wazzaflow10

Given they've probably stripped a lot of "features" from 24 to 25 I don't think its too surprising. The new game engine is supposedly easier to work with than the homegrown engine. The pros of this approach are we'll be able to give feedback on a feature much sooner on a feature. Waiting for a brand new game may have different issues that need addressing first causing small but persistent problems to be consistently deprioritized. I think we'll less likely to run into development pauses because a new game is coming out and work cannot be done until full release. That means we might see updates going into May/June and might keep the game fresh for longer. Cons would be a poorly implemented or badly timed feature might ruin a save for some.

13 pace is pretty slow for top flight to be fair. I think Harry Kane has been around 12/13 and he's not exactly fast either. Probably faster than Mertesacker though. There's definitely a top flight physicals buff for all existing players that likely doesn't exist in real life. There was another thread that that showed the running speed between Bundesliga 1 and 2 was virtually negligible but in FM there's a large gap in acceleration and pace between these players. EA games also suffer from this. In the 90s players used to be really bad but now everyone is in the 70s as a minimum if they're on a recognizable team. Players apparently complained about how bad they were so its definitely a thing not unique to FM.

Its like some of the old F1 management games where you could still try to cheat like adding turbo in qualifying but take it off for the race. Now everything is above board. No cheating or illegal parts, no drama or anything. I'd just like them to even have some "bad" personality traits for real players but we know that won't happen.

Yeah but Star Player "let his team down" haven't you heard? No choice but to sign yet another player. (heavy, heavy sarcasm) What a mess that team is and we thought the Abramovich years were chaotic.

There is a contracts page on the player profile screen. It should tell you that a player has agreed to a new contract if there is one and its effective date. Do you have a save from before the contract rolled over?

Are they asking for a transfer fee? Might be easier to just buy him outright. I'd say raise a bug report but I think they're basically closed. Might be worth a shot in the contracts section though.

Sancho last year too. I think some players can be a bit twitchy/sensitive with their expectations or reactions at times. Trying to pick the right response can feel a bit like a minefield. It seems to happen more if your reputation isn't high enough for the club you're managing. However, I don't know what we expect being a manager other than players complaining about something. There should probably be more player-manager conversations about role/position/form (essentially saying the player isn't in a position to look good) and team/individual training not helping players get better and signing too many players to compete with in their position. Not all have to end negatively - I think a lot of the fear with player initiated interactions is the outcome is going to be negative no matter what. It feels odd that your choices boil down to "take a hardline stance", "ignore", "compromise", and "give in". If I'm willing to compromise or give in on something the player's initial reaction shouldn't be to reject and complain anyway. If that's the only outcome possible there shouldn't really be a conversation outside of acknowledging a player is unhappy and what they're unhappy about. You should also be able to reopen talks after a short period of time to see if you can find an amenable solution after the player has possibly cooled down.

Because if you're trying to game the match engine by using a meta/diablo tactic then it could be a reason why your statistics are out of whack. Another explanation is your players just aren't that good and the reason your underperformance in xG is due to that.

if they came from your academy they'll be HGC usually within the first year or so of being generated. There's a player information page that tells you when a player is expected to get this status. There's also a view in the squad UI you can switch to and view dates for players. The years don't have to be continuous. So if you have a player that is 3 months away and isn't aging out on that date then they're probably safe to loan out. If you bought them they'd likely have to be at your club until they achieve the HGC status (usually 21). Loaning them out will prevent them from getting HGC status. You don't need that many HGC players that it should be an issue for continental competitions. Not 100% knowledgeable on every league's rules for HGC though. I wouldn't loan them out if they are under 18. A loan to get more consistent playing time is better for development after a player turns 18 assuming you cant find game time for them at your club. if HGC is important and a strategic advantage then I'd start them over some other non HGC players if they're ready.

What is your tactic/formation?

