wazzaflow10

A lot has been addressed already namely by santy and ninecloudnine. To reiterate some of their stance: Your "control" variables aren't realistic. These inputs don't occur within the game naturally so it isn't something that would happen except in maybe very, very extreme cases. There certainly wouldn't be a team filled with this sort of distribution of attributes, let alone two. In short it's not an internally valid model. What I mean by that is by running an experiment that falls outside of something that has been trained you're inevitably going to find something "weird" because the model has never seen anything like this before. As a concrete example suppose I'm growing tulips. I want to measure how tall they grow based on watering schedule, sunlight exposure, soil conditions etc. After a few trials I have an idea of what affects height. If I all of a sudden start planting petunias instead, none of my data for tulips is relevant. There may be general principles like all plants need water, sunlight, soil but you can't really claim to know anything about how a petunia would grow. FM is the same way. The match engine has been trained and tuned on a particular set of data that exists. Just because you can change an input doesn't mean you should. That's not a control variable. FM experiments need to exist more or less naturally inside the game world. Putting in extreme values is going to yield an extreme result. You'd have to make a pretty compelling case as to why this initial state of inputs should exist. Additionally, I have no idea what your tables are telling me in conjunction with the text. Is there some sort of regression? Is it just descriptive statistics - if so is there any association at the raw match level? Which group is which? Are the value statistically significantly different? There's probably more I could address but I really don't have an idea what you're trying to show to direct you further here. Its just very unclear other than you've shown me a table and claim something is weird.

I know what they're asking. I would have said asking if I didn't understand the question. Its a poorly conducted experiment hence why I said I don't know what they're trying to prove.

I've read this post 5 times and still can't figure out what they're trying to prove.

All great points from both of you, @perpetua and @NineCloudNine. I'll certainly take your word for this as I'm obviously not privy to what goes on behind the scenes on how a player is constructed. I wonder if it could be something done programmatically that can functionally separate the top from the middle from the bottom that doesn't require a change but clearly I'm out of my depth here. I suppose in some regards research could be easier because there's not the need to languish if an average player should be 11 or 12 since the gap between those would be relatively small comparatively. More effort would be around discussions about the upper end and lower end of the scale where it should, theoretically be easier to say yes world class or barely professional. I find this point below to be constructive in thinking about this challenge conceptually if we can just slightly open the can of worms. This suggests to me (perhaps incorrectly) that world class players are better all around rather than truly excellent in the same aspects as their real life counterpart. So hypothetically lets say Luka Modric is the best passer in FM (which we know includes attributes of passing, technique, flair, vision, composure etc) but because those skills are capped at 20 to get the target CA he needs points elsewhere rather than make him really stand out in his best attributes. So the effect I think is that Luka Modric is more well rounded in FM than he is in real life (not that he isn't good elsewhere but just in comparison). A thought I'm having as I type this out (so apologies of a half baked idea) is that players are created/modeled based on archetypes. What I mean by this is the archetype dictates the cost of CA for attributes either in addition or in place of the position familiarity. A deep lying playmaker would have an easier time adding to attributes that govern passing but finds it more difficult/expensive to add to certain physical attributes. Likewise an anchorman will find it easier to add CA to defensive attributes than more attacking attributes. As a side effect - this could help the AI train players more effectively since it would be able to view the archetype and want to focus training to a players strengths. I don't mean for everyone to be able to reach 20. The high CA cost for reaching world class should still exist. I do want to prevent a lot of world class players from becoming jacks of all trades to compensate for the lack of room at the top to differentiate their greatness. Its not to say that all around players can't or shouldn't exist either.

yes sorry i meant team. You're right.

This has been in existence forever. Stars are relative to your league.

I don't know that's why I was asking the head researcher if that's how the game views attributes or not under the hood. Well there's the range of top level professionals (say attributes 12-20) but there's not enough separation between levels of say a League One team or a Serie C team. Outside of physicals - which should not be bounded by the league - there is likely not enough of a difference in technical or mental attributes to really show the difference that truly exists. If we could view say Regionalliga data and below I'm curious what the bottom end of pace would look like even getting down into semi-pro leagues.

The separation of the top few to the squishy middle to the bottom few pretty much exists in all facets of life. That's why its easy to name a few of the best in anything but hard to rank once you get past the first 5 to 10 or so. the game is meant to be a simulation of real life. Assigning values according to real life wouldn't be arbitrary. SI doesn't have to give the exact formula for it to be transparent. The general concept that attributes follow a similar pattern to the graph when being interpreted by the match engine is sufficient . Functionally too, players aren't defined by one attribute, so its not like you'll break Mbappe by giving him a 19 instead of 20 in pace while keeping all else equal. Its that there should be a clear separation between world class abilities compared to players that exists even just below that tier.

