I stated in a post that jadedness doesn't matter much, but match sharpness is crucial.
I feel like this topic deserves it's own thread and I've done some original research for it. And I think that in a way it's one of the last remaining actual challenges of the game to make it fun. If you don't use gegenpress tactic or pick/train high pace/acc then you lose a lot, simple as that. But even if you work out the mechanics of fitness management as I am trying to do, it remains a challenging and rewarding aspect of the game. In fact, just knowing how much it effects win rate to me brings back some significant enjoyment to the game.
My overall impression is that counter-intuitively to my mind, it's better to sacrifice condition for match sharpness. Maybe this is why the AI often/always plays players with 87% condition without any rotation. It's because low match sharp players suck in terms of performance, low condition not so much (injury risk is bigger downside here). The other thing about it is that you can deal pretty easily with the problems of low condition - rotate them, pick low injury proneness players, rest them. Match fitness is much trickier, there is only one modest offset for it (natural fitness), it also has a high injury downside, you have to pay the price of lower performance to get their match fitness up if you neglect it, and as I'll show below even friendlies have a limit to recovering match fitness so there's no get out of jail free card really.
I've taken this graph from EBFM's video on match sharpness. What it's telling you is that the difference between 90% and 100% match sharpness is 33% difference in win rate.
For comparison, the difference of pace/acc 10 > 18 is 23.5% win rate according to HarvestGreen22.
To boot, match sharpness significantly impacts injury rate, even at 90%:
So how do we optimize for 100% match fitness of all players every match? And also, how to handle condition in concert with match fitness? There's a lot of variables to consider, it's fascinating to contemplate, but I will try and lay things out in the most straightforward way:
Starting at 100% condition, 90 minutes will reduce to 75% condition (typically).
Condition & match fitness update at midnight (00:00), starting the midnight that may be just a few hours after the match.
It takes 10 days for full recovery to 100% condition.
In FM24, Man City (English Premier League) has the following schedule in a save I looked at:
67 games (excluding national games):
38 league 13 cup 16 continental
Total recovery days between matches:
53 x 7 days 4 x 3 days 5 x 2 days 1 x 16 days 2 x 13 days 1 x 11 days 1 x 9 days
So there are 9 matches where condition recovery will be insufficient, and another 53 which would be sub-optimal. With a weaker team with a less filled up schedule, such as Burnley, I found it could be as low as 6 + 35. In both cases, we would conclude a player should be ideally be rested every 2nd match.
But before we continue, let's look at the other half of the picture, match fitness:
after 3 weeks, match fitness dropped to 98% (recoverable in 1 game) (20 nat) after 4 weeks, match fitness dropped to 94% (20 nat)
after 6 days, match fitness dropped by 1% (10-12 nat) after 8 days, match fitness dropped by 2% (10 nat only) after 9 days, match fitness dropped by 3% (10 nat only) after 11 days, match fitness dropped by 4% (10 nat only) after 12 days, match fitness dropped by 5% (10 nat only) after 13 days, match fitness dropped by 6% (10 nat only) after 14 days, match fitness dropped by 7% (10 nat only) after 15 days, match fitness dropped by 8% (10 nat only) (99% > 91%) after 18 days, match fitness dropped by 11% (10 nat only) after 21 days, match fitness dropped by 15% (10 nat only) after 4 weeks, match fitness dropped by 22% (10 nat only) (99% > 77%)
Friendlies gain match fitness at 55% rate of competitive. As you can see, this is adequate for when the player has low match fitness, but once it hits around ~90% you run into the following complication: You can't have a friendly the day straight after the last one, so you are likely giving at least 2 days rest, yet only gaining 1% match fitness with the friendly.. so potentially you are losing 1% match fitness to later gain 1% match fitness. Hence, at 90%+ match fitness, competitive matches for gaining are recommended, and that means you have to consistently give players playing time - you'll note that the decay rate increases as a player becomes less match fit. Edit: On reflection and doing some testing, this part about friendlies hitting diminishing returns is in error. Unfortunately, I may have to re-evaluate certain conclusions I've drawn based on this presumption, which I'll revisit tomorrow.
If you do the math with the league schedule previously mentioned:
10 nat player needs to play every 8 days 12 nat player needs to play every 11 days (2 in 3 matches) 20 nat player needs to play every 21 days (1 in 3 matches)
So while for condition, a player should ideally play no more frequently than 1 in 2 matches, for match sharpness, a player typically needs to play either every match or 2 in 3 matches in most cases.
I accidentally pressed submit on this thread, so I will add more detail and my theory on squad composition in a followup post soon.
So I have concluded so far that for condition, playing 1 in 2 matches is ideal. For match sharpness, typically 2 in 3 matches is ideal, with natural fitness allowing some variation to this. But notably some players will even need weekly matches just to keep up and avoid exponential match fitness decay. I had a look at the availability of 12+ natural fitness in genie scout amongst players, and its fairly common, so I would say try to get players of 12+ natural fitness if you can, as 10 or less is quite unforgiving.
Now, the implications for squad composition. If you think about it, this is really something that hasn't been examined at all, in spite of how consequential we all know it to be - that ill-fated tendency of us to bloat our squads; what even is the actual optimal number of players for a first team squad?
In my view, the number is 20 outfield + 2 goalkeepers + the occasional promotion from reserve/youth squad or loan to cover an injury.
9 matches need sub replacements (10 x 9) 17/53 matches permit sub replacements (6 x 17) 26/53 matches permit sub replacements for high Nat players (4 x 26)
4 developing players (AML/AMR/DL/DR) get 35 matches 6 players (2 ST, 2 DM, 2 DC) get 26 matches
Remember that 25-30 matches/season is the ideal for player development. The reason why the wonderkids should typically be wingers not centre backs or strikers I would reason is that you don't want to interrupt your ST's bucketload of goals and young players aren't usually developed enough to fill the shoes of a proper DC, but also that wingers seem to tire fast and only have 1 of each position instead of 2 on the pitch.
It is definitely adjustable to some extent according to personal preference. Basically, for each wonderkid you add, make one of your starters a high Nat player so they can handle the reduced playing time.
Some extra info:
My figures are based on using the optimal HarvestGreen22 training regime, using rest not recovery. So it is safe to combine this info with those training regimes.
Stamina does NOT effect condition recovery post-match. It only affects condition usage during the match itself.
Having a physio reduces match sharpness decay significantly, but it doesn't matter how good the physio is or how many extra you have - you just need one for the benefit.
50% match sharpness or 1 natural fitness recovers condition to 66% vs 68% for 100% sharpness. 20 natural fitness recovers condition to 74%. I mention these select figures to illustrate that natural fitness is kind of important to condition recovery, and match sharpness less so, but overall condition recovery is pretty stable and predictable regardless of the player.