My only skepticism with having it all "customizable" in the same exe is it becomes difficult to keep track of what the game needs to run. I don't know if you could customize "no tactical familiarization" and/or "minimal interactions" and/or "AI Managers learn your tactics over time" and/or whatever else can be turned on/off in the same code base and keep it logical. Seems like there's the potential for a lot of if-then branches to work through and a lot of paths to debug with each possible customization combination. A set lite and full version would make it much easier to develop and maintain. However, I doubt they'd do that just because it splits their already limited and finite resources across two functionally similar games. It would be nice if there was a way to cater to new/don't feel like dealing with deep management fans while also giving the hardcore players more of a challenge without having to resort to house rules.

As long as the failure is fun then yes 100%. Still have to remember the game should be fun to play. Almost wish they'd bring back the touch edition for people who want to play more casually while keeping the full fat version as the "hardcore" mode.

For a short period in the game yes. I'd reckon most people who are playing with this possible setting aren't the ones typing "Mbappe" in the player search to buy him immediately, nor are they seeking out every wonderkid list. If you're playing at least a few seasons or longer your real world knowledge isn't applicable anymore. Its a setting that extends the long term save which is where your transfers really matter. The game makes it incredibly easy to just rebuild/replace your squad with even better players currently. For sure the squad management in season could be better. Its, in my unpopular opinion, been better this year compared to others recently. But this also comes back to the human having an incredible advantage where we know things like you said below here: So of course we prioritize these players. We never waste time on players our scouts think are bad because there's no reason to do anything other than use them for youth league fodder and sell them when their contract is expiring. The AI has a different prioritization that seems more focused on the present. I don't recall that being the case but its been nearly 20 years since I've played 07. I'd have to dig out the disc somewhere! I took Brighton to the PL with Mido and Victor Moses so I don't know if it was really that different. I'd love to see the top teams be more aggressive on scooping up talent from mid table sides. Crystal Palace lost Olise, and will probably lose Guehi and Eze either this summer or next. Its too easy to hold onto players. I know people complain here about player interactions but there's no pressure on us to sell. The AI reliably gives up and we just have to wait for the player to calm down which takes about a month after the window ends. There should be more peril to blocking transfers or interactions where you have to a promise of success (i.e. CP finish in CL places) to keep these players and failure to do so will result in the player downing tools or refusing to negotiate completely until they're sold. It's odd we can be the Fergie in squad building, Daniel Levy of negotiating, Arsene Wenger of player development, and Guardiola of tactics. We're playing the game in god mode most of the time.

Yeah I'm of the opinion we don't necessarily need some super human AI transfer logic. It can be improve just like everything else can be improved. SI should stop giving humans such an advantage with perfect information about everything and then see if the human can dominate the transfer market in the same way. My only complaint about some of the attribute masking skins is they're still based on concrete values. So you still know (albeit with slightly lower resolution) the attribute is absolutely within a range based on the color. My hope is one day they can roll out some sort of feature that its all based on perception of the player from factors within the game. I can't wrap my head around purely attribute-less because there's then there's no perception of the player b/c the scouting reports aren't detailed enough for my liking. I want to know more than just strength/weaknesses.

you're asking what the probability of scoring exactly 1 goal in 6 attempts assuming a success rate of .8? Binomial distribution calculator says its about .001 or .1% chance. I think you need a new penalty taker...

The xG in the game is ~.79 I think. Since it's a self contained (i.e. trained against itself) you should be scoring at about that rate. If you're converting 50% your player has an issue. There's about a 1% chance of missing 3 in a row if I've done the math right and consider no other factors (.2^3). Hardly impossible, especially if he doesn't score these very often. I find it more predictive to look at the text during the penalty. The game seems to hate when VAR or the referee gives a "cheap" penalty. I forget exactly what the wording is but if the commentary states "harsh" it seems like teams miss more often. Completely anecdotal though.

