wazzaflow10

I'd imagine they've checked the basics if they're making it a headline feature...

Sure but end users are the ultimate testers. We can log, collectively, millions of hours of gameplay. Someone is going to find something that can happen that didn't show up in testing. We can all provide feedback during the beta period in a few weeks.

It would make contract negotiations for the player meaningful imo too. Even have some clubs flat out refuse to ever let you take full control (like tottenham as long as levy is there). Getting into a spat with the board like you're Jose should be part of the game.

perhaps - at game start simply having a toggle of start as head coach or manager/DOF if you can't be bothered with really building from scratch. Kind of like being able to pick your experience currently. It also might be easier for new players since you're only focused on match days. I'm also assuming that the AI transfer market is improved enough that your DOF doesn't buy a 6th first team CB and leave you strikerless. I don't think in a feature like this you'd be cut out entirely of transfers. You'd still have input but you might not get your top choice b/c of price or wages or interest. It might be the 6th choice on the list of identified targets. Its not an FM24 feature but I could see them building towards something like this in a 3-5 year dev cycle.

TBH the board should be annoying until you've got a high enough rep or history with the club to be SAF type manager. They're your boss and own the club. Some might be more hands off or more micromanagement-y. Some may grant you more or fewer responsibilities at initial contract time. I could imagine future version where you're strictly hired as a head coach rather than a full manager of the team. The DOF would handle transfers/contracts/scouting/youth and simply ask for your input on what kind of player or rank potential targets until you've been around long enough and have enough success on the pitch to earn that privilege in your own contract negotiations.

I'm sure someone will post in the first week with a complaint about how "unrealistic" it is that Chelsea scoop up all the young players for crazy high fees and then never play them.

Not sure how much a manger would deal with that other than maybe show up to a photo shoot or press conference. If you were thinking along the lines of wooing sponsors like some of the old f1 games like GPM 1/2/World, I'd think a lot of the work would be done by a commercial manager. Not saying it wouldn't be an interesting addition but I'd rather focus (and have SI focus) on the core football activities. I'm hoping the changes to the transfer market make it harder for top teams to build up to a 2B bank account in 5 years. Always felt like it was impossible to make money at the lower levels (fair) and then too easy to make money if you were a top team (so long as you didn't put crazy future fees in).

like what?

That's a "we forgot we sold to corporations not people and therefore actually cannot f*** companies over like they're consumers. We've gotten a ton of threatening phone calls from lawyers and now need to come up with a way to legalese our way out of this mess to implement this new policy. We'll share an update microsoft, nintendo, and sony stop smacking us around for being complete morons."

Yeah I can't see major game developers allowing this to happen at all. They struggle to turn a profit even on popular games. Don't see how they're going to enforce it and limit "install bombing". Sounds like typical CEO nonsense trying to squeeze every last drop of blood from a stone. Also SI probably negotiated their terms already. It might affect them at contract renewals but I doubt it would have an effect on the current development cycle. Don't think a good lawyer would allow Unity to change the terms like that especially given how recently they would have purchased the license. That'd be negotiating on unity's terms in bad faith, especially if something like this was known/in the works prior to the contract being initiated/signed. I also don't see how developers would allow old games to have this placed in their code. So this all sounds like the beginning of the end for unity to me if they don't roll it back all the way.

I would as well. I think the subscription models was in reference to availability stadia (RIP) or now gamepass and apple arcade etc. The license agreements would make it very, very tricky to do a subscription model. Having to migrate people to the new version would be a big risk as I'd think the game would have to be labelled FM 24 or FM 25 rather than something generic that can be upgraded. Besides, the subscription model puts you at risk of someone only playing for a month and paying 1/12 of the cost of the full game and then never play again for 11 months. Better to buy the game get the full price up front and not worry if someone is still paying for the game 6 months after release.

