If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Originally posted by Rickooko:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Hauler24:
I made another post about this issue. I think SI don't really want people to have long term games, why would they. They lose money if you don't want to buy the next in the series. So why would they give a crap. SI isn't an EA type size of a company there a small business in this gaming industry. They may feel it better to grab your attention and release new features rather work on things they may not feel affect the game as much. Its sad that nothing has happened on this issue but thats business.
I think Hauler24 have spot onto the issue, why do SI want the customers to have a very healthy long terms game which they will happy to stick with forever?
Even we are not game programmers we can still think of many methods to produce quality regens with static attributes according with their positions. (jumping, pace, stamina etc...). So how could this be so difficult for the professionals in SI, who cant get this area right for all those years??
SI dont have to make a "perfect" or "classic" version of FM game in history, instead, they want every version of FM incomplete therefore you have to buy/renew it every year. (I am not making this up as there are other examples in the gaming industry) </BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't believe this whatsoever. I know several FM gamers that were disappointed with 08 and thus have vowed not to buy 09. Would be extremely bad business sense.
06-25-2008, 04:58 AM
Regens, some numbers on how bad they *still* are Post #42
I do know some FM gamers saying so but tbh it really doesnt matter at all.
As long as their selling figure keep growing, SI are doing very good business, even for long SI keep releasing series of FM which has never really improved in this regen area.
06-25-2008, 05:03 AM
Regens, some numbers on how bad they *still* are Post #43
Not long ago I posted a topic about how Portugual's team was full of Brazillian/Portuguese regens. I thnik about 6 of them were PA 190+.
Checking my current save, I have 5 regens from other clubs. AMRC, PA 198. DL, PA 197. FC, PA 188. MC, PA 185. DR, PA 183. My own regens are terrible but that's because my youth facilities are 12+YA. I still a a WB/AML with a PA of 139 who could make a good back up.
06-25-2008, 05:34 AM
Regens, some numbers on how bad they *still* are Post #45
Originally posted by Kassien:
The regens last version were actually too good, this version SI have gone too far the other way, it's a process that takes time to perfect.
Kassien SI have had 5 years. FIVE YEARS. IMO they're actually further away from ideal this year than the previous one.
Five years to get them close to right is 3 years more than they should need. They obviously don't prioritise the issue highly enough. Which is why I genereally end up making posts about this deficiency YEAR AFTER YEAR.
I'm hoping one year it doesn't fall on deaf ears.
06-25-2008, 08:43 AM
Regens, some numbers on how bad they *still* are Post #47
Originally posted by JohnShaft:
Kassien SI have had 5 years. FIVE YEARS. IMO they're actually further away from ideal this year than the previous one.
Five years to get them close to right is 3 years more than they should need. They obviously don't prioritise the issue highly enough. Which is why I genereally end up making posts about this deficiency YEAR AFTER YEAR.
I'm hoping one year it doesn't fall on deaf ears.
That's a bit of an alarmist post really. If you try to imagine the number of different factors that will come into play in determining how much/when a player improves I'm sure you'll appreciate how complex a task it is.
Some factors off the top of my head: players mental attributes, players hidden attributes, club coaching staff, club coaching facilities, reserve games, 1st team games, how much time on field in those games, injury status, influence of other players
Change the model and impact for ANY of those things and you effectively change the impact it has on the development model too. Now imagine different coding teams working on those different elements.
Don't get me wrong - it's far from ideal - but to say that it isn't something that is continiously reviewed would be a case of unwarranted statements in my book.
(Also - the people who suggest that SI deliberately ignore the regens to promote future games, ask yourself why they bother having regens at all. It's a daft idea.)
Quote:
Well i have to say, that idea of having different development models is a pretty good one. But after reading it a few times i think i'd have to say a compromise between the 2 would be better balanced. Mainly because regardless of your excellent suggestion im still of the opinion that the game should churn out some regens with a higher CA that it does.
To use your quote against you (sorry!) i would say that the reason 'we notice 'wonderkids' or youngsters of great potential because they are so much better than their peers.' is because they have a higher CA than their peers.
I should point out that I'm not suggesting two development models - but rather tieing in the amount of progession with their current distance from their PA.
I'd also simplify the development system considerably into a 'past the post' method - so when a certain amount of progression 'points' are reached, the player receives a "Level Up" which can be spent on increasing attributes.
The method of getting those 'progression points' could be any one of a shedload of factors (coaching staff, players own training etc).
The amount of progression they get could be tied into the difference between their CA and PA, so players with higher PA would get more points than their lower-potential peers.
This also would take care of your higher starting CA suggestion - as players who joined a club at 14/15 would be of higher ability when they hit 17/18, the point at which you tend to see youngsters making appearances in real life.
(Something to bear in mind, we don't know how the progression system works now - so some or all of these suggestions could already be there but need tweaking. SI, for obvious reasons, are not likely to share the specifics - but they can feel free to send it to me by email )
06-25-2008, 08:44 AM
Regens, some numbers on how bad they *still* are Post #48
Originally posted by JohnShaft:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Kassien:
The regens last version were actually too good, this version SI have gone too far the other way, it's a process that takes time to perfect.
Kassien SI have had 5 years. FIVE YEARS. IMO they're actually further away from ideal this year than the previous one.
Five years to get them close to right is 3 years more than they should need. They obviously don't prioritise the issue highly enough. Which is why I genereally end up making posts about this deficiency YEAR AFTER YEAR.
I'm hoping one year it doesn't fall on deaf ears. </BLOCKQUOTE>
I appreciate that they've had time to get this right, and I'm not defending SI stating that they are right, or that they shouldn't have gotten them right by now. I'm merely pointing out that stating that this is deliberate is moronic imo.
And although I may have missed your point here, the newgen system only came about in FM06 right? So they haven't really had five years to perfect this at all?
06-25-2008, 08:46 AM
Regens, some numbers on how bad they *still* are Post #49
Originally posted by Kassien:
And although I may have missed your point here, the newgen system only came about in FM06 right? So they haven't really had five years to perfect this at all?
I think the FRED system actually only came about in FM07, but don't take that as gospel.
06-25-2008, 08:47 AM
Regens, some numbers on how bad they *still* are Post #50
Either way, FM06 or FM07, it's obvious at this point in time that there was a major overhaul in the models used, and the way in which these things worked, so 5 years is an exaggeration. But then, I didn't come here to argue the merits of SI, merely to point out that suggesting they'd do it deliberately is plain wrong.
)
Linear Mode