There is a way to kind of exploit match sharpness gain:
friendlies:
~10 minutes for 100 (1%) match sharpness gain ~25 minutes for 200 (2%) match sharpness gain ~43 minutes for 300 (3%) match sharpness gain ~60 minutes for 400 (4%) match sharpness gain ~78 minutes for 500 (5% - max) match sharpness gain
So if you want to play absolutely optimally, you could sub a player at 78 minutes in friendlies to maximize match fitness. And throwing a player on for 10 minutes gives the most efficient match sharpness boost, while you'd know not to do 7 minutes as it gives them nothing.
For competitive as I mentioned before, it's 9% max instead of 5% max. However, EBFM did find that sometimes players would inexplicably get 10-11% max for a reason he could not identify, but I would just treat this as a kind of bonus.
9% match sharpness gain per 90min competitive match @ 50-65% sharpness 8% match sharpness gain per 90min competitive match @ 70% sharpness 6% match sharpness gain per 90min competitive match @ 80% sharpness 2% match sharpness gain per 90min competitive match @ 90% sharpness
Comaring training regimes after 19 days with 4 friendlies
Man City default:
Before final match - condition 83-91%, match sharp 91-95% After final match - condition 69-80%, match sharp 96-100%
Pure rest:
Before final match - condition 84-91%, match sharp 66-80% After final match - condition 67-81%, match sharp 72-86%
Quick + Attack + Match Practice + Quick focus + double intensity:
Before final match - condition 84-92%, match sharp 85-92% After final match - condition 71-81%, 93-96%
So HarvestGreen22 training is slightly better for condition, but a little lacking in match sharpness. However this may be about the right balance, as this was still before end of pre-season. Pure rest training is clearly problematic.
Training & rotation is something that has to be micromanaged as you go along, but here I've kept the same starting starting 11 for about 2 months in (5 friendlies + 6 competitive) and on the HarvestGreen22 training regime:
Before final match - condition 96-100%, match sharp 96-99% (all but one are 99%) After final match - condition 69-83%, match sharp 100%
So it happens to be well suited to fitness management to begin with. But if you were to try to keep your subs & backups at 95%+ match fitness, that would no doubt change things. So I did a full rotation (using only 7 subs though) every match:
Before final match - condition 95-100%, match sharp 79-99% After final match - condition 73-99%, match sharp 83-100%
Those figures include all the subs. 11 players had 100% match sharpness after the final match. So overall, it's not bad, but definitely needs more match sharpness for subs.
Now going by Piperita's clarification on the best HarvestGreen22 training regimes, and taking into account match sharpness, the top ranked one still overall looks viable: Quick + Match Practice + Attackx2 + Double Intensity + Quick focus. Since injuries are an enemy of match sharpness, I won't change the middle condition to double intensity, but just try and manage the players better. Additionally I've promoted more players to the first team squad, to make it 18 outfield + 2 GK, and added some more pre-season friendlies.
Results:
Before final match - condition 95-100%, match sharp 62-100% After final match - condition 69-100%, match sharp 78-100%
My observation here is that there were a significantly greater number of injuries, which led to low match fitness in a number of players throughout. Resting from training was also more frequent. You probably want just enough match sharpness so that low condition doesn't result in missed training days, which means either using a lighter training regime, or not scheduling too many friendlies.
I decided to have another go, cancelling the default friendlies and not adding too many. Because why not try and see if one can hold onto the optimal training regime.
Results:
Before final match - condition 96-100%, match sharp 89-100% After final match - condition 67-100%, match sharp 92-100%
So if you manage things right, it does work pretty well. I used just 4 pre-season friendlies here. I'm sure with some minor adjustments, you could get maintain match fitness of all players at 95%+ without having to field any low match fit players in competitive games (a handful of the backup/sub players could be played in u23 matches for the first month after pre-season to get them to 95%+).
tl;dr Use Quick + Match Practice + Attackx2 + Double Intensity + Quick focus (Agility for GK) training regime every week, even on congested schedules. 'No pitch or gym work' for first 3 condition icons. Don't do too many pre-season friendlies, it's counter-productive, 4 or 5 might be best. Full rest training lowers match sharpness far too much, but you don't need to change rest to recovery sessions or increase intensity at lower condition.
Interesting regarding friendlies in pre-season. On older versions I cluttered the schedule with as many pre-season friendlies as possible to get tactical familiarity as high as possible before the season started... Which this site and EBFM-videos has shown me to be useless...
Interesting regarding friendlies in pre-season. On older versions I cluttered the schedule with as many pre-season friendlies as possible to get tactical familiarity as high as possible before the season started... Which this site and EBFM-videos has shown me to be useless... Expand I'm glad someone noticed, as I know my posts in this thread were particularly painful to try and skim read. I think I need to redo a summary of all this at some point.
I can add a piece of extra info that I know now. It seems to me that the 'running start' morale impact of pre-season friendly wins have a substantial impact on the chance of winning the competitive season. In other words, it seems best to schedule friendlies against the weakest teams possible, and have enough of them to get your morale up to perfect ideally (balanced against fitness considerations). I suppose it's best to only do home games (win chance boost+pitch control), or otherwise at least pick teams that have stadiums with perfect pitches to minimize injuries. I think two other implications here is not to worry about overconfidence from winning the pre-season friendlies, and fill up any mid-season gaps with a friendly against a weak team.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I'm glad someone noticed, as I know my posts in this thread were particularly painful to try and skim read. I think I need to redo a summary of all this at some point.
I can add a piece of extra info that I know now. It seems to me that the 'running start' morale impact of pre-season friendly wins have a substantial impact on the chance of winning the competitive season. In other words, it seems best to schedule friendlies against the weakest teams possible, and have enough of them to get your morale up to perfect ideally (balanced against fitness considerations). I suppose it's best to only do home games (win chance boost+pitch control), or otherwise at least pick teams that have stadiums with perfect pitches to minimize injuries. I think two other implications here is not to worry about overconfidence from winning the pre-season friendlies, and fill up any mid-season gaps with a friendly against a weak team. Expand
By coincidence I have been doing that throughout my years of FM. Often cancelling already preset friendlies by assistant manager when starting a new save, just to squeeze that extra moral boost.
I have however never looked at the pitch quality when selecting an opponent. Do you think there is a real correlation there?
Just change the name bro, with all the great work you do in the FM community, why do you have to continue keeping a name that is so dumb.
Firstly, it reduces your credibility because the claim has been proven false , so it cuts against the "fact finding" factor that all brought us here to this site. (1)
Secondly, its politically charged nonsense that the most divisive people online say, it'd be like me rocking a "Hitler was cool" name and expecting everyone to just ignore that and enjoy my FM discoveries and data.
Sources proving his cause of death was by police restraint and neck compression leading to cardiopulmonary arrest.
