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).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 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. Expand
Well this is the thought I had. People explain the match engine the way they think it should work (e.g. "the game sees the opposing winger running to the byline, so it looks at your fullback's positioning, composure and decision making to determine whether he can track the runner and make himself available to the tackle" ) but my thought was: what if it just looks at the offensive capabilities of your team, your defensive capabilities (irrespective of what positions the players who have these attributes are in) and just simulates the results based off that, generating highlights to fit?
Hence my idea for the experiment, effectively swap your attackers' and defenders' attributes (but not their positional familiarities) and see what happens.
LightningFlik said: Well this is the thought I had. People explain the match engine the way they think it should work (e.g. "the game sees the opposing winger running to the byline, so it looks at your fullback's positioning, composure and decision making to determine whether he can track the runner and make himself available to the tackle" ) but my thought was: what if it just looks at the offensive capabilities of your team, your defensive capabilities (irrespective of what positions the players who have these attributes are in) and just simulates the results based off that, generating highlights to fit?
Hence my idea for the experiment, effectively swap your attackers' and defenders' attributes (but not their positional familiarities) and see what happens. Expand
It's an interesting point of view, and i think you're right. Forgot the video and the cosmetics, mix all atributes and here the results. Swap Defenders and attackers to test it is a good idea.
Being fixated on position proficiency's impact, I'd be interested to know if we ever tried the impact of dropping player's proficiencies below 15. I feel like the 15 -> 20 position proficiency has little impact, but that it would drop significantly below 15. But it's just a feeling.
Panneton0 said: Being fixated on position proficiency's impact, I'd be interested to know if we ever tried the impact of dropping player's proficiencies below 15. I feel like the 15 -> 20 position proficiency has little impact, but that it would drop significantly below 15. But it's just a feeling.
After stumbling upon this thread, I basically stopped playing Football Manager. Today, something struck me and I decided to conduct a little testing, but using FM 2017. That was the version I spent the most time with. I've done a little testing, and physical attributes are still the most important. But there's a small glimmer of hope. In Football Manager 24 and 26, setting all physical attributes to 20, plus work rate, anticipation, and dribbling to 20, won everything. The remaining attributes to 1. In my first test in FM 2017, after setting these attributes, I placed 4th, 3rd, and 5th in the Spanish league, respectively.
In the next three seasons, adding all technical attributes to these attributes to 15, I placed first three times.
I think this might be interesting. Could someone test this more thoroughly in the 2017 version? It seems that in this version physical attributes are still very important but other attributes are not dead.
I'm also adding this test. While it applies to the 2018 version, it seems that the 2017 and 2018 versions may differ in their use of attributes that are dead in versions 24 and 26.
Zighnetar said: I'm also adding this test. While it applies to the 2018 version, it seems that the 2017 and 2018 versions may differ in their use of attributes that are dead in versions 24 and 26. Expand
I think physical attributes becoming so good were related to Gegenpress being added in FM 19, so that may be why it's not as good in 17 and 18.
Rain said: I think physical attributes becoming so good were related to Gegenpress being added in FM 19, so that may be why it's not as good in 17 and 18. Expand
There might be some truth to these claims. But I forgot to mention that I also did a test in Football Manager 2008 this morning, and when I measured these attributes, the results were similar to those in FM 24 and 26.
I'm currently finishing my first test in FM 17, where I have my technical and mental attributes at 20 and all physical attributes at 10. If the results are similar to those in FM 24 and 26, I'll probably finish at the bottom of the Spanish league table. I'll let you know soon.
Suprise FM 2017 spain league 2nd place all players ATTRIBUTES: TECHNICAL 20/MENTAL 20/ PHYSICal 10 (look at screenshot) @Zippo King of tests. Maybe it's time to test the 2017 version?
second test at this attribute La Liga: 3 Champions League- Semi final Spain cup - final Interesting Now I will do one more test where I will set the pass attribute to 1.
1/2 season technique/passing/crossing/first touch 1 I'm posting this in case they kick me out for bad results from alaves
It can be concluded that the attributes ranked 1 above (technique/pass/cross/first touch) are incredibly important in FM 2017. Incidentally, I've noticed that this is the version of Football Manager I've played the most. I have the most hours on Steam.