There seems to be at the user level not enough separation between attributes to really show that the world class players are truly head and shoulders above your average top division players. To the user the difference between a 19 and 20 is only one "point" (or 10 using the 1-200 scale) but is that how the match engine interprets that? In other words is each step in attribute interpreted as a linear increase - such that for each tenth of a point in pace is an increase in running speed of .01 km/h? Using the research about pace from above, the difference between the fastest player and the 10th fastest player in the Bundesliga is .45 km/h. On average that's .05 km/h per rank. When we get to the bottom end of the scale the difference between the the 250th and 300th fastest player is also .45. However there's 50 players between those two ranks which means its on average a .009 increase per rank. Does the game reflect that the difference in pace per rank .05 km/h between the top player (Alphonso Davis) and the 10th ranked player (Jeremie Frimpong) is larger than the difference per rank .45 km/h between Frimpong and Kilian Fischer? If Davis is assigned a pace of 20 and Frimpong is assigned a pace of 19 is the gap between 20 and 19 reflective of this difference? Perhaps it is better to show this phenomenon graphically: Also note the decreasing at an increasing rate at the bottom end of the scale - slow players should be getting slower relative to the next jump in attribute. In other words someone assigned a pace of 1 there should be a huge difference between them and someone with a pace of 2. In my opinion all attributes should be reflective of this sort model.

Excellent points all around. Well said. SI face a real challenge threading the needle between the CPU "figures" out your tactics the moment you set them up and the current state. It'd be nice to see lower level managers struggle to make necessary changes or take much longer while the Pep's/Klopp's/Ancelotti's of the world are fairly adaptable without breaking their core principles. It'd make moving up the pyramid and managing a top team a real challenge.

Has nothing to do with beginning of the save. There is less of a problem if you are a lower level team because the players that are good enough are plentiful. If you're looking for a top player at a big club we've been told they must be interested in joining before they even get scouted. That leads to zero results in recruitment focuses. Worse than that is when you look in your scouted players pool no one shows up either. The game weirdly ignores your CA/PA filters when setting up a focus and decides who is good enough for you before being scouted. It would be a much better system if the game actually 1) used the filters you applied and 2) used the full scale of letter grades for recommendations. If a player isn't interested put it in the near matches with a lower grade. Player interest should only affect the recommendation, not that actual scouting process.

The OP reminds me a certain poster who I believe got banned around the time this account was opened. Would hate to see the mods look into it further...

Real clubs operate within the PSR now so the debt adds up and if you go recklessly spending in the game it will catch up to you fairly quickly. Its not hard to do in your first few years as a big club especially if you start paying in installments and don't work on negotiating the price down. Given there's not even a single screenshot of their spending and they've bought at least musiala and barella in the first two seasons its entirely possible they might be running afoul of PSR if they spend more.

Was reading the byline article today and had an idea/suggestion?/question? related to the blending of positional elements and overloads. Maybe someone here has done this with the current instructions. I'm not savvy enough to know how each TI/PI interacts with these sorts of roles. We know the great improvement this year was the intelligent movement of players to adapt their positions relative to other teammates. For me it was one of the biggest steps forward in the match engine in a long time. With it though, I think came the loss of truly being able to overload an area without some Frankenstein formations. It's still possible for sure but players tend to keep their distances at equal-ish intervals. What came to my mind was either a team or player instruction to dictate how much space you want between two/three/four(!) players that want to move into the same space. For instance the example they used had an AM-APs Mez-a and IFs on the right side. In my experience they'll all be someone equidistant across the AM strata. Notable the AMC APs will move into the AMCL slot more often than not. But suppose I wanted to really draw the opposition to that side to release the left sided winger or draw the LCB and RB more into that space to give the forward a diagonal pass in behind. I want those three to move together and combine and start drawing more defenders towards them rather than make it a series of 1v1s. I should note that as a personal preference I do not play asymmetric formations because the AI cannot and I think it causes some confusion in the ME. So sticking the AMC in the AMCR slot would not be an option for me.

Yes there should be some obvious exceptions. For example Madrid paid €70M for Endrick which is obviously much more than most Brazilian teens go for when they move to Europe. The game could do with some faster moving reputation for U18/U21 players in big youth tournaments. Playing well in those tournaments should give them a big, big boost in perceived CA/PA as well as reputation to attract larger fees than your standard youth player. It would also make that player less likely to join the smaller European clubs so it'd be much harder to wonderkid hunt. I do think there is something kind of wonky about the values this year in the sense of I've seen players I've sold go from being worth £100M to being worth £300M right after being sold. It'd be good to get some clarification on what causes that from SI. Is it just the perception or is the game trying to put a price on the player but also say "not for sale" unless you really pay up.

I wonder how much of this is the stature of the club you're playing as? There's always a big club tax for Man Utd or Real Madrid it seems in real life. It absolutely should. Players playing in the top leagues in the top teams should be worth more than players playing in lesser leagues even if their abilities are equal. Valuation shouldn't be directly tied to some number of how good players actually are and can actually do but rather how good the world perceives them to be and what they could potentially do. It should be reflective of pedigree otherwise the game is just telling you who the best player are without ever seeing a single attribute.