If you want I can have a debate about this topic in messages here, or on discord. It is your personal choice to keep the name if you please, it will be my personal choice to send you this message until you give good reason to keep the name or the moderators ban me. Please be a human.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I'm glad someone noticed, as I know my posts in this thread were particularly painful to try and skim read. I think I need to redo a summary of all this at some point.
I can add a piece of extra info that I know now. It seems to me that the 'running start' morale impact of pre-season friendly wins have a substantial impact on the chance of winning the competitive season. In other words, it seems best to schedule friendlies against the weakest teams possible, and have enough of them to get your morale up to perfect ideally (balanced against fitness considerations). I suppose it's best to only do home games (win chance boost+pitch control), or otherwise at least pick teams that have stadiums with perfect pitches to minimize injuries. I think two other implications here is not to worry about overconfidence from winning the pre-season friendlies, and fill up any mid-season gaps with a friendly against a weak team. Expand
TLDR for my comment above
The issue is not just that the username is provocative. It is that it makes the community look less serious, less evidence-driven, and more tolerant of political bait. Keeping the name creates friction for everyone else, while changing it costs almost nothing and preserves the person’s actual FM contributions.
( edited 4 days, 13 hours ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#10
Link to the post:
Cptbull said: By coincidence I have been doing that throughout my years of FM. Often cancelling already preset friendlies by assistant manager when starting a new save, just to squeeze that extra moral boost.
I have however never looked at the pitch quality when selecting an opponent. Do you think there is a real correlation there? Expand I was going to say that I've never tested it, but that pitch quality is supposed to have some minor effect on injury risk.
But I asked chatgpt for an SI staff source, and it said that pitch quality doesn't effect injuries. So perhaps I'm mistaken on this one. Closest I could get is that pitch condition affects the match engine.
The issue is not just that the username is provocative. It is that it makes the community look less serious, less evidence-driven, and more tolerant of political bait. Keeping the name creates friction for everyone else, while changing it costs almost nothing and preserves the person’s actual FM contributions. Expand What do I want to say here..
Let's start with what is most pertinent to FM and players of the game.
A few years ago, I donned my sunday best and presented facts about the game on the SI forums in a neutral manner under a bland username. I was pointing out how 'game importance' and 'youth facilities' don't actually effect newgen PA. This was when no one else had discovered this, or at least weren't pointing it out.
The response I got was the same response still being meted out today, which is to be drowned out by mods making 70% of the replies saying you can't say 2+2=4 unless you have a PhD in mathematics, that you need to send your workings to them privately for verification before you can reply to them or others, and that the thread is now closed for the divisiveness and ill-will your claims have engendered and for the sheer arrogance of ignoring the moderators by failing to reply to them.
I preferred your first post rather than the AI slop you replaced it with, but nonetheless I will contend with the heart of what you say. You claim essentially that the content pertaining to FM here would be diluted, perhaps even eviscerated, by the encroachment of politics and no doubt other forms of generalized discussion.
1) I think the quality of the content on this forum is doing just fine, don't you? Certainly a hell of a lot better than what we see on the much larger SI forums that follow the framework for discussion you advocate for. You will always end up with endless posts of 'so what's the best one to use?' and people who want to quibble about usernames and whatnot. I think if you delete all this and turn it into a kind of academic journal, it would flounder, and so I'm glad this place is the way it is right now.
2) FM is inherently political, and therefore some discussion of politics is warranted even if you believe that discussion should be strictly relevant to the game itself. Remember when Brexit got added as a compulsory and frustrating element of the game before Brexit even happened in real life, because Miles wanted to inflict some kind of collective punishment for his fellow countrymen voting for it? What about when he added coming out as homosexual as in-game event? What about when he removed the capital of Israel from the game because he is a radical leftist? What about when FM had 'nation attribute templates' where black people were typecast as stupid and violent, and the response was to deny its existence while quietly doing away with regional variety altogether. And now we have of course the whole women's football thing. Once you go down the path of censoring references to politics, even if there's a fair case to be made for it, you'll find yourself inescapably shutting down discussion on whole swathes of the game, and inevitably it descends from preventing the 'off-topic' and 'hatred' to removing the 'unconstructive' or 'provocative', as one sees now to a comic extent in the 'official FM26 feedback' thread.
I'll try to respond in sequence, and sorry for the wall of nothing, I was overthinking what kind of message would resonate and just ended up copping out, I apologize for that.
Of course, it's your experience and your interpretation of why your works and contributions seemed to get drowned out. I don't think its strictly because of a benign username or the manner you present that information that gives you any authority or respect on these subjects. I think anyone that scrolls these forums for 5 minutes will realize you do add immense value to this community and maybe the shift you experienced was a culture shift in how forums operate here, but also people recognizing your hard work and what you told people was leading to better outcomes in how they tested and played. This cuts against my point that the username matters, but I just want to be honest.
1) I do think the quality of content here is very solid, its understandable for even the guy who plays this game a few hours a week, and that's where I agree with your point of if this was more of a formal site it wouldn't thrive. It has its place, and its a great place for more uses than just asking questions that 90% of people here know the answer to.
2) I don't think I'll be the last one who asks about your username and I still stand by the idea you should abandon it, simply because it doesn't represent truth in the way we can both access it.
I appreciate the examples you give and its not my intention to remove politics from places I deem they don't belong, there's a harsh debate that people can have about if claims or statements of fact that are unpopular should be platformed, regardless of harm. My conflict is that this community is a haven for exactly what you said, unfortunate truths of how the game we want to love so much is filled with flaws and cannot be enjoyed the way you used to once that is figured out. Here's the conflict, we ran tests to find out what was true about this game. We understand this game is flawed as shit, pace abusing and strikerless tactics are how you win, and it sucks and most of us have stomached that. We found out something that sucked at expense of truth, so isn't truth the most important thing? That's why when I see your username in a place that values truth above comfort, they are values going in literally opposite directions. The history of this claim that George Floyd overdosed was so hate mongering racists would have a stronger reason to go against the BLM movement. Have your opinions on how that movement panned out and the actual motives behind it (I will probably agree with you), but you cannot tell me with all available evidence, your username leads us closer to the truth, than to a comfort statement. I understand the concept of your username, there are truth statements people need to investigate, no matter how badly it makes me or anyone observing it feel. At the end though, the truth should overcome that comfort. That's why if someone asks me "hey bro how do I get better at FM", I don't tell them to to run a formation that fits your players, or to train weak foots and create balanced players in training. I would expect the same with how you represent yourself, if your username represents a fundamental mistruth, that is for comfort.
TheBucket said: I'll try to respond in sequence, and sorry for the wall of nothing, I was overthinking what kind of message would resonate and just ended up copping out, I apologize for that.
