wazzaflow10

Yes I realize that but should the raw number be hidden like Professionalism and consistency? We can't see those but we know what player personalities are with minimal scouting. The idea isn't that its unrealistic for a scout to observe them and provide a manager a low, normal, high value. Its the micromanaging/fixation of the attribute and prevent using some sort of game meta transfer policy, i.e. no players with below 15 determination or work rate or teamwork. Honestly, determination is really the attribute I think should be hidden more than workrate and teamwork given how it can govern all the other attributes much like consistency. Unless, of course, my understanding of how determination works is wrong.

WIthout knowing how much the AI relies on things like determination, work rate, and teamwork to select players to prioritize for transfers, I'm curious if anyone thinks these should be moved to hidden attributes to remove some of the "gamification" by human players of only selecting players with high values in each. Obviously these would be partially revealed in scouting if one was extraordinarily high or low. Just seems to me like its too easy to highly prioritize these "global" attributes when making your transfer policy. Yes I'm aware there are skins that hide these, but I'm talking more fundamentally changing how you can interact with them too (i.e. not available to filter your scouting reports by these attributes).

The issue of having more than expected is talent inflation and that would break the game long term as there would be too many good players. Transfers would stagnate entirely if every team could consistently build from youth prospects. Of all things in the game this should mirror real life the most as it has the most impact on player development and transfers. Getting a 16 year old wonderkid via youth squad should be a rare event. People expecting to be handed Messi simply because they have good facilities is unrealistic.

Just finished a season in the EPL and the three highest rated players in the leage were all natural wingers ~7.5. That's even with Haaland banging in some 50 odd goals.

They just want the journalists to have something relevant to ask you in the press conferences. How do you feel about playing the same team twice in a week???

Not sure if this is true or not but have you cleared out the scouting reports (either acknowledge, discard, keep scouting) at all? There's a limit of 99 reports in there and I don't think you'll move on from a report until you clear those out.

It most definitely wasn't. Away teams couldn't score to the tune of multiple top end clubs conceding fewer than 10 goals at home all season. IMO it was one of the worst versions because away teams were nerfed so much regardless of form or ability. CB's were needing to be subbed regularly. This version needs a little tweaking but 23 was awful and shouldn't be the end state for 24.

Not saying you specifically but I think they'd want the list to be small group of people who have a very intimate knowledge of what things are supposed to do so they can either recreate the situation or describe what they did in detail to cause it or isolate the problem. I don't think its just about finding bugs but also how you can articulate the problem. Again not pointing fingers at anyone here but to use an example of something we all kind of see. The complaint of "there's too many goals" isn't really helpful to a developer other than I found something that doesn't seem right. Why are there too many goals? bad GK behavior? Ok what about the GK is wrong? bad marking? what are some examples of bad marking due to bad programming not bad tactical instructions? Strikers are too lethal? Gegenpressing is OP? Then we have to remember that the game is built to simulate real life and while Declan Rice might have concentration of 17 he's going to lose focus once in a while and it might cost you a goal in a big match. But that's by design. If we can show that declan rice is losing focus just as much as someone with significantly worse concentration (say a League One player) then we get into helping a developer focus on where improvements are needed.

Yeah no clue what factors matter to the AI. Not sure how you'd measure AI squad building at scale with the tools we have available either. Interesting idea though.

I've done it once I think on FM22 and into the future but quickly abandoned the save b/c i couldn't get into that version. I didn't know they modified personalities. I thought it was just randomly generating some facts like name and maybe nationality. The personalities thing is one that slightly breaks immersion for me since all the real players have neutral at worst. Back to your original question. I think the hard part about any of these experiments is so much of the world depends on what you've loaded. Too small a db and leagues loaded results in crazy high fees, not enough players or newgens to fill out the world. Too large and players are cheap and top teams probably hoard talent. I kind of wish SI would give you more info at game start to create a balanced save (or not if that's your thing) rather than playing 5-10+ years and realizing that something you did 500 hours ago ruined your save.

Yeah that's typically their M.O. to provide specifics for bugfixes in the patches. Everything else is probably thrown under "Other minor tweaks". Just saying GK might be doing perfectly fine and its something else that requires improvement. I haven't seen bad GK behavior other than your tests showing too many goals in various leagues. Visually though GK seem to be okay.

Yeah I mean that's the Treq's role though. He's not really looking to mark and it sounds like the AI decided to try and hit you on the counter. If it's that lopsided they probably have a choice of do we park the bus or go for route one. Are they typically a side that plays that as a counter attacking team? Either way the counter is definitely on if you lose possession given how high you're pushing. But I think we're back to teams pushing this high should really result in being threatened/punished more than they are if they're not fit or technically skilled enough to commit 9 men forward. It's still nice to see attacking play use the open space that would exist in a 4-4-2 but maybe its too much?

Think at the bottom they have further ME updates. Probably hard to classify what exactly they're changing at the moment which is why it hasn't been released yet. Could be anything from better marking to turning strikers down to substitution and rotation so teams aren't knackered by halftime imo. I'd think nerfing or boosting attributes would be a last resort solution to cover up a flaw they can't reasonably fix. The injury bug must have been a simpler fix i.e. some legacy code got left in or a value was turned down.

I dunno about that. If you were an extreme underdog or had strong counter attacking principles leaving 2 v 2 up top seems reasonably when the ball close to your own goal. Any quick change of possession and you've set yourself up for a potent counter. Really jus tthink it depends on how much defensive risk you're willing to take. It could be very beneficial to leave a DM alone if he's a poor passer or lacks flair. You'll probably spend a long time without the ball but its not the craziest thing ever. I'd be more concerned that my CB's aren't closer to the striker shooting especially when I have a numerical advantage in that strata.