Technical: ALL 1 Dribble 20 Mental: ALL 1/Decision 10/ Anticipation and Work rate 20 Physics: ALL 18
Results? I was kicked out of the club after 29 rounds La Liga: 19
What can I say? It seems that physical attributes are still very important in the 2017 version, but it's definitely more balanced than in newer versions.
As a @Rain pointed out, it is possible that this is due to gangepress for version 2019.
Is anyone on these forums able to professionally test the 2017 version for attributes?
I'm planning to start playing the 2017 version.
It seems the newer versions are a joke when it comes to attributes.
( edited 14 hours, 34 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#170
Link to the post:
@Zighnetar
I inputted my player template that finished ~5th in the Premier League in FM24, into FM17, and got 14th with the 'GOODBYE 442' tactic. But that meant the good results were within reach, so I increased pace & acc from 15 to 16, and got 8th:
So it seems that most attributes not mattering is true in FM17 as it is in FM24. Perhaps not exactly the same, but not far off in any case.
I suspect the difference between 14th/8th for FM17 and 5th for FM24 is actually the quality of the tactic. And perhaps it is the case that the introduction of gegenpress, and/or just the incompetence of the new match engine team (Nic Madden who joined SI for FM16 replaced Paul Collyer as head of match engine/match ai from FM18 onwards according to ChatGPT?), permitted for more overpowered tactics.
So based on this, it seems like player attributes in FM have always been misleading BS, but perhaps at least in some earlier versions, it was adequately obscured by the constraints of the tactic, which is overall more consequential than attributes themselves (though it won't save a dud team, and the ratio seems something like 70/30), and were either more balanced before or it simply wasn't yet exploited by people like Knap fully. Personally I reckon it's both things together.
This may actually be quite useful to know, because if the underlying attribute mechanics have always been the same, and they only have some degree of control over the tactic impact, it seems to me to mean that FM26, FM27, FM28, etc. are either going to have strong exploit tactics, in which case the attribute meta works the same and we can predict that just by looking at the exploit tactic degree of success, or tactics have been flattened down, in which case the attribute meta still applies but now you need more of those lesser attributes in the meta (i.e. anticipation, composure, dribbling, etc.) in order to actually win the season. And they can't go too far down the 2nd route, because then players would complain about not being able to win anything. That's my theory anyway.
I inputted my player template that finished ~5th in the Premier League in FM24, into FM17, and got 14th with the 'GOODBYE 442' tactic. But that meant the good results were within reach, so I increased pace & acc from 15 to 16, and got 8th:
So it seems that most attributes not mattering is true in FM17 as it is in FM24. Perhaps not exactly the same, but not far off in any case.
I suspect the difference between 14th/8th for FM17 and 5th for FM24 is actually the quality of the tactic. And perhaps it is the case that the introduction of gegenpress, and/or just the incompetence of the new match engine team (Nic Madden who joined SI for FM16 replaced Paul Collyer as head of match engine/match ai from FM18 onwards according to ChatGPT?), permitted for more overpowered tactics.
So based on this, it seems like player attributes in FM have always been misleading BS, but perhaps at least in some earlier versions, it was adequately obscured by the constraints of the tactic, which is overall more consequential than attributes themselves (though it won't save a dud team, and the ratio seems something like 70/30), and were either more balanced before or it simply wasn't yet exploited by people like Knap fully. Personally I reckon it's both things together.
This may actually be quite useful to know, because if the underlying attribute mechanics have always been the same, and they only have some degree of control over the tactic impact, it seems to me to mean that FM26, FM27, FM28, etc. are either going to have strong exploit tactics, in which case the attribute meta works the same and we can predict that just by looking at the exploit tactic degree of success, or tactics have been flattened down, in which case the attribute meta still applies but now you need more of those lesser attributes in the meta (i.e. anticipation, composure, dribbling, etc.) in order to actually win the season. And they can't go too far down the 2nd route, because then players would complain about not being able to win anything. That's my theory anyway. Expand
In any game where results depend on the position of autonomous agents, the speed in which they change position will always be one of the most important factors. It is only natural because moving faster allows agents to correct their inefficiency.
I inputted my player template that finished ~5th in the Premier League in FM24, into FM17, and got 14th with the 'GOODBYE 442' tactic. But that meant the good results were within reach, so I increased pace & acc from 15 to 16, and got 8th:
So it seems that most attributes not mattering is true in FM17 as it is in FM24. Perhaps not exactly the same, but not far off in any case.