Of course, it's your experience and your interpretation of why your works and contributions seemed to get drowned out. I don't think its strictly because of a benign username or the manner you present that information that gives you any authority or respect on these subjects. I think anyone that scrolls these forums for 5 minutes will realize you do add immense value to this community and maybe the shift you experienced was a culture shift in how forums operate here, but also people recognizing your hard work and what you told people was leading to better outcomes in how they tested and played. This cuts against my point that the username matters, but I just want to be honest.
1) I do think the quality of content here is very solid, its understandable for even the guy who plays this game a few hours a week, and that's where I agree with your point of if this was more of a formal site it wouldn't thrive. It has its place, and its a great place for more uses than just asking questions that 90% of people here know the answer to.
2) I don't think I'll be the last one who asks about your username and I still stand by the idea you should abandon it, simply because it doesn't represent truth in the way we can both access it.
I appreciate the examples you give and its not my intention to remove politics from places I deem they don't belong, there's a harsh debate that people can have about if claims or statements of fact that are unpopular should be platformed, regardless of harm. My conflict is that this community is a haven for exactly what you said, unfortunate truths of how the game we want to love so much is filled with flaws and cannot be enjoyed the way you used to once that is figured out. Here's the conflict, we ran tests to find out what was true about this game. We understand this game is flawed as shit, pace abusing and strikerless tactics are how you win, and it sucks and most of us have stomached that. We found out something that sucked at expense of truth, so isn't truth the most important thing? That's why when I see your username in a place that values truth above comfort, they are values going in literally opposite directions. The history of this claim that George Floyd overdosed was so hate mongering racists would have a stronger reason to go against the BLM movement. Have your opinions on how that movement panned out and the actual motives behind you (I will probably agree with you), but you cannot tell me with all available evidence, your username leads us closer to the truth, than to a comfort statement. I understand the concept of your username, there are truth statements people need to investigate, no matter how badly it makes me or anyone observing it feel. At the end though, the truth should overcome that comfort. That's why if someone asks me "hey bro how do I get better at FM", I don't tell them to to run a formation that fits your players, or to train weak foots and create balanced players in training. I would expect the same with how you represent yourself, if your username represents a fundamental mistruth, that is for comfort. Expand A man drinks 3 beers and then drives home. He ends up misjudging a turn in the darkness and dies by crashing into a tree. What killed him? The alcohol? 'Blunt trauma'? Noncompliance with the road rules? The tree? What if the government planted that tree there, in a way that constituted gross negligance? If it is the alcohol, does his death make the 3 beers constitute an 'overdose' for him?
Personally I think what 'killed' Mr. Floyd is in the realm of uncertainty. But it was striking to me how in this case where one could nonetheless normally say something like 'I reckon he was drunk', you were condemned as a heretic in past ages would be for questioning the narrative that a knee is what killed him.
Perhaps what inspired me to use the phrase specifically is the analogous nature to how I was treated on the SI forums. You claim something about an uncertain matter, in this case the game's mechanics, and you get harassed by zealots who want to exercise power over you. You see how 'Hitler 2.0' or 'F_U_Miles' just wouldn't capture quite the same intimations.
So that is the meaning behind it, but the practical use of it is obviously that it also prevents direct attribution of my findings by SI sycophants who want to have their cake and eat it too. To me it is amusing to see the debate play out when it does of if my data can even be mentioned given my username, and it also drives something of a wedge then therefore between following SI's orders and making sense of the game. Of course what can be done about this is to simply take the data and strip my name from it. I've made no effort to 'gate' anything, and although I personally do think I have made some substantial findings of my own, EBFM and HarvestGreen have largely captured the limelight and lion's share of the $0 prize pool with their more thorough and extensive findings in their respective areas of investigation. Overall I figure that aside from mere temporary satisfaction of vanity, an upside of posting info is that the mere dissemination of it will hasten SI's demise even if it is not attributed to me.
Now vanity and retribution and amusement may not sound akin to the goal of truth to you, no doubt, but I think you are being a bit too grave about this matter. This does, after all, concern a video game. On a deeper level, I simply just enjoy uncovering the game mechanics, because the game itself became quite boring and tedious for me a few years ago. Sharing discoveries requires different motivations from that. You are driven by your own distinct values and motivations to certain goals, seemingly community through a shared virtue of truth (or is it the other way around?), and I don't object to that per se, except to say that that's not what I'm here for.. or perhaps more accurately, I do not have it as my narrow focus that overrides everything else. That is not to say I am right and you are wrong, an analogy I can come up with of this is that you strongly feel eating should be aligned with bodily health and you do not think I should have my display picture as a delicious cake while giving out effective diet tips. You can imagine this cause celibre playing out on a weight loss forum.
The issue is not just that the username is provocative. It is that it makes the community look less serious, less evidence-driven, and more tolerant of political bait. Keeping the name creates friction for everyone else, while changing it costs almost nothing and preserves the person’s actual FM contributions. Expand
The name is fine. If you want to believe a media fiction that’s also fine. It would be best for everyone else if you drop the issue.
MeanOnSunday said: The name is fine. If you want to believe a media fiction that’s also fine. It would be best for everyone else if you drop the issue. Expand
If the name is "fine", then asking the user to justify his intention behind the name is fine. Obviously. He helped me understand his position, I point out where I disagree, there are points where we do agree. I'm not the first person to bring up an issue with the name, I surely won't be the last person. I don't think you speak for everyone else, try to be more productive next time you join a conversation.
TheBucket said: If the name is "fine", then asking the user to justify his intention behind the name is fine. Obviously. He helped me understand his position, I point out where I disagree, there are points where we do agree. I'm not the first person to bring up an issue with the name, I surely won't be the last person. I don't think you speak for everyone else, try to be more productive next time you join a conversation. Expand
I’m sure you were very productive given the topic of this forum.
MeanOnSunday said: I’m sure you were very productive given the topic of this forum. Expand
If you were interested in the topic you would have added something of value to it. Nothing of value was added when you demanded something of me that already happened.
I've raised criticisms of substance and he reciprocated with a response that I felt clarified the issue. Why do you lot want so badly to feel involved but yet provide nothing. You attempt to dismiss me when you aren't even the person I needed clarity from.
MeanOnSunday said: It would be best for everyone else if you drop the issue. Expand
I sure would love to mate but I got some strange people that want a reply from me.
I stated in a post that jadedness doesn't matter much, but match sharpness is crucial.
I feel like this topic deserves it's own thread and I've done some original research for it. And I think that in a way it's one of the last remaining actual challenges of the game to make it fun. If you don't use gegenpress tactic or pick/train high pace/acc then you lose a lot, simple as that. But even if you work out the mechanics of fitness management as I am trying to do, it remains a challenging and rewarding aspect of the game. In fact, just knowing how much it effects win rate to me brings back some significant enjoyment to the game.
