el_manayer

It is also happening to me since a few days ago with FM21

So for me it goes like this: * Squad planner: a nicer and more polished version of the already existing squad depth. Is that really a headline feature? * More talks with agents: yeah... more of this is exactly what everybody asked.... * Timeline: a nicer representation of data that was already in the game... headline feature? really? * Recruitment focus: looks really better than the current one because it is simplified and one can go faster over it. Again, is this a headline feature? Looks more like a skin. * About the match engine, is something we can't really comment until playing the game. Let's hope it is a step forward and that the focus on the defensive play give the desirable results. * Supporter confidence: I think it is a nice idea, and hope it is implemented in a fun way. The game is already bloated with useless boring stuff, so one more... please no. But I keep my hopes that this is going to be implemented in a nice way. What people wants since 3 or 4 years ago: * New set pieces creator! Current one is horrible, and has to be set everytime a minimal change is done in your tactic, which is just...dumb. This would be a proper headline feature guys. * Overhaul of the tactic creation, more liberty here. I am personally fine with the current system if different play styles are actually possible. * Smarter AI, at least in team building, which is really really necessary right now... * Better graphics, both in 2d and 3d! Why stadiums look worse than in FM17, and the stands are directly omitted in 2d? We are talking about an iteration of the game from 6 years ago! Why regen faces are worse than several years ago (who can see those eyebrows and just think that is good enough to go into game!?)? * No more interactions with stuff and players, but make the whole interaction system smarter! Right now is just horrible, you just click and click over the same stuff over and over, and the reactions of players often make no sense, as well as the inflexibility of the whole system itself. * Smarter, nicer and cleaner UI. In the last iterations of the game we just have to do more clicks to do the same or to access to the same information. But well, at least the intense purple is not anymore hurting my eyes. We have also lost some customization that we had before... for the sake of realism. Just let the players decide what they want to see in the screen while looking at matches so we decide how much "realism" we want. This is not like watching a real football match, and only a small fraction of player would watch the whole match, so just let us choose how much data is shown there. * The timeline during matches. Idk if this is something personal, but I will never understand the decision of taking that out. It is just incomprenhensible to me that I can not go back to watch something if for any reason I missed it or just want to watch it again. It is a GAME. And I can only guess that it would be straigthforward to bring it back, so please, SI, bring this back. * Maybe some tuning here and there, making world class players feel like world class players and each individual player feel different. I think now so many parameters are taken into account that player attributes have been relegated to a smaller role than what they should have. This is a personal appreciation though. * Bring me back the stands in 2D!

Instead of the timeline, I would rather have the time bar during the matches back. At least, leave the player decide if whey want to play more "realistically" without it or with it. I often play FM while doing other stuff and sometimes I really need to go back and see what happened, and that I can't do it when it was always a possibility and all the info it is just there makes 0 sense.

And the same regen faces, with the same eyebrowns. Shameful and sad at the same time from a company once great

I will come here and to other forums and read all your complains while deciding if I buy it myself or not

FM12 for me from what I've played (FM08, FM10, FM12, FM20, FM21). I still think players felt much different and unique back then.

Check your staff reports about the player's adaptability to have a broad idea if a player might take "more than usual" to perform at his max. level. Anyway, at least half a season, at most 2 seasons IMO. Some players perform good immediately though, but it is not what you should expect unless the player has already been playing in your division for a few seasons with good performances and similar role.

Lol Real Madrid is basically a rich mafia, specially with Florentino. I am surprised you discarded Barcelona and not Madrid by those criteria (not a Barcelona fan either, just in case). And to be honest, only incredibly rich people become chairman of any tier 1/2 clubs (at least in Spain)

is that 100% certain? I would swear I read the contrary some time ago from some moderator/someone with apparent knowledge

That's exactly what I was trying to explain above. Statistically, the experiment sample is not large enough unless the effects of the training are huge.

I am afraid that, although the experiment is very interesting and involves a lot of work, the results can not be conclusive. First, there is the discussion about if match preparation, even if it "boosts" your chances of winning the match, it only does it when you have done this repeatedly in time, which would be the logical thing imo. It shouldn't make a significance difference for a brand new team to do something once and then be better at a level enough to have a significance result on a 200 sample. And then, more about this, the sample size is probably far from being large enough. The sample size is 200 and your "standard" result (victories) is around 75, meaning that is only going to show some results if the "boost" effect is of about 11%, and this would be only in the 1-sigma level assuming a Poisson process, which, even if proven, would also only be conclusive on a 1-sigma level, which is usually not enough. I'll explain this a bit for those who do not often work with statistic (and please correct me if I am wrong, which I might be): - A 1-sigma Poisson confidence level means that, if you would repeat the experiment infinitive times, ~68% of the results would lie between this uncertainty. This is easily calculated assuming a Poisson process (flip a coin, for example), since it is just the squared root of the value. Thus, in our example, assuming the standard "unmodified" result of victories without training is 75, the 1-sigma level is +-8.6. This means, if we repeat the experiment (1 experiment = 200 matches) infinitely, ~68% of our results would be between ~84 and 66. Still, if one of these experiments would give us, for example, 90 victories, it would not mean much, since that even can happen "randomly" in about 30% of cases. In the results we do not even see the 1-sigma deviation at all. - Assuming again the expected value of 75 victories, with +-8.6 in the 1-sigma level, we see that 8.6/75 is approximately 11%, meaning that only if the boost modify the probability of victories by that or more, we should see a deviation from the 1-sigma confidence (again, only 68% confidence). A larger sample would make the results much more sensitive, for example if we would have a sample of 2000 expecting 750 victories, then we would be 1-sigma sensitive to a boost of sqrt(750)/750 ~ 3.6% (I am not saying that you or any other should do something similar with a 2000 samples... I understand the work involved in doing it with 200 to start with, so in my opinion this is definitely not worthy unless you have a really quick way to do each iteration). - Training would be broken if a single session of match preparation or similar stuff would boost the chances of winning by more than a few percent, I do not know which number would be appropriate (1% maybe?) but definitely much smaller than 11%. If you assume a number here, you can calculate how large your test sample need to be so you can include or exclude that tested hypothesis. - As I said before, I would not conclude anything from a study that shows some deviation from a Poissonian process in the 1-sigma level, since there is a ~34% probability that this would happen... you usually want more certainty.