walker14

This is a simple story, tell me the basis for what you say. If the conversation has no basis, then we're just talking about whose imagination is more vivid, and there's no conclusion and no point. If I'm wrong, you can let me know with a well-founded argument. If the basis of your words are just your thoughts, that's are meaningless.

First of all, 100 matches is not a large sample, but i experimented with three midfielders at the same time. Do you see the small difference per 100 match in the table? In the inside forward and wingback experiments, I also combined the results of two players in 200 games to get a sample size of 400. In my experience, goalkeepers have the smallest difference per game, and forwards have the largest difference per game. For forwards, the results are similar in 200 out of 300 games, and the other 100 games have a difference per 100 match. So I tried to get 300 samples. For the passing experiments, I gave everyone 20/20 footed. So the key is this: what is the basis for your assertion? There is nothing but assertion in your words. There's no evidence. Judgment, anticipation 14 is of course not a low number, but this is the second issue. What are you basing what you're saying about how that affects the pass?

Question 1. I used the in-game editor Questions 2 and 3. Yes, of course Question 4. In the game, height is related to the jumping reach growth limit. Jumping ability is determined entirely by jumping reach, height is irrelevant. Question 5. What are you basing your statement on? I experimented with the editor by switching players and got immediate results based on that. If you're saying that switching players causes something to go wrong, I don't understand. What's the point of experimenting without fixing the rest of the stats? It's a not good experiment where don't control and don't know what factors other than the experimental stats are affecting it. I appreciate your suggestion, but it doesn't seem relevant.

It does have an impact, but I think it's a very small one. When I aggregated the number of long, medium, and short passes for a deep lying playmaker DM in 30 games and watched and recorded long pass highlights. The graph shows that the higher the passing stats, the more forward and lateral long passes, and the more outed passes. but the difference is very small. And I experimented with the passing stats of the three midfielders I mentioned earlier. The opponent was set up with a line up in a quick counterattack template-based tactic. In front of them were Holland and Salah, with the opposition defenders lagging behind the friendly attackers in the pace race. If the passers were supplying more risky passes, they should have made more assists, but the difference in assists between the passing-related stats was very small. As I wrote, there were even fewer assists when the pass-related stat was 20 than when it was 18. It's one thing for stats to not work at all, or to have a small impact, that's a rule of thumb for anyone who's been playing this game for a while, but passes have a really weird effect, and that's what I'm wondering.

In a previous experiment, I collected 30 games of in-game results and found that higher passing stats were associated with more passes and lower success rates. More passes were also outed Conversely, lower pass-related stats resulted in fewer passes but a higher success rate. This was the result of experimenting with different Passing Technique Vision stats. My hypothesis here was that passing would determine the frequency of passes, technique would determine the quality of passes, and vision would determine the length of passes. 30 is a very small sample size, so i can't be sure. However, later experiments showed that high pass-related stats don't help with offensive point production. Perhaps, these stats can get in the way of a player's offensive behavior. High passing stats lead to frequent passing, which is not necessarily productive. In the fm game engine I don't really know why this is the case, so I'm waiting to hear from the developers to see if they can answer.

I fixed all other stats to 14 except for the experimental stats when doing this experiment. 14 is the average stat for the top 10 teams in the first division. Is 14 insufficient? Why is it insufficient? What is the basis for your opinions? If your basis is valid, I will experiment in the environment you describe.

So what specifically is incorrectly fixed? Your statement is still vague. https://image.fmkorea.com/files/attach/new4/20240629/7193570349_44021718_b8e5b8c515e2e501347a1937faa9b93c.png Look at him. What's wrong with him? The official website says that passing is influenced by technique and vision. I didn't lower the rest of his stats any lower than necessary. 14 is about average for the top 10 teams in the first division. Also, what is the basis for your statement that footedness, flair, vision, composure, anticipation, and decisions have an impact? Everything I fixed is in-game. I didn't modify the game engine, so it's odd to say that modifying it to block a variable causes weird results. So what you're saying is that the things I modified to control the variable didn't control the variable, they skewed the results. What is the basis for that statement? Are you a game developer? If you're basing your statement on game engines, please be more specific.

Your comment confuses me. What specifically do you mean is unrealistic? All positive hidden values are 20 and negative hidden values are 1? Let's say i change the hidden value to level 10, which is a realistic number. The variables affecting the game (to what extent this will need to be confirmed through a separate experiment) will only increase further. The realistic figures you are talking about are the act of alternately planting tulips and petunias, checking how tall tulips have grown. Did I change a stat that had nothing to do with passing to measure a number related to passing? no. I kept other things fixed and only changed and measured the stats related to passing. I don't know what you specifically mean by the extreme values you're talking about. My English is poor, so I didn't understand the latter part of your article correctly, but yes, if repeat it, will get similar results. and there will be errors between different groups.

Which part was experimented poorly? If you tell me your opinion in detail, i will reflect it.

Sorry, but the answer is too abstract. Is it a strange input to change only pass-related stats, but not all other stats? The experimental team's tactics are universal, which is the sum total of their in-game results. If the stats work well in a better tool, why wouldn't they produce better results in 300 games?

hello. I play FM24 and did an experiment like this for a personal question. ㅁ Control variable - Tottenham vs Wolves. Wolves home. Both teams controlled by the user, no tactical or substitution changes. - Tactical skill maxed out. All morale perfect. Team Cohesion maxed. - All Stats 20 Assistant Coach Locker Room Conversations - All positions except for the experimental group have a collective stat of 14 - Positive hidden to 20, Negative hidden to 1 - Minor injuries continue to progress. Reload for major injuries and ejections - Removed Player Traits - Removed experimental players from dead ball kickers - All players except for experimental positions are two-footed ㅁ Manipulation Variables Multiple stats for each position ㅁ Dependent Variable Team goals scored and goals against. XG. Goals, Assists, and Offense Points for Experimental Positions In these experiments, we took as few as 100 and as many as 300 stats in this environment, with results at the 0.01 to 0.05 level of error. Because the error in the experimental group is small, i assume it is controlled for variables. It's no secret that very few of FM's stats have a significant impact on the game, including physicality. However, it's not just a matter of how much or how little it affects. Pass-related stats have some very strange effects The official FM website states that passing is affected by technique and vision. Crosses are listed in isolation. Let's talk about this in more detail. Increasing the passing, technique, vision, and teamwork stats of the deep-lying forward from 14 to 17 (Table 1) actually decreases the scoring of the two inside forwards (Table 2), but increases their assists. In the inside forward attacking experiment, a player who is nearly perfect physically, mentally, and technically (Table 3) performs worse than a player with only physical ability and dribbling(Table 4) (Table 5). The same was true in experiments with wingbacks. Fullbacks with passing-related stats (Table 6)(Table 7) performed worse than fullbacks with nerfed stats (Table 8)(Table 9) Here's a comparison between the two (Table 10) The experiment with midfielders showed the same odd results as forwards and flanks: After analyzing 30 games of in-game footage, a pass-related stat of 20 was worse than a pass-related stat of 18 in a variety of areas, including missed passes and successful long passes (Tables 11-1,2,3). When i experimented with pass-related stats from 14 to 20 for midfielders with stats based on 14 (Table 12), found that three midfielders - the advanced playmaker attack, box to box, and deep lying playmaker support - had fewer assists at 20 than at 18 (Table 13). Why am I getting these strange results? I contacted the developer and was told that there are FM developers here and they should have an answer. Why are pass-related stats having this effect on the game? Resources.7z