Hyperbole? Or should this be read as you had a player literally score 7 goals a game? Maybe your assistant is a poor judge of talent? Maybe your player is very one dimensional and does one thing really really well but can't play any other role.

That is already in the game. Many people even purposely play that way with youth only saves. You're just obsessing about a number that is not supposed to be known. If you have a player giving you 7's and 8's in a role then who cares what his PA says under the hood.

Good then you'll be quiet about it while you go play fifa.

uhhh yeah here's your own comment calling it unrealistic so don't know what you're on about but at least be consistent. Completely separate systems and not relevant to this discussion. If you want to argue with strawmen you can ask someone else or start a new thread. Incorrect. It's a very vocal minority who keep pestering the devs with this stupid idea. People have limits in all facets of life. You cannot surpass those physiological limits. Otherwise why wouldn't any sunday league player be able to make it in the Premier League? Researchers make their best guess at what those limits are based on what they observe. If you think there is a player who is underrated you're welcome to take it up with team's researcher on the appropriate pages. When you rate 100s of thousands of players you're going to get a few wrong. The fact that the only name tossed up here as why this system is needed is from an event that occurred nearly 10 years ago shows you how absurd it is to keep claiming dynamic potential is needed in the game. The only concession I'd make in regards to this disccusion is that CA should be 'uncapped' when viewing the player's attributes from the player profile and based on coach/scout JCA rating and player form. This would have no effect on the ME rendering it a skinning exercise rather than a core mechanic/feature change. So yeah your in form striker who you bought for 10M could display world class attributes and it'd be up to you to decide if those attributes are real or not.

What's realistic about having an unlimited cap on potential? Are you asking for this feature so you can buy any half decent 25 year old stick him in your side, put in some good performances and then poof you got yourself a world class player for 10M? Sounds like that's pretty unrealistic to me. The game is simulating real life. There has to be a limit at which a player cannot improve both real and newgens. For the large majority of real players in the game their PA is perfectly fine. Cherry picking a handful of players who performed better than expected across a vast system of 100s of thousands of players and calling it "unrealistic" is quite the claim. The only reason you know a player is at their limit or what their limit is, is because you're playing as an omniscient character instead of a manager. If the researchers could do that I'm sure they would. Dynamic PA solves no problems and creates countless others, chief among them unrealistic player development.

So this would be the point of creating an interaction between an attribute and a position. I'm simplifying here but this is how I would construct it (ignoring effects of footedness for now though I suspect you wouldn't need to interact footedness and it could be left as a main effects variable only). CA ~ B1*pace + B2*GK Pos Ability + ... B(n) * ST Pos Ability + B(i) * Pace * GK Pos Ability + ... + B(i+n) * Pace * ST Pos Ability + B(j) * Pace * GK Pos Ability * CB Pos Ability + B(j+n) * Pace * GK Pos Ability * ST Pos Ability ... In the full model you'd have every attribute + every position interacted all with each other. If you have a player that is natural at both CM and RW for instance to find out the effect an attribute has on CA you'd find the attribute you want (we'll call this the attribute baseline), the positions they have listed (i'd expect this to be insiginficant), the attribute interacted with each CM and RW individually (we'll call this the positional baseline), the attribute interacted with CM and RW together (and this is your multipositional weight). The sum of that equation would be how much CA an attribute eats up and provide you a clear weighting schema for every position. I'm not shocked that a "more complicated" regression technique works better. They typically do lots of these interactions/high dimensionality models automatically and don't tell you what the inputs are (hence the term 'black boxes'). I don't know what is available in Python but in R there is a package called LIME that will try to extract higher dimensionality models into human readable output. The benefits of using a more simple technique is that you'll be able to read the results much more easily. Its not often you can make sense of an interaction but in this case we have a good idea what it is we're putting in the model and the interpretation. If you have raw data in a csv or something maybe i'll toy around with it if i find time. just pm me or however files can be transferred here.