My overall impression is that counter-intuitively to my mind, it's better to sacrifice condition for match sharpness. Maybe this is why the AI often/always plays players with 87% condition without any rotation. It's because low match sharp players suck in terms of performance, low condition not so much (injury risk is bigger downside here). The other thing about it is that you can deal pretty easily with the problems of low condition - rotate them, pick low injury proneness players, rest them. Match fitness is much trickier, there is only one modest offset for it (natural fitness), it also has a high injury downside, you have to pay the price of lower performance to get their match fitness up if you neglect it, and as I'll show below even friendlies have a limit to recovering match fitness so there's no get out of jail free card really.
I've taken this graph from EBFM's video on match sharpness. What it's telling you is that the difference between 90% and 100% match sharpness is 33% difference in win rate.
For comparison, the difference of pace/acc 10 > 18 is 23.5% win rate according to HarvestGreen22.
To boot, match sharpness significantly impacts injury rate, even at 90%:
So how do we optimize for 100% match fitness of all players every match? And also, how to handle condition in concert with match fitness? There's a lot of variables to consider, it's fascinating to contemplate, but I will try and lay things out in the most straightforward way:
Starting at 100% condition, 90 minutes will reduce to 75% condition (typically).
Condition & match fitness update at midnight (00:00), starting the midnight that may be just a few hours after the match.
It takes 10 days for full recovery to 100% condition.
75% (day 1 - 16:00) > 83% (day 2 - 00:00) > 90% (day 3 - 00:00) > 93% (day 4) > 95% (day 5) > 96% (day 6) > 97% (day 7) > 98% (day 8) > 99% (day 9) > 100% (day 10)
In FM24, Man City (English Premier League) has the following schedule in a save I looked at:
67 games (excluding national games):
38 league
13 cup
16 continental
Total recovery days between matches:
53 x 7 days
4 x 3 days
5 x 2 days
1 x 16 days
2 x 13 days
1 x 11 days
1 x 9 days
So there are 9 matches where condition recovery will be insufficient, and another 53 which would be sub-optimal. With a weaker team with a less filled up schedule, such as Burnley, I found it could be as low as 6 + 35. In both cases, we would conclude a player should be ideally be rested every 2nd match.
But before we continue, let's look at the other half of the picture, match fitness:
after 3 weeks, match fitness dropped to 98% (recoverable in 1 game) (20 nat)
after 4 weeks, match fitness dropped to 94% (20 nat)
after 6 days, match fitness dropped by 1% (10-12 nat)
after 8 days, match fitness dropped by 2% (10 nat only)
after 9 days, match fitness dropped by 3% (10 nat only)
after 11 days, match fitness dropped by 4% (10 nat only)
after 12 days, match fitness dropped by 5% (10 nat only)
after 13 days, match fitness dropped by 6% (10 nat only)
after 14 days, match fitness dropped by 7% (10 nat only)
after 15 days, match fitness dropped by 8% (10 nat only) (99% > 91%)
after 18 days, match fitness dropped by 11% (10 nat only)
after 21 days, match fitness dropped by 15% (10 nat only)
after 4 weeks, match fitness dropped by 22% (10 nat only) (99% > 77%)
The gain rates are:
76% > 88% (1st friendly)
88% > 90% (2nd subsequent friendly)
90% > 91% (3rd subsequent friendly)
91% > 93% (subsequent competitive match)
Friendlies gain match fitness at 55% rate of competitive. As you can see, this is adequate for when the player has low match fitness, but once it hits around ~90% you run into the following complication: You can't have a friendly the day straight after the last one, so you are likely giving at least 2 days rest, yet only gaining 1% match fitness with the friendly.. so potentially you are losing 1% match fitness to later gain 1% match fitness. Hence, at 90%+ match fitness, competitive matches for gaining are recommended, and that means you have to consistently give players playing time - you'll note that the decay rate increases as a player becomes less match fit. Edit: On reflection and doing some testing, this part about friendlies hitting diminishing returns is in error. Unfortunately, I may have to re-evaluate certain conclusions I've drawn based on this presumption, which I'll revisit tomorrow.
If you do the math with the league schedule previously mentioned:
10 nat player needs to play every 8 days
12 nat player needs to play every 11 days (2 in 3 matches)
20 nat player needs to play every 21 days (1 in 3 matches)
So while for condition, a player should ideally play no more frequently than 1 in 2 matches, for match sharpness, a player typically needs to play either every match or 2 in 3 matches in most cases.
I accidentally pressed submit on this thread, so I will add more detail and my theory on squad composition in a followup post soon.
So I have concluded so far that for condition, playing 1 in 2 matches is ideal. For match sharpness, typically 2 in 3 matches is ideal, with natural fitness allowing some variation to this. But notably some players will even need weekly matches just to keep up and avoid exponential match fitness decay. I had a look at the availability of 12+ natural fitness in genie scout amongst players, and its fairly common, so I would say try to get players of 12+ natural fitness if you can, as 10 or less is quite unforgiving.
Now, the implications for squad composition. If you think about it, this is really something that hasn't been examined at all, in spite of how consequential we all know it to be - that ill-fated tendency of us to bloat our squads; what even is the actual optimal number of players for a first team squad?
In my view, the number is 20 outfield + 2 goalkeepers + the occasional promotion from reserve/youth squad or loan to cover an injury.
9 matches need sub replacements (10 x 9)
17/53 matches permit sub replacements (6 x 17)
26/53 matches permit sub replacements for high Nat players (4 x 26)
4 developing players (AML/AMR/DL/DR) get 35 matches
6 players (2 ST, 2 DM, 2 DC) get 26 matches
Remember that 25-30 matches/season is the ideal for player development. The reason why the wonderkids should typically be wingers not centre backs or strikers I would reason is that you don't want to interrupt your ST's bucketload of goals and young players aren't usually developed enough to fill the shoes of a proper DC, but also that wingers seem to tire fast and only have 1 of each position instead of 2 on the pitch.
It is definitely adjustable to some extent according to personal preference. Basically, for each wonderkid you add, make one of your starters a high Nat player so they can handle the reduced playing time.
Some extra info:
My figures are based on using the optimal HarvestGreen22 training regime, using rest not recovery. So it is safe to combine this info with those training regimes.
Stamina does NOT effect condition recovery post-match. It only affects condition usage during the match itself.
Having a physio reduces match sharpness decay significantly, but it doesn't matter how good the physio is or how many extra you have - you just need one for the benefit.
50% match sharpness or 1 natural fitness recovers condition to 66% vs 68% for 100% sharpness. 20 natural fitness recovers condition to 74%. I mention these select figures to illustrate that natural fitness is kind of important to condition recovery, and match sharpness less so, but overall condition recovery is pretty stable and predictable regardless of the player.