Yeah I haven't played a new version since 17 but one of my favorite parts was not really knowing if the player I just signed to a massive contract was actually worth it. I don't need it to be 1:1. I think OOTP is too variable in its ratings. I don't think we need to have a system that goes 70 OVR to 20 OVR as frequently as OOTP did. I also don't want it to just be a rush to get the best scouts so some work needs to be done to prevent or neutralize that factor to a degree. 20 shouldn't be 100% right and 1 shouldn't be 0% right. It should just be part of a weight that goes into what they tell you. If you scout a player and they have a few bad games while they're being scouted - maybe they're not rated as high. Or maybe the player has a few incredible games and gets overrated! It shouldn't always happen of course so that way you can't tell if they're over/under rated. But I think the best way to combat humans being able to dominate the AI in the transfer market is to give us the chance to get it wrong way more frequently than we currently do. I'd love to see if people think the AI is too good at squad building when they're not given perfect information about players. JPA is a pretty meaningless attributes when you can see the actual attributes. I just need scouts to find players then you can just filter those scouted. Who cares what they or the coaches think the players level is in the report? Its just a cosmetic label.

Sigh. I really shouldn't engage because you're so off base with your reply but here goes. That's literally how we do it in real life. Do you think scouts have some magical vision to know what each players actual CA is? Every year there's players who play well and get CA boosts and players who play poorly and get CA nerfs by researchers. This isn't a player had one bad match and went from world class to League 2 standard. But a long string of under/over performance should have an effect on your perception of how good a player is. Notice the word perception. Nothing about the player's actual attributes for the ME is changing. Your whole concept of what is being discussed is incorrect based on your reply. This is simply a skin that is integrated into the fabric of the game. Many people already play attributeless or partially obscured attributes. Its a series of events that actually already exist in the game. Unless you're skipping the staff meetings, they tell you constantly there's changes in players abilities all the time. It'd be useful except you can see that their abilities haven't actually changed. So really we're just making the game match what currently exists in reports. And yes if a player's reputation matches that of a world class player their attributes to the human should look like a world class player. They still can for ME purposes have decent premier league attributes. You just don't know if the player you have is actually world class or you're making him look better than he really is with 100% certainty. There's very, very little ambiguity in this game other than the RNG factor that determines a small part of the match. I have no idea who or what you're quoting but its not on topic. I like how you think the only solution is that people will quit. That sounds like your own projection. You could, you know, play the game and determine maybe the player isn't as good as you and your scouts thought. Maybe you have to buy another player like a real manager. Maybe you have to tweak your system to get the best out of your star signing. Maybe you just signed Kleberson. The point is you don't know for sure and nothing is stopping you from doing all the things you normally would to get a player to play better. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. If you're unfamiliar with the OOTP series there's plenty of people who play with ratings don't match actual. I think that series is only modestly successful last I checked, certainly not one of the top sports management games out there. They must have tons of people quitting. In FM, you know exactly how good or bad every player is and a pretty damn good idea how good each player can be. Making it more ambiguous would make it significantly harder to build a squad which is one of the top requests on the forums here. We phrase it as make the AI better but the AI is only a small part. The AI will never catch up because the human will never make a mistake. It is virtually impossible to make a truly bad signing in this game unless you're doing it intentionally. I understand if you want to have perfect knowledge - some players rely on it because they have to have the best players to win. The feature should be toggle-able at game start like fog of war. Quite the opposite actually. Young players are often too willing to move to teams they shouldn't. Fulham shouldn't be able to sign multiple wonderkids one year into the game. Maybe you get lucky one player has a better PA than you expected but it should be much harder to sign young players in general. The issue is the game has made it difficult to scout them before they are interested to stop the human from doing what you just described. I don't care if someone wants to play wonderkid hunter. That's your prerogative in a single player game. Its not fun after a while to play that way because there's no way for the AI to keep up.

Yeah the lines between playmakers get a bit blurry imo. I couldn't tell you functionally what the difference between an APs with roaming on and a roaming playmaker is really. I know the RPM really roams and likes to push more into the AM strata. But it seems like an AP with roam on should do the same thing - at least in theory right? But I'm sure someone in the tactics forum could breakdown the difference between all of the playmaking roles and when/how to use them at a high level.

I didn't play 17 but I played 18. Three striker formations were the death of my save. I got promoted to the OBOS-liagen and there was nothing i could do to stop the AI from scoring when they went 3 up top. And they almost all did that because my rep was so low. Shame I really enjoyed that save too.

