached with a massive offer from a big club in Honduras, got from there to Mexiko, won the league once and got immediately in the MLS because of the money. His family in Cuba was set for life at this point but he was eager for trophies. the MLS adventure was a disaster though. In two seasons high expectations but no results. But with the fond time in Mexiko and an Job interest from one of their biggest clubs he got back there and after three years he won the concacaf CL and it was again time to move on - now europe was interested. I think you get the point - set a motivation and a backstory for your manager and I would recommend starting with no badges. And revisit your former clubs or players from time to time. I got so attached to my stepping stone club in Honduras, that I watched matches from them regularly. So you can live that too have fun with your save

I am amazed how this topic can come up every year, despite having all the tools (esp your own brain) to make the game more realistic and difficult. Just play with the Mustermann-iconic skin, dont use player search, download no tactics/training and most important of all - have the control over yourself not to save-scum even once. You would be surprised how you feel, when and esp. IF you win a title

Patience is the name of the game my friend Although I have a pretty good PC-setup the loading times are a considerable factor still. I tested a bit yesterday, how you could make them a bit less, because I had an idea. I am almost on the verge to give the recommendation to start the save in FM23 and port it to FM24. My test was: 1. The setup which was mentioned above in FM24 with the Realismpack and several different league-Updates (Workshop and extern) against a setup from FM23 with the complete Realismpack+Around the Globe Megapack and some other league-updates+Updated transfers/Promotion etc. (CONCACAF is not part of Around the Globe weirdly). Then port the save to FM24 and run it. 2. The second setup had 30 more leagues, but the Realismpack has performance updates for around 60 leagues and some other minor performance-improvements. Although it has 30 leagues more than the first setup with the current mods available (and imo save to use) it runs quite a bit faster. First setup with around 240 leagues and 350.000 database was about 9 min per week on my PC (which is still completely acceptable for me). But the second and bigger setup has just 7min loading time per week. Tested over a three month period unemployed-holiday. 3. I dont know about stability issues and such, but I am tempted to just go with the second setup instead of waiting for further mods. Its quite a bit faster and the Around the globe pack is imo better than any other available pack, but the modder seems to have stopped developing for fm24. The Realismpack is also more complete to this date and with the update-files you have pretty much all relevant 23/24 informations in the database. Maybe this is of use for other users who want to try such a global-scale setup. I´d say everything under 12 min loading time per week at the start of a career is feasable in the long term, bit this is obviously completly subjective If you have questions about how to set this up - PM me!

So it is not just me I will wait till Daveincids new Update in January and go with an even bigger setup to do the pentagon-challenge. Rules are: 1. Europe top 18 nations till tier 4 (except England till tier 6). Top 19-36 till tier 3. bottom third nations till tier 2. 2. South America all nations till tier 3 if available. CONCACAF, Africa, ASIA top 10 Nations till tier 2 and 11-20 tier one. 3. Not sure about the custom database-setting yet (suggestions?) 4. Playing with the Mustermann-iconic skin and Realismpack. 5. Obviously start unemployed without any badges and experience. My wife and five kids will surely love my dedication, when I tell them on dinner about my football-universe I am so lucky, that I have a job that pays without much work

And I will need a long time for the pentagon-challenge, because I will play with the Mustermann-iconic skin and the Realismpack from Daveincid. So 2042 is at least optimistic for getting two continental club-titles

Yeah I get that point. But surely someone has experience with this kind of setup and can tell me about it. If I go with my own experience it is a no-brainer esp. with the faster loading times of FM24 and my very good PC-specs. But I want to avoid, if possible, a situation where I am on year 2042 with a CONCACAF and an Asian CL title on the verge of getting a the african-part done and then having to stop playing because of 10 min loading a single day. In the end I will try it anyways I guess

Hence this section on the entry of the post I dont want a definitive answer. I never experienced a dramatic slowdown in my long term saves, but I also had never such a big setup and planned to go decades deep. Longest save I played was in FM2014 I think, where I took the great challenge of RB Leipzig from 5th tier to CL I played till mid 2030ies I think and had smth like 70 leagues loaded. Slowdown was noticable but not that much and the loading times were way higher as nowadays. My question is maybe a bit misleading - If someone can tell me with relative confidence, that my loading times will not double in 50 years of playing or this scenario is highly unlikely, then I have my answer