There is a way to kind of exploit match sharpness gain:
friendlies:
~10 minutes for 100 (1%) match sharpness gain
~25 minutes for 200 (2%) match sharpness gain
~43 minutes for 300 (3%) match sharpness gain
~60 minutes for 400 (4%) match sharpness gain
~78 minutes for 500 (5% - max) match sharpness gain
Source: EBFM
So if you want to play absolutely optimally, you could sub a player at 78 minutes in friendlies to maximize match fitness. And throwing a player on for 10 minutes gives the most efficient match sharpness boost, while you'd know not to do 7 minutes as it gives them nothing.
For competitive as I mentioned before, it's 9% max instead of 5% max. However, EBFM did find that sometimes players would inexplicably get 10-11% max for a reason he could not identify, but I would just treat this as a kind of bonus.
9% match sharpness gain per 90min competitive match @ 50-65% sharpness
8% match sharpness gain per 90min competitive match @ 70% sharpness
6% match sharpness gain per 90min competitive match @ 80% sharpness
2% match sharpness gain per 90min competitive match @ 90% sharpness
Puts a spanner in the works for "full rest" training
Thanks for your research GeorgeFloydOverdosed
Comaring training regimes after 19 days with 4 friendlies
Man City default:
Before final match - condition 83-91%, match sharp 91-95%
After final match - condition 69-80%, match sharp 96-100%
Pure rest:
Before final match - condition 84-91%, match sharp 66-80%
After final match - condition 67-81%, match sharp 72-86%
Quick + Attack + Match Practice + Quick focus + double intensity:
Before final match - condition 84-92%, match sharp 85-92%
After final match - condition 71-81%, 93-96%
So HarvestGreen22 training is slightly better for condition, but a little lacking in match sharpness. However this may be about the right balance, as this was still before end of pre-season. Pure rest training is clearly problematic.
Training & rotation is something that has to be micromanaged as you go along, but here I've kept the same starting starting 11 for about 2 months in (5 friendlies + 6 competitive) and on the HarvestGreen22 training regime:
Before final match - condition 96-100%, match sharp 96-99% (all but one are 99%)
After final match - condition 69-83%, match sharp 100%
So it happens to be well suited to fitness management to begin with. But if you were to try to keep your subs & backups at 95%+ match fitness, that would no doubt change things. So I did a full rotation (using only 7 subs though) every match:
Before final match - condition 95-100%, match sharp 79-99%
After final match - condition 73-99%, match sharp 83-100%
Those figures include all the subs. 11 players had 100% match sharpness after the final match. So overall, it's not bad, but definitely needs more match sharpness for subs.
Now going by Piperita's clarification on the best HarvestGreen22 training regimes, and taking into account match sharpness, the top ranked one still overall looks viable: Quick + Match Practice + Attackx2 + Double Intensity + Quick focus. Since injuries are an enemy of match sharpness, I won't change the middle condition to double intensity, but just try and manage the players better. Additionally I've promoted more players to the first team squad, to make it 18 outfield + 2 GK, and added some more pre-season friendlies.
Results:
Before final match - condition 95-100%, match sharp 62-100%
After final match - condition 69-100%, match sharp 78-100%
My observation here is that there were a significantly greater number of injuries, which led to low match fitness in a number of players throughout. Resting from training was also more frequent. You probably want just enough match sharpness so that low condition doesn't result in missed training days, which means either using a lighter training regime, or not scheduling too many friendlies.
I decided to have another go, cancelling the default friendlies and not adding too many. Because why not try and see if one can hold onto the optimal training regime.
Results:
Before final match - condition 96-100%, match sharp 89-100%
After final match - condition 67-100%, match sharp 92-100%
So if you manage things right, it does work pretty well. I used just 4 pre-season friendlies here. I'm sure with some minor adjustments, you could get maintain match fitness of all players at 95%+ without having to field any low match fit players in competitive games (a handful of the backup/sub players could be played in u23 matches for the first month after pre-season to get them to 95%+).
tl;dr Use Quick + Match Practice + Attackx2 + Double Intensity + Quick focus (Agility for GK) training regime every week, even on congested schedules. 'No pitch or gym work' for first 3 condition icons. Don't do too many pre-season friendlies, it's counter-productive, 4 or 5 might be best. Full rest training lowers match sharpness far too much, but you don't need to change rest to recovery sessions or increase intensity at lower condition.
Splendid work and research!
Interesting regarding friendlies in pre-season. On older versions I cluttered the schedule with as many pre-season friendlies as possible to get tactical familiarity as high as possible before the season started... Which this site and EBFM-videos has shown me to be useless...
Cptbull said: Splendid work and research!
Interesting regarding friendlies in pre-season. On older versions I cluttered the schedule with as many pre-season friendlies as possible to get tactical familiarity as high as possible before the season started... Which this site and EBFM-videos has shown me to be useless...
I'm glad someone noticed, as I know my posts in this thread were particularly painful to try and skim read. I think I need to redo a summary of all this at some point.
I can add a piece of extra info that I know now. It seems to me that the 'running start' morale impact of pre-season friendly wins have a substantial impact on the chance of winning the competitive season. In other words, it seems best to schedule friendlies against the weakest teams possible, and have enough of them to get your morale up to perfect ideally (balanced against fitness considerations). I suppose it's best to only do home games (win chance boost+pitch control), or otherwise at least pick teams that have stadiums with perfect pitches to minimize injuries. I think two other implications here is not to worry about overconfidence from winning the pre-season friendlies, and fill up any mid-season gaps with a friendly against a weak team.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I'm glad someone noticed, as I know my posts in this thread were particularly painful to try and skim read. I think I need to redo a summary of all this at some point.
I can add a piece of extra info that I know now. It seems to me that the 'running start' morale impact of pre-season friendly wins have a substantial impact on the chance of winning the competitive season. In other words, it seems best to schedule friendlies against the weakest teams possible, and have enough of them to get your morale up to perfect ideally (balanced against fitness considerations). I suppose it's best to only do home games (win chance boost+pitch control), or otherwise at least pick teams that have stadiums with perfect pitches to minimize injuries. I think two other implications here is not to worry about overconfidence from winning the pre-season friendlies, and fill up any mid-season gaps with a friendly against a weak team.
By coincidence I have been doing that throughout my years of FM. Often cancelling already preset friendlies by assistant manager when starting a new save, just to squeeze that extra moral boost.
I have however never looked at the pitch quality when selecting an opponent. Do you think there is a real correlation there?
(Ignore the prior AI slop)
Just change the name bro, with all the great work you do in the FM community, why do you have to continue keeping a name that is so dumb.
Firstly, it reduces your credibility because the claim has been proven false , so it cuts against the "fact finding" factor that all brought us here to this site. (1)
Secondly, its politically charged nonsense that the most divisive people online say, it'd be like me rocking a "Hitler was cool" name and expecting everyone to just ignore that and enjoy my FM discoveries and data.