I think a lot of this comes from some of our own perception of how a named role should play in our system v the game. I struggled with this too until I just accepted that some of the named roles just have very specific patterns you need to follow to make them successful. Its a bit like using a Mez and IF on the same side. In real life you might be able make that sort of combination work with them rotating in and out of space but the game just sees two players wanting to attack the same area. The game will always have a bit of a prescriptive element as a result so I understand completely what you're saying. It'd be nice if we could get more options in doing little wrinkles in tactics but I fear that would only further your issue of "meta-ing" the ME. I'd agree with this to an extent. One of my hopes for the game this year was with the positional play introduction you'd actually need players mentally capable of recognizing where the space was and have the physicals to exploit it. I do think the game somewhat adapts the role based on the league level. So you can have a player who's capable of playing an SV role in League 2 but wouldn't be able to in the PL.

If people use FM Scout that's on them. I"m referring to in-game mechanics. There's no choice right now really if you play the game naturally. Your scouts won't find or recommend any player who isn't interested in your team. It creates huge holes in your scouting network because of this feature. Again what we've been told is this is to prevent players from essentially spawn camping newgens without going through a lot of manual effort. It seems odd if a scout is assigned to Brazil they wouldn't at least check out a game or two of a 16 year old Endrick because he isn't currently interested in joining but that's how the game works currently. Maybe the games they saw he didn't play well and thinks good but not the best or maybe he scores a hattrick and becomes a must sign. That's related but a different issue. The fact is you as the player know with 100% certainty what his attributes are on the player profile screen. So his CA/PA rating by a scout at 16 is somewhat irrelevant. By the time a player turns 18/21/24 you can see if their attributes are good enough for your squad. It negates the whole point of scouting outside of just being a filter of who is interested at this moment in time. My point is that if a scout views a player as an PL or La Liga or whatever league standard player the attributes on the player's profile screen should match that rating. The actual CA and attributes are still there and used for the ME so nothing under the hood changes. But the game really could be much more immersive and challenging if what we perceived for player attributes was related to form, training, coach/scout JPA. Right now a player who had a bad season or is on a poor run of form you can be sure that eventually they'll revert to what their attributes dictate. With my suggestion there's some fear that well maybe they're on the decline or not that good. Do I get reinforcements in the winter/summer? Do I try to sell this player? Do I ride it out? It makes it much harder to sign and horde the best players because the player you signed might suck and the player you sold might be world class. Just to further the point - if you take part in the staff meetings. Don't you find it odd that your coaches will tell you player X has gotten better and is now viewed as a "Leading League Player" instead of a "Good League Player" and yet nothing has changed with regard to their attributes? Its the most meaningless piece of advice in the game. And just to throw a lifeline to new players I'd be totally fine if this was a toggle-able option at game start like the fog of war for scouting.

I don't think we should be allowed to essentially spawn camp when the AI can't. The AI doesn't scout the same way (I don't know why - must be processing times). The bigger factor is your scouts are really good at finding high PA players and then human's are really good at sorting out which players are actual high CA/PA players long before the AI can. It's rare a human ever makes a truly bad signing because we have nearly perfect information about a player. My scouts have both these players as leading PL strikers 4 stars for Gaari and 4 1/2 stars for Josete. Yet a human would never sign Gaari as a leading PL club. There's a huge disconnect between what scouts report about a player's ability and their actual attributes. They should be in sync from the human's perspective when you view a scouting report and a player's attribute profile page. It makes squad building easy when you can reliably find the high PA players and then just sort through the players who's actual CA and attributes match the scout's opinion.

Isn't it the other way round? Its to stop the human from snapping up all the high PA players before the AI can determine if they want them. I'm quite sure this has been cited as a reason why when asking why U18 players don't even show up in scouting anymore. It turns it into a crap shoot for the human to be looking at the right time in the right place rather than being able to track the best players from spawn to when you can sign them.

people use computers for something other than playing FM???