I'll try this approach next. I might be backing off too soon for fear of injury. Last question - for players coming back from summer tournaments, do you send them on holiday after or just integrate them back into the squad?

I try to bring the first team back in slowly with match fitness. So a lot of the early games are either squad or breakthrough players getting minutes with first team players coming off the bench at halftime or later. Whats typically your target for number of preseason games? I let the AssMan schedule them - I'm too lazy to do them myself. And I'm never sure if its too much and there's not enough training time or if its not enough game time and that's why I tend to get in trouble since only a handful of my starting XI are truly match fit by the time the league starts.

You don't have to watch the entire match - just long enough to see why after 30 minutes you've only got 1 shot. As you gain more experience, you'd be able to switch formation/instructions to something that you know generally works. It won't always. I recently had a match where I was getting carved open and found myself down 0-2 in the first 10 mins before adjusting my players PI's on who to mark and came back and won 3-2. I tried a similar approach in defensive positioning/marking against an opponent a few games later and was crushed 4-0. There's no one size fits all approach in the game. For better or worse it's not really a speedrun game like it was maybe 10-15+ years ago. Though depending on your view of the sliders and even further back to WIBWOB, this system could be considered much easier to set up and play and speed through seasons initially. However, teams do adapt to your form and will play much more cautiously if you're winning a lot of games. So really the best thing to do until you're able to spot the issues from comprehensive or extended highlights is to watch more of the match. Also make use of your opposition scouting. If you see they're likely to pack it in you'll be better prepared for making changes during the match or even before it. The shortcut to not watching the match in full is to go to the tactics and training site that was linked previously. There's some really excellent tactical instructors that can give you the feedback you think the AssMan should be telling you and ways to accomplish the alternative way through teams that pack it in. Think of it as if you were going to a UEFA coaching course. Coaches share ideas there all the time.

Thanks for the additional info. I've played concurrent saves with dave's increased injury mod and one without - obviously with increased injuries more severe injuries are possible but I'll try upping the intensity next preseason I have for both. In a 21 save I remember barely getting to/through September with enough players and had to tone training way down. That might have spooked me a bit with preseason intensity. Also, the last few years I've been playing as bigger teams than a decade or so ago due to work and children. I've been enamoured with youth players and giving them chance to show me their abilities. I should be more focused on getting my first team in shape minus one or two special youngsters that might actually break into the team at some point within that year.

Generally what's the best set up for preseason? As in what should I be aiming to achieve for each player? I find it hard to get everyone to match fitness by season start. There's either not enough games to get everyone to full fitness or too many that players can't recover in time. I also feel like the game doesn't represent a good mechanism for when the WC or Euro's take place. I try to replicate real life in giving players who went X number of weeks on holiday based on how far they went in the tournament and how much they played.

So player values are heavily influenced by the league they play in. A player on a Premier League team will be worth more than an equal player in South America. So when you sign a player into a higher reputation league the market value reflects that change instantly. Its not the best mechanism in practice as it does give away the player potential at times. It should be driven by demand imo. How the game generates demand and interest from AI clubs though seems to be a long standing challenge though. Off topic: I do think the best way forward with scouting is to change to the scout/coach perception of attributes rather than fixed/absolute number. If you scout an in form player their attributes/perceived CA should be higher than it is in reality. Likewise if a player is out of form their attributes should be lower than reality. And by reality I mean what the ME would use. I'd be fine if it were a toggle-able option at game start for those that are new or don't want to work that much at scouting. For me though one of the joys of the game is finding, buying, developing, and selling players. But I know which ones to sell and which ones to keep. It would be more dynamic if a player who is out of form starts seeing attributes decline and I think I need to find a replacement. Or a player who is in form, do I think this is their true growth potential or do I cash in while they're looking good?

psh my email inbox has 30k unread messages.

I'm not one of those people that can immediately diagnose but... First suggestion would be to watch the match in full. You might see you're losing the ball in similar patterns. Second suggestion would be to post your current tactic and the one the opposition is playing. If they're playing something like a 3-4-2-1/5-2-2-1 it'll be very compact in the middle. Its hard to say what exactly is going on with just summary statistics. Third suggestion is your players are complacent after such a winning run and need a reminder that effort is required to win. Or your team is just having a bad day at the office. Its bound to happen during a season. Man City drew Crystal Palace at home. Nothing to do but move on to the next game. Don't go chopping and changing a tactic that has produced excellent results otherwise Fourth suggestion is because of your winning run teams are sitting deeper against you and content to let you have the ball out wide/in your own half. It doesn't appear like you've set your team on the typical high intensity gegenpress but you might want to allow the opposing team some space in order to create opportunities in behind. Fifth suggestion is if you're really frustrated, take a break from the game. Come back with some fresh ideas and attitude so you can look at what's happening without the frustration. I do this pretty regularly.