If you open the pre game editor you can see how much weight an attribute has on CA points. That is known and the value of that weight depends on position (and possibly a few other things I'm not aware of). Position matters a great deal as it determines how much CA is used by an attribute as enigmatic has pointed out. If that weight is zero then that attribute should yield no input into determining the CA of a player. https://www.fmscout.com/a-guide-to-current-ability-in-football-manager.html?pg=1 I'm actually assuming you've posted this article given the name... which makes this post strange to me since you're aware that weightings are different. I assume this value ultimately is what you are trying to get at in the model. If it isn't I'm not really sure what this ML exercise is trying to accomplish since attributes are what determine CA. It's not really predicting anything since you're using the thing that directly determines CA to predict CA. You should be able to get CA exactly for every player with the right formula. Again it'd be like using inches to determine how tall someone is in centimeters. Contrast this with say a scout report (that you codify into values) or perhaps the stats the game produces where there isn't a direct relationship between the target variable and the inputs. So a prediction in height would be using relatives of someone or height at a younger age. Well this could just be plain old not enough data rather than non linearity. As for a linear regression not working I would suspect that it is due to wrong specification rather than the the wrong choice of model since again we can see the attribute weighting on CA in the editor. The only thing I'm unaware of for sure is if going from say 10 pace to 11 pace cost less CA than going from 15 to 16 and therefore the cost in CA between 10 pace and 15 is not linear. If that is true than a linear model would of course not work and you'd have to find another latent variable that increases the cost of CA per attribute point. I unfortunately don't have time to do this with a day job and a kid.. i'd rather just play the game

Not really sure what you're trying to predict here. If you mean explain CA that makes more sense as an experiment. Predicting CA from current attributes would be like "predicting height in centimeters using inches". I think what you're trying to say is you want to find out that cm = 2.54 * in. CA is a known value with a known, albeit complicated formula you can observe from the editor. This would be more a "fun learn how regression works in stats 101" model since we should be able to extract the beta weights of attributes to match the editor values exactly if we have the right formula. If we don't we know the weights are suffering from omitted variable bias or multicolinearity or the wrong specification. TBH you could get away with a boring old linear regression. I'd personally start with CA ~ attributes + binaries of positions or the values provided for awkward/competent/accomplished/natural + footedness + an interaction between attributes and position + interaction between attributes and footedness + interaction between position and footedness + interaction between attributes, position and footedness. I'm probably forgetting some things that affect CA but that's how I would start if this were a real experiment with unknown inputs.

Post match days should have a split schedule to provide a schedule for starting XI or players with x% condition to do recovery sessions while the rest of the team participates in higher intensity training to keep fitness/sharpness/skills up. Currently after each match I have to go to the rest tab in the training hub to manually click rest players since not all of them will be below the threshold to fall into the auto rest category (even on half yellow heart). After that I go and I'll change the recovery session (since the non starting/substituted players will have 2 days off) to typically a physical session.

This was on FM 21 so some things may have changed/provided better UI but aggravating nonetheless. I just had a situation where I was negotiating in the winter window and selected end of season which was June 7 2024. Well negotiations drug on through the rest of the year and when they finally accepted it was June 1st/2nd. Apparently the transfer date at that time rolled over to 2025. I reloaded after I realized he didn't join when he was supposed to. The best part was I had done a bunch of other deals. They all stayed the same except one. I was sending out one player on huge wages (350k p/w) and good loan fee (200k p/m). Well after reloading Chelsea somehow decided they could only afford 50% of wages and no fee. I must have replayed the same week between June 1 and June 8th for 2 hours to get that loan back to where I agreed initially. I almost deleted the save out of frustration.