I suspect the difference between 14th/8th for FM17 and 5th for FM24 is actually the quality of the tactic. And perhaps it is the case that the introduction of gegenpress, and/or just the incompetence of the new match engine team (Nic Madden who joined SI for FM16 replaced Paul Collyer as head of match engine/match ai from FM18 onwards according to ChatGPT?), permitted for more overpowered tactics.
So based on this, it seems like player attributes in FM have always been misleading BS, but perhaps at least in some earlier versions, it was adequately obscured by the constraints of the tactic, which is overall more consequential than attributes themselves (though it won't save a dud team, and the ratio seems something like 70/30), and were either more balanced before or it simply wasn't yet exploited by people like Knap fully. Personally I reckon it's both things together.
This may actually be quite useful to know, because if the underlying attribute mechanics have always been the same, and they only have some degree of control over the tactic impact, it seems to me to mean that FM26, FM27, FM28, etc. are either going to have strong exploit tactics, in which case the attribute meta works the same and we can predict that just by looking at the exploit tactic degree of success, or tactics have been flattened down, in which case the attribute meta still applies but now you need more of those lesser attributes in the meta (i.e. anticipation, composure, dribbling, etc.) in order to actually win the season. And they can't go too far down the 2nd route, because then players would complain about not being able to win anything. That's my theory anyway. Expand
Well, yes, but take a look at my tests. It's clear that setting all physical attributes to 18, plus work rate, anticipation, and dribbling to 20, landed me 19th in the table?
Speed is still important, but not as crucial as in the new Football Manager. I suspect that what we see in the engine when a player runs and scores a goal is some kind of mix of speed and other attributes. Did they simply take the easy way out in newer Football Manager games and make simpler calculations? What do I mean? The engine is designed so that a few attributes are considered, and the rest are added and divided along the way. What I mean is, if a player runs one-on-one with the goalkeeper, whether he scores a goal is a weighted average of several attributes, including speed. Such an engine is then easy to code.
Notice that when I set all physical attributes to 10 and the rest (technical and mental to 20) I finished 2nd in the Spanish league.
I also think there's a bigger difference between 10 and 20 speed in the new FM than in the old FM 2017. Interestingly, I also tested the 2008 and 2015 versions, and they behaved similarly to the 2026 version. The 2017 version showed significantly different results from the initial tests. I haven't tested other versions.
You say someone improved the match engine since the 2016 version. It's possible they significantly improved it in the 2016-2017 version, or perhaps one of them. Now, looking at a few (2D) matches from the 2017 version, it seems that the players move and think more logically. It looks much better than in the 2024 and 2026 versions. It's possible they changed something since the 2016 and 2017 versions, but with the release of the 2019 version (I'm not sure if it was from this version) they went back to the old algorithms that heavily favored speed because they figured it would be easier to program and stupid people would buy it anyway and fall for it?
ZaZ said: In any game where results depend on the position of autonomous agents, the speed in which they change position will always be one of the most important factors. It is only natural because moving faster allows agents to correct their inefficiency. Expand
Yes, it's quite logical for someone who plays this type of game a lot. As I mentioned above, it's quite possible that in the 2017 version, and possibly in some other version from that period (2016/2018), the algorithm significantly adds other attributes to the calculations. It's possible that it became too complicated or the calculations took too long, and they reverted to the old version. Personally, I'm convinced that the 2017 version differs in this respect from the 2008 version and the new 24-26 versions.
What I mean is that the algorithm itself is mainly based on how the player moves, but when shooting, it adds technique 10 / shot 10 and composure 10 to the speed (20) and we get a SPEED of 13 in the engine at the moment.
I hope you understand what I'm writing. I'm using Google Translator.
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed Try this experiment. Set all physical attributes to 20, and dribbling, anticipation, and work rate to 20. With these attributes, you win everything in FM 24 and 26. In the 2017 version, you win nothing. But remember to set all other attributes to 1. Not 8, not 6, just 1.
ZaZ said: In any game where results depend on the position of autonomous agents, the speed in which they change position will always be one of the most important factors. It is only natural because moving faster allows agents to correct their inefficiency. Expand
Yeah exactly it's always been the same thing in every sports game (i.e. Pace in Fifa and speed in other sport games) so I'm always surprised to see people complaining about it being such a big issue in football manager.
