This test is not very useful. Attributes like technical skill create synergy when combined with passing or crossing ability. In the case of judgment, it synergizes with positioning attributes such as off-the-ball movement. Excluding physical attributes, which can perform excellently on their own, all attributes complement each other to some extent, so this experiment of maximizing only a single ability is not useful.
Idea for an experiment (which I'd run if I had a more performant PC, but I'm at the mercy of you kind strangers): what if you assembled a squad of players, who were capable of winning the league, but then randomly shuffled each player's set of attributes amongst each other?
For example, your LB has your MC's attributes, your ST has your RB's attributes, your DM has your ST's attributes and so on (leaving goalkeepers alone). Naturally each player's role analysis would be in the toilet but if experiments have revealed that tactics are less impactful than attributes alone, it might also follow that the sum talent of your team is more important than who plays where (assuming you're 1. using a tactic that makes sense and 2. players aren't playing out of position, just wildly out of role).
LightningFlik said: Idea for an experiment (which I'd run if I had a more performant PC, but I'm at the mercy of you kind strangers): what if you assembled a squad of players, who were capable of winning the league, but then randomly shuffled each player's set of attributes amongst each other?
For example, your LB has your MC's attributes, your ST has your RB's attributes, your DM has your ST's attributes and so on (leaving goalkeepers alone). Naturally each player's role analysis would be in the toilet but if experiments have revealed that tactics are less impactful than attributes alone, it might also follow that the sum talent of your team is more important than who plays where (assuming you're 1. using a tactic that makes sense and 2. players aren't playing out of position, just wildly out of role). Expand I've tried this, and found that it doesn't work because as soon as the DM's performance as 'ST' becomes better than DM, he becomes DM+ST.
What can work is you can game it slightly, since FM's role calculations aren't perfect (i.e. overweights technicals/mentals).
Digging deeper, there are certain attributes that do appear to be pooled as a team, or are primarily about order of priority. Obvious example would be finishing, where I found you can win the Premier League with 1 CA players and a ST with 1 finishing, it's just that the bulk of the goalscoring gets shifted to the other position that has the highest finishing. Not sure if it's also being pooled in this case, but having some finishing on at least one player seems beneficial (HarvestGreen's testing show it's a minor-moderate contributing factor).
Can't remember what attributes seemed pooled and which aren't, but overall I'd say the pooled attributes don't contribute much anyway. High pace/acc on all players (except GK) is kind of essential to win.
You might also think that since we're favoring a high pace/acc/drib team, a team of selfish players in an abstract sense, then we should adjust our tactic towards one that gels with that. Either knap's tactic is already tailored towards this perfectly, or this theory just doesn't work in practice, because I've tried a whole bunch of adjustments with this idea and nothing did any better.
I suppose the other thing to mention is that some positions are more cost-efficient than others, and quite significantly so. AMR/AML is the most costly, DM the least. So if had a low PA team, you might favor some sort of tactic with 3 DMs and no AMR/AML. But personally, I just stick with the top knap tactic, which does use AMR/AML (in FM24).
This test is not very useful. Attributes like technical skill create synergy when combined with passing or crossing ability. In the case of judgment, it synergizes with positioning attributes such as off-the-ball movement. Excluding physical attributes, which can perform excellently on their own, all attributes complement each other to some extent, so this experiment of maximizing only a single ability is not useful.
Idea for an experiment (which I'd run if I had a more performant PC, but I'm at the mercy of you kind strangers): what if you assembled a squad of players, who were capable of winning the league, but then randomly shuffled each player's set of attributes amongst each other?
For example, your LB has your MC's attributes, your ST has your RB's attributes, your DM has your ST's attributes and so on (leaving goalkeepers alone). Naturally each player's role analysis would be in the toilet but if experiments have revealed that tactics are less impactful than attributes alone, it might also follow that the sum talent of your team is more important than who plays where (assuming you're 1. using a tactic that makes sense and 2. players aren't playing out of position, just wildly out of role).
LightningFlik said: Idea for an experiment (which I'd run if I had a more performant PC, but I'm at the mercy of you kind strangers): what if you assembled a squad of players, who were capable of winning the league, but then randomly shuffled each player's set of attributes amongst each other?
For example, your LB has your MC's attributes, your ST has your RB's attributes, your DM has your ST's attributes and so on (leaving goalkeepers alone). Naturally each player's role analysis would be in the toilet but if experiments have revealed that tactics are less impactful than attributes alone, it might also follow that the sum talent of your team is more important than who plays where (assuming you're 1. using a tactic that makes sense and 2. players aren't playing out of position, just wildly out of role).
I've tried this, and found that it doesn't work because as soon as the DM's performance as 'ST' becomes better than DM, he becomes DM+ST.
What can work is you can game it slightly, since FM's role calculations aren't perfect (i.e. overweights technicals/mentals).
Digging deeper, there are certain attributes that do appear to be pooled as a team, or are primarily about order of priority. Obvious example would be finishing, where I found you can win the Premier League with 1 CA players and a ST with 1 finishing, it's just that the bulk of the goalscoring gets shifted to the other position that has the highest finishing. Not sure if it's also being pooled in this case, but having some finishing on at least one player seems beneficial (HarvestGreen's testing show it's a minor-moderate contributing factor).
Can't remember what attributes seemed pooled and which aren't, but overall I'd say the pooled attributes don't contribute much anyway. High pace/acc on all players (except GK) is kind of essential to win.
You might also think that since we're favoring a high pace/acc/drib team, a team of selfish players in an abstract sense, then we should adjust our tactic towards one that gels with that. Either knap's tactic is already tailored towards this perfectly, or this theory just doesn't work in practice, because I've tried a whole bunch of adjustments with this idea and nothing did any better.
I suppose the other thing to mention is that some positions are more cost-efficient than others, and quite significantly so. AMR/AML is the most costly, DM the least. So if had a low PA team, you might favor some sort of tactic with 3 DMs and no AMR/AML. But personally, I just stick with the top knap tactic, which does use AMR/AML (in FM24).