Sources proving his cause of death was by police restraint and neck compression leading to cardiopulmonary arrest.
(1)
https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd%2C%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lack-oxygen-police-restraint-killed-floyd-doctor-testifies-chauvin-murder-trial-2021-04-08/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arrest-videos-undercut-derek-chauvins-murder-trial-defense-pathologist-tells-2021-04-09/
If you want I can have a debate about this topic in messages here, or on discord. It is your personal choice to keep the name if you please, it will be my personal choice to send you this message until you give good reason to keep the name or the moderators ban me. Please be a human.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I'm glad someone noticed, as I know my posts in this thread were particularly painful to try and skim read. I think I need to redo a summary of all this at some point.
I can add a piece of extra info that I know now. It seems to me that the 'running start' morale impact of pre-season friendly wins have a substantial impact on the chance of winning the competitive season. In other words, it seems best to schedule friendlies against the weakest teams possible, and have enough of them to get your morale up to perfect ideally (balanced against fitness considerations). I suppose it's best to only do home games (win chance boost+pitch control), or otherwise at least pick teams that have stadiums with perfect pitches to minimize injuries. I think two other implications here is not to worry about overconfidence from winning the pre-season friendlies, and fill up any mid-season gaps with a friendly against a weak team.
TLDR for my comment above
The issue is not just that the username is provocative. It is that it makes the community look less serious, less evidence-driven, and more tolerant of political bait. Keeping the name creates friction for everyone else, while changing it costs almost nothing and preserves the person’s actual FM contributions.
Cptbull said: By coincidence I have been doing that throughout my years of FM. Often cancelling already preset friendlies by assistant manager when starting a new save, just to squeeze that extra moral boost.
I have however never looked at the pitch quality when selecting an opponent. Do you think there is a real correlation there?
I was going to say that I've never tested it, but that pitch quality is supposed to have some minor effect on injury risk.
But I asked chatgpt for an SI staff source, and it said that pitch quality doesn't effect injuries. So perhaps I'm mistaken on this one. Closest I could get is that pitch condition affects the match engine.
TheBucket said: TLDR for my comment above
The issue is not just that the username is provocative. It is that it makes the community look less serious, less evidence-driven, and more tolerant of political bait. Keeping the name creates friction for everyone else, while changing it costs almost nothing and preserves the person’s actual FM contributions.
What do I want to say here..
Let's start with what is most pertinent to FM and players of the game.
A few years ago, I donned my sunday best and presented facts about the game on the SI forums in a neutral manner under a bland username. I was pointing out how 'game importance' and 'youth facilities' don't actually effect newgen PA. This was when no one else had discovered this, or at least weren't pointing it out.
The response I got was the same response still being meted out today, which is to be drowned out by mods making 70% of the replies saying you can't say 2+2=4 unless you have a PhD in mathematics, that you need to send your workings to them privately for verification before you can reply to them or others, and that the thread is now closed for the divisiveness and ill-will your claims have engendered and for the sheer arrogance of ignoring the moderators by failing to reply to them.
I preferred your first post rather than the AI slop you replaced it with, but nonetheless I will contend with the heart of what you say. You claim essentially that the content pertaining to FM here would be diluted, perhaps even eviscerated, by the encroachment of politics and no doubt other forms of generalized discussion.
1) I think the quality of the content on this forum is doing just fine, don't you? Certainly a hell of a lot better than what we see on the much larger SI forums that follow the framework for discussion you advocate for. You will always end up with endless posts of 'so what's the best one to use?' and people who want to quibble about usernames and whatnot. I think if you delete all this and turn it into a kind of academic journal, it would flounder, and so I'm glad this place is the way it is right now.
2) FM is inherently political, and therefore some discussion of politics is warranted even if you believe that discussion should be strictly relevant to the game itself. Remember when Brexit got added as a compulsory and frustrating element of the game before Brexit even happened in real life, because Miles wanted to inflict some kind of collective punishment for his fellow countrymen voting for it? What about when he added coming out as homosexual as in-game event? What about when he removed the capital of Israel from the game because he is a radical leftist? What about when FM had 'nation attribute templates' where black people were typecast as stupid and violent, and the response was to deny its existence while quietly doing away with regional variety altogether. And now we have of course the whole women's football thing. Once you go down the path of censoring references to politics, even if there's a fair case to be made for it, you'll find yourself inescapably shutting down discussion on whole swathes of the game, and inevitably it descends from preventing the 'off-topic' and 'hatred' to removing the 'unconstructive' or 'provocative', as one sees now to a comic extent in the 'official FM26 feedback' thread.
I'll try to respond in sequence, and sorry for the wall of nothing, I was overthinking what kind of message would resonate and just ended up copping out, I apologize for that.
Of course, it's your experience and your interpretation of why your works and contributions seemed to get drowned out. I don't think its strictly because of a benign username or the manner you present that information that gives you any authority or respect on these subjects. I think anyone that scrolls these forums for 5 minutes will realize you do add immense value to this community and maybe the shift you experienced was a culture shift in how forums operate here, but also people recognizing your hard work and what you told people was leading to better outcomes in how they tested and played. This cuts against my point that the username matters, but I just want to be honest.
1) I do think the quality of content here is very solid, its understandable for even the guy who plays this game a few hours a week, and that's where I agree with your point of if this was more of a formal site it wouldn't thrive. It has its place, and its a great place for more uses than just asking questions that 90% of people here know the answer to.
2) I don't think I'll be the last one who asks about your username and I still stand by the idea you should abandon it, simply because it doesn't represent truth in the way we can both access it.
I appreciate the examples you give and its not my intention to remove politics from places I deem they don't belong, there's a harsh debate that people can have about if claims or statements of fact that are unpopular should be platformed, regardless of harm. My conflict is that this community is a haven for exactly what you said, unfortunate truths of how the game we want to love so much is filled with flaws and cannot be enjoyed the way you used to once that is figured out. Here's the conflict, we ran tests to find out what was true about this game. We understand this game is flawed as shit, pace abusing and strikerless tactics are how you win, and it sucks and most of us have stomached that. We found out something that sucked at expense of truth, so isn't truth the most important thing? That's why when I see your username in a place that values truth above comfort, they are values going in literally opposite directions. The history of this claim that George Floyd overdosed was so hate mongering racists would have a stronger reason to go against the BLM movement. Have your opinions on how that movement panned out and the actual motives behind it (I will probably agree with you), but you cannot tell me with all available evidence, your username leads us closer to the truth, than to a comfort statement. I understand the concept of your username, there are truth statements people need to investigate, no matter how badly it makes me or anyone observing it feel. At the end though, the truth should overcome that comfort. That's why if someone asks me "hey bro how do I get better at FM", I don't tell them to to run a formation that fits your players, or to train weak foots and create balanced players in training. I would expect the same with how you represent yourself, if your username represents a fundamental mistruth, that is for comfort.