Rain said: Yeah exactly it's always been the same thing in every sports game (i.e. Pace in Fifa and speed in other sport games) so I'm always surprised to see people complaining about it being such a big issue in football manager. Expand
If Roberto Carlos was slower, he would not be used as a striker in Winning Eleven.
Zighnetar said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed Try this experiment. Set all physical attributes to 20, and dribbling, anticipation, and work rate to 20. With these attributes, you win everything in FM 24 and 26. In the 2017 version, you win nothing. But remember to set all other attributes to 1. Not 8, not 6, just 1. Expand I was thinking to mention that I am not disputing your findings. Nor even the main conclusion. It's just that I am aware of some likely cavaets from having done the same kind of tests with FM24.
So with the 20 drib/work/ant test, the problem is that it won't work without a couple of other key ones such as concentration. As you saw, adding composure (which is one of the essential attributes), improved the position from 19th to 6th. You say you win everything with it in FM24.. I guess it might be possible, since you do have anticipation added not to mention every physical at 18.. but just be aware that it'd be very much on the knife-edge.
So that one for me is easily explained away.
Winning with 15 physicals is also no problem in FM24, so long as you have the adequate mentals and drib, which you have provided 20 for.
The 20 mental/technical 10 physical one is somewhat more compelling. I've tested a player who just about matches this template, Dybala, in FM24, and the result was very poor. I'm sure that if I played with a full squad of Dybalas, they'd be relegated in FM24.
However it could be one of these two things:
1) Dybala has one key difference, which is having just 9 work rate. Kane and Lewandowski do very well in FM24 which shows that certain high mentals/technicals can make up for even ~13 physicals. But even then, 10 should be a bridge too far
2) It could be that you not done your test on 'full detail', which is something easy to overlook
Nonetheless let us just assume it is valid:
Your test shows that the physical requirement has dropped from ~13 in FM24 to 10 in FM17. My test shows that what comes 5th in FM24, with an emphasis on pace/acc, comes 14th in FM17 - though increasing pace/acc slightly bumps that up to 8th.
From your 20 ant/comp/drib/work 18 physicals test, it's clear that as in FM24, most mental/technical attributes don't matter at all in FM17. My team coming 8th-14th instead of relegated doubles the evidence for this. This isn't any argument against you at all whatsoever, I just think this is a relevant finding that I want to highlight to others.
I agree and share in with your conclusion that 'speed is still important, but not as crucial as in the new Football Manager'. It seems as though the weighting of speed in FM17 is say a third or a half less, and that this is likely shifted not to all technicals/mentals in general, but to drib/ant/work/comp/conc and so forth.
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).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 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.
Well this is the thought I had. People explain the match engine the way they think it should work (e.g. "the game sees the opposing winger running to the byline, so it looks at your fullback's positioning, composure and decision making to determine whether he can track the runner and make himself available to the tackle" ) but my thought was: what if it just looks at the offensive capabilities of your team, your defensive capabilities (irrespective of what positions the players who have these attributes are in) and just simulates the results based off that, generating highlights to fit?
Hence my idea for the experiment, effectively swap your attackers' and defenders' attributes (but not their positional familiarities) and see what happens.
LightningFlik said: Well this is the thought I had. People explain the match engine the way they think it should work (e.g. "the game sees the opposing winger running to the byline, so it looks at your fullback's positioning, composure and decision making to determine whether he can track the runner and make himself available to the tackle" ) but my thought was: what if it just looks at the offensive capabilities of your team, your defensive capabilities (irrespective of what positions the players who have these attributes are in) and just simulates the results based off that, generating highlights to fit?
Hence my idea for the experiment, effectively swap your attackers' and defenders' attributes (but not their positional familiarities) and see what happens.
It's an interesting point of view, and i think you're right. Forgot the video and the cosmetics, mix all atributes and here the results. Swap Defenders and attackers to test it is a good idea.
Being fixated on position proficiency's impact, I'd be interested to know if we ever tried the impact of dropping player's proficiencies below 15. I feel like the 15 -> 20 position proficiency has little impact, but that it would drop significantly below 15. But it's just a feeling.
Has this test ever checked that? @Zippo
Panneton0 said: Being fixated on position proficiency's impact, I'd be interested to know if we ever tried the impact of dropping player's proficiencies below 15. I feel like the 15 -> 20 position proficiency has little impact, but that it would drop significantly below 15. But it's just a feeling.