I've been enjoying 21 much more than the latest 23 update. Too many unrealistic events/bugs. I thought the release version of 23 was very good not sure what happened after. If you recall in a separate post i was asking for help with a 4-2-3-1 and afterwards went to a 4-3-3 after some input from you and some others here. Had some really good success with it. In the first iteration of this I would swap Fernandes to the RCM position and have him play as a RPM and put a CMa on the left. Did really well and won the league 2 years in a row. I didn't really have a CMa though as Pogba didn't fill the role well/didn't like playing it plus is now 30 so time to start transitioning imo. This season started off with a lot of frustrating draws against teams parking the bus. I think the main difference was swapping martial for haaland and him always looking to play off the shoulder of the CBs. Rashford's goal return has suffered a bit as well. But it was hard to turn down 120M for Martial to Real Madrid and 80M for Haaland. AWB is my normal right back but he fractured his ankle and was out for 4 months. Telles is a monster in this game and is my normal LB as well but he pulled a muscle and is out for a few weeks. Greenwood has more direct passes and roam from position Rice has more direct passes Games become tougher imo to break teams down. So I decided to switch back to a 4-2-3-1 to in an attempt to get the team going again. I've dropped the LOE and upped the directness. I've found that's really helped getting Haaland the space he needs to get in behind. Luis generally has hold position on. Greenwood still with roam from position. And I'll often tick on focus down the left. Additionally Shaw and Sancho have cross to far post. Usually results in a good chance for greenwood. Defensively I generally have luis mark the AMCR/AMC position (not player) with Fernandes marking the DM/DMCR/MCR and Rice marking the MCL. How I set it up depends on the opponent and which of their midfielders is responsible for carrying the ball out of defense and I might switch Luis and Rice to get more favorable positioning. Oddly though most teams have the right sided CM as the #6. blue line and below are my results with the 4-2-3-1. I wasn't doing poorly but games were a slog. The Villa match I got 'super keepered' by Emiliano Martinez. Liverpool was leading the league this year by about 4 points when we played them and have been crushing teams so far. That's a tough match regardless of tactic. Anyway, as you can see more of my goals are coming early in the first half. Reading was the only rough match up but that was the 3rd game in 6 days and I probably pushed my starting lineup too hard but knew they'd get a rest for a week+ after that.

The only thing I can think of is the lack of applying defensive pressure up top since neither really work hard to defend... but I don't really want to apply defensive pressure that high up the pitch since teams are sitting deep already. It might not be viable against another big team but it'd be very unlike the game to give you that sort of detail until you get stomped 7-0 in Europe away from home and only have 30% possession. If you're stumped i'll just ignore it/label it a bug and carry on. I did try the enganche role with Fernandes and the note disappeared. He had a storming game (8.9) with that role (after a few tweaks for the CMs behind him to clear space for him to drop into). Only won 2-0 but Haaland had a poor day at the office or it could/should have been more.

General question... On FM 21 playing as Man Utd and recently switched from a 4-3-3 that was getting good xG numbers but low conversion to a 4-2-3-1 and started plastering the AI with 4,5,6 goals per game. I'm currently employing a Poacher-AMC Trequartista combination for central attack. Not sure why but the game has a cohesion line between my ST (Haaland) and AMC (Fernandes) but has a note that says while they've created a good partnership, the pair of roles are unsuitable together. Am i missing something? I know they're kind of extreme roles in the scorer-creator realm but I think given the two players I have that's kind of ideal. I feel like putting a AF/CF/PF role with a treq would result in no one being central to finish chances since they all have a tendency to move into channels. I'm not overly concerned since I've been completely overwhelming the opposition. Just curious what the issue is with the message. I can post a screenshot of it later if needed.

Well no one starts bidding 150M... How many players do you have loaded in your save? I sold Martial to Real Madrid for 100M + 20M easy add ons in FM21. His value was only 75M. That was after a year of Madrid scouting him. I didn't let on that I would sell him until Haaland was available for 80M and unsettled by me for the same amount of time. If you're trying to get rid of players actively you'll never get full value. Playing as a top English team doesn't put you in a good spot to sell players due to wages and reputation.