TheBucket said: I'll try to respond in sequence, and sorry for the wall of nothing, I was overthinking what kind of message would resonate and just ended up copping out, I apologize for that.
Of course, it's your experience and your interpretation of why your works and contributions seemed to get drowned out. I don't think its strictly because of a benign username or the manner you present that information that gives you any authority or respect on these subjects. I think anyone that scrolls these forums for 5 minutes will realize you do add immense value to this community and maybe the shift you experienced was a culture shift in how forums operate here, but also people recognizing your hard work and what you told people was leading to better outcomes in how they tested and played. This cuts against my point that the username matters, but I just want to be honest.
1) I do think the quality of content here is very solid, its understandable for even the guy who plays this game a few hours a week, and that's where I agree with your point of if this was more of a formal site it wouldn't thrive. It has its place, and its a great place for more uses than just asking questions that 90% of people here know the answer to.
2) I don't think I'll be the last one who asks about your username and I still stand by the idea you should abandon it, simply because it doesn't represent truth in the way we can both access it.
I appreciate the examples you give and its not my intention to remove politics from places I deem they don't belong, there's a harsh debate that people can have about if claims or statements of fact that are unpopular should be platformed, regardless of harm. My conflict is that this community is a haven for exactly what you said, unfortunate truths of how the game we want to love so much is filled with flaws and cannot be enjoyed the way you used to once that is figured out. Here's the conflict, we ran tests to find out what was true about this game. We understand this game is flawed as shit, pace abusing and strikerless tactics are how you win, and it sucks and most of us have stomached that. We found out something that sucked at expense of truth, so isn't truth the most important thing? That's why when I see your username in a place that values truth above comfort, they are values going in literally opposite directions. The history of this claim that George Floyd overdosed was so hate mongering racists would have a stronger reason to go against the BLM movement. Have your opinions on how that movement panned out and the actual motives behind you (I will probably agree with you), but you cannot tell me with all available evidence, your username leads us closer to the truth, than to a comfort statement. I understand the concept of your username, there are truth statements people need to investigate, no matter how badly it makes me or anyone observing it feel. At the end though, the truth should overcome that comfort. That's why if someone asks me "hey bro how do I get better at FM", I don't tell them to to run a formation that fits your players, or to train weak foots and create balanced players in training. I would expect the same with how you represent yourself, if your username represents a fundamental mistruth, that is for comfort.
A man drinks 3 beers and then drives home. He ends up misjudging a turn in the darkness and dies by crashing into a tree. What killed him? The alcohol? 'Blunt trauma'? Noncompliance with the road rules? The tree? What if the government planted that tree there, in a way that constituted gross negligance? If it is the alcohol, does his death make the 3 beers constitute an 'overdose' for him?
Personally I think what 'killed' Mr. Floyd is in the realm of uncertainty. But it was striking to me how in this case where one could nonetheless normally say something like 'I reckon he was drunk', you were condemned as a heretic in past ages would be for questioning the narrative that a knee is what killed him.
Perhaps what inspired me to use the phrase specifically is the analogous nature to how I was treated on the SI forums. You claim something about an uncertain matter, in this case the game's mechanics, and you get harassed by zealots who want to exercise power over you. You see how 'Hitler 2.0' or 'F_U_Miles' just wouldn't capture quite the same intimations.
So that is the meaning behind it, but the practical use of it is obviously that it also prevents direct attribution of my findings by SI sycophants who want to have their cake and eat it too. To me it is amusing to see the debate play out when it does of if my data can even be mentioned given my username, and it also drives something of a wedge then therefore between following SI's orders and making sense of the game. Of course what can be done about this is to simply take the data and strip my name from it. I've made no effort to 'gate' anything, and although I personally do think I have made some substantial findings of my own, EBFM and HarvestGreen have largely captured the limelight and lion's share of the $0 prize pool with their more thorough and extensive findings in their respective areas of investigation. Overall I figure that aside from mere temporary satisfaction of vanity, an upside of posting info is that the mere dissemination of it will hasten SI's demise even if it is not attributed to me.
Now vanity and retribution and amusement may not sound akin to the goal of truth to you, no doubt, but I think you are being a bit too grave about this matter. This does, after all, concern a video game. On a deeper level, I simply just enjoy uncovering the game mechanics, because the game itself became quite boring and tedious for me a few years ago. Sharing discoveries requires different motivations from that. You are driven by your own distinct values and motivations to certain goals, seemingly community through a shared virtue of truth (or is it the other way around?), and I don't object to that per se, except to say that that's not what I'm here for.. or perhaps more accurately, I do not have it as my narrow focus that overrides everything else. That is not to say I am right and you are wrong, an analogy I can come up with of this is that you strongly feel eating should be aligned with bodily health and you do not think I should have my display picture as a delicious cake while giving out effective diet tips. You can imagine this cause celibre playing out on a weight loss forum.
TheBucket said: TLDR for my comment above
The issue is not just that the username is provocative. It is that it makes the community look less serious, less evidence-driven, and more tolerant of political bait. Keeping the name creates friction for everyone else, while changing it costs almost nothing and preserves the person’s actual FM contributions.
The name is fine. If you want to believe a media fiction that’s also fine. It would be best for everyone else if you drop the issue.
MeanOnSunday said: The name is fine. If you want to believe a media fiction that’s also fine. It would be best for everyone else if you drop the issue.
If the name is "fine", then asking the user to justify his intention behind the name is fine. Obviously. He helped me understand his position, I point out where I disagree, there are points where we do agree. I'm not the first person to bring up an issue with the name, I surely won't be the last person. I don't think you speak for everyone else, try to be more productive next time you join a conversation.
TheBucket said: If the name is "fine", then asking the user to justify his intention behind the name is fine. Obviously. He helped me understand his position, I point out where I disagree, there are points where we do agree. I'm not the first person to bring up an issue with the name, I surely won't be the last person. I don't think you speak for everyone else, try to be more productive next time you join a conversation.
I’m sure you were very productive given the topic of this forum.
MeanOnSunday said: I’m sure you were very productive given the topic of this forum.
If you were interested in the topic you would have added something of value to it. Nothing of value was added when you demanded something of me that already happened.
TheBucket said: (whatever)
Don't feed
tam1236 said: Don't feed
I've raised criticisms of substance and he reciprocated with a response that I felt clarified the issue. Why do you lot want so badly to feel involved but yet provide nothing. You attempt to dismiss me when you aren't even the person I needed clarity from.
MeanOnSunday said: It would be best for everyone else if you drop the issue.
I sure would love to mate but I got some strange people that want a reply from me.
Are you seriously fighting because of a random guy from US? This is a game forum...