Definitely worth reporting in either the match engine or animations bug forum that one.

What highlight level are you playing on? If you're playing with key or extended highlights the game isn't really going to show you an unremarkable throw in or corner where the defender headed or hoofed the ball clear of danger and the play gets bogged down in midfield as teams wrest for control of possession. Maybe there's a request that the ME selects a few more pure defensive highlights to balance out attacking ones just to keep you off balance on what to expect. But I'm sure people would complain "why is this a highlight?"

Seems like you're damned if its internal, damned if its external. Internal teams would be more familiar with the code/expectations of how the game should play but miss something fresh eyes would pick up on. In my experience QA devs tend to be on the more junior side (but not always) so you might get a little bit of deference to the full development team. Not sure how that works for you guys but I typically see the good QA devs move over to full developer roles so they get to work on new tasks rather than fixing/reviewing someone else's ideas. External teams give you fresh eyes but you have to spend a lot of time explaining why you did x,y,z and not a,b,c. Plus they're consultants at the end of the day and probably don't want to be too harsh so you continue using them in the future. There's always going to be bugs in software even with the most strenuous of stress tests. We can't even get VAR right in real life (I'm pretty sure the match officials call it a feature too!). Hoping you guys can give us a few tweaks soon to end this chapter of FM on a good note.

In FM23 the Premier League and La Liga (the only two i tested - multiple times taking an average of 4 seasons) there were not enough goals scored by away teams. It was almost comical how the game would make away teams miss open chances they'd otherwise score if they were home. Top of the table teams were regularly posting 10 goals or fewer conceded at home over a full season. I'm not disagreeing that the number of goals is maybe slightly on the high side in certain situations for FM24 but FM23 was not perfect by any imagination. I'd bet if they fix the OP throw in chances and reduce the number of corner to edge of box goals it would at least fix the amount scored. I'd hate to see them nerf scoring to the degree 1v1's become impossible or strikers start hitting the corner flags with clear cut chances.

I've always felt the core of scouting and transfer policy is easy because you have perfect information about every player's and staff member's attributes. I'd like a selectable option at startup (for people who don't want to play this way) to introduce some variation in the attributes your shown on a player/staff profile page. Nothing about the game would change under the hood with respect to the match engine. Actual player attributes would still be used so this is only affecting what we can observe. For a player observable attributes would be anchored mainly to a scout or coach's Judging Player Attributes rating with 1 being very inaccurate and 20 being very accurate (but not perfect). Additionally player form can influence the attributes. A player getting higher ratings would gradually improve and tie into a coach or scout's opinion of the player and their level. For instance when a coach says player X is now seen as a Premier League leading player the attributes should fall within the leading Premier League CA range (Just reiterating if the player's CA is actually a championship level that does not change for the purpose of the match engine. This is not a Dynamic PA discussion). Likewise if a player has a bad spell of form their attributes will gradually decline. Training rating also should have an influence similar to form. There could be other things that influence observable attributes but these I think are the main three. In the past the challenge I've had with this idea is it now creates a meta strategy of hoovering up scouts with high JPA. I have two separate ideas to prevent this. The first would be staff attributes are also subject to the same observable inaccuracies as player attributes. Factors that would influence a staff member's attributes would be chiefly based on reputation with secondary influence from a Director of Football's rating on staff attributes. So compiling a team of 20 JPA staff would be impossible. The second idea would require a revamp of scouting and how scouts view jobs. It would be creating a hierarchy below chief scout ranging from continental scout, regional scout, national scout, local scout. Established high rated scouts would expect to be continental or chief scouts limiting how many you could feasibly hire. A top level club would only have 3-4 continental level scouts while a league 2 team would have none. These scouts would be reviewing players you've shortlisted, marked as top targets, or asked to directly scout after receiving a recommendation from a lower level scout. They would not be assignable directly to a scouting focus. Scouts would also expect to be promoted as they improved their abilities and will seek opportunities outside of their current team to advance to the next tier with more pay and "responsibility". Curious if anyone has any thoughts or ideas to flesh this out more or offer alternate ways to reduce the amount of perfect information in the game to create a more dynamic/challenging world.

Is it possible to modify this skin to instead of fully attribute-less to have inaccurate attributes based on your scout/coach's judging player ability (i.e. 1 is very inaccurate 20 is very accurate) or is that too far under the hood for skinning?

Question I've had for a while. For PI's if you tell a player to mark a specific position what does that actually do? Does it create zonal coverage or just tell the player to mark the opposition that is in that position if there is one?

Man City Good luck overachieving when you're already at the top.

My best position was CB and I played it until I was 16. I am 5'6. Besides if you play 3 at the back you could get away with someone shorter if you played them as a Libero. It might be unconventional but the game would be boring if players could only be comprised of a small set of templates. This guy is like a shorter version of Cruyff probably play him like that.

I went back and looked at FM 20 and 21 to see the dev cycle. There were release day updates although both games were released closer to the end of the month. That kind of coincides with their pre-winter update patch that has been happening the last few years. Some of the issues may have been known and worked on prior to beta release in 20 and 21. I can understand people thinking things will be changed for release but 3 weeks is not nearly enough time to review, test/reproduce, fix, QA fix, merge, QA merge, and release for a game of this scale and complexity. I'd like to think they're targeting a late Nov/early Dec patch for the high priority items. I think the beta is invaluable research time for them to get a large swath of user behavior feedback to prioritize bugs much sooner and ensure the game is working as intended upon release. I'd hate for them to stop a beta release because a few people here use it as an opportunity to take cheap shots at the developers while contributing nothing in terms of concrete feedback or bug reports.