Has this test ever checked that? @Zippo
Hi,
No, we haven't tested the impact of position proficiency below 15 value for FM24.
And for FM26 we tested only OOP proficiency rating - https://fm-arena.com/thread/18292-the-impact-of-oop-position-proficiency-on-the-result-fm26/
After stumbling upon this thread, I basically stopped playing Football Manager. Today, something struck me and I decided to conduct a little testing, but using FM 2017. That was the version I spent the most time with. I've done a little testing, and physical attributes are still the most important. But there's a small glimmer of hope. In Football Manager 24 and 26, setting all physical attributes to 20, plus work rate, anticipation, and dribbling to 20, won everything. The remaining attributes to 1.
In my first test in FM 2017, after setting these attributes, I placed 4th, 3rd, and 5th in the Spanish league, respectively.
In the next three seasons, adding all technical attributes to these attributes to 15, I placed first three times.
I think this might be interesting. Could someone test this more thoroughly in the 2017 version? It seems that in this version physical attributes are still very important but other attributes are not dead.
https://strikerless.com/2017/12/16/fm18-labs-we-need-to-talk-about-decisions/
I'm also adding this test. While it applies to the 2018 version, it seems that the 2017 and 2018 versions may differ in their use of attributes that are dead in versions 24 and 26.
Zighnetar said: I'm also adding this test. While it applies to the 2018 version, it seems that the 2017 and 2018 versions may differ in their use of attributes that are dead in versions 24 and 26.
I think physical attributes becoming so good were related to Gegenpress being added in FM 19, so that may be why it's not as good in 17 and 18.
Rain said: I think physical attributes becoming so good were related to Gegenpress being added in FM 19, so that may be why it's not as good in 17 and 18.
There might be some truth to these claims. But I forgot to mention that I also did a test in Football Manager 2008 this morning, and when I measured these attributes, the results were similar to those in FM 24 and 26.
I'm currently finishing my first test in FM 17, where I have my technical and mental attributes at 20 and all physical attributes at 10. If the results are similar to those in FM 24 and 26, I'll probably finish at the bottom of the Spanish league table. I'll let you know soon.
Suprise
FM 2017 spain league 2nd place
all players ATTRIBUTES: TECHNICAL 20/MENTAL 20/ PHYSICal 10 (look at screenshot)
@Zippo
King of tests. Maybe it's time to test the 2017 version?
Took almost a decade for them to finish tests with FM17.
second test at this attribute
La Liga: 3
Champions League- Semi final
Spain cup - final
Interesting
Now I will do one more test where I will set the pass attribute to 1.
Passing 1
La Liga: 4
1/2 season
technique/passing/crossing/first touch 1
I'm posting this in case they kick me out for bad results from alaves
It can be concluded that the attributes ranked 1 above (technique/pass/cross/first touch) are incredibly important in FM 2017. Incidentally, I've noticed that this is the version of Football Manager I've played the most. I have the most hours on Steam.
CROSS/Technique/pass/firstouch 1
Physical 15
La Liga: WIN 1
CROSS/Technique/pass/firstouch 1
Finishing/shot from distance/tackling/marking 1
La Liga: 4
Technical: ALL 1 Dribble 20
Mental: ALL 1/Decision 10/ Anticipation and Work rate 20
Physics: ALL 18
Results? I was kicked out of the club after 29 rounds
La Liga: 19
What can I say? It seems that physical attributes are still very important in the 2017 version, but it's definitely more balanced than in newer versions.
As a @Rain pointed out, it is possible that this is due to gangepress for version 2019.
Is anyone on these forums able to professionally test the 2017 version for attributes?
I'm planning to start playing the 2017 version.
It seems the newer versions are a joke when it comes to attributes.
I ran another test. I added Composure 20 to the previous test, Creativity 20.
The results are as follows:
La Liga: 6 but but 14th place had only 7 points less
@Zighnetar
I inputted my player template that finished ~5th in the Premier League in FM24, into FM17, and got 14th with the 'GOODBYE 442' tactic. But that meant the good results were within reach, so I increased pace & acc from 15 to 16, and got 8th:
So it seems that most attributes not mattering is true in FM17 as it is in FM24. Perhaps not exactly the same, but not far off in any case.
I suspect the difference between 14th/8th for FM17 and 5th for FM24 is actually the quality of the tactic. And perhaps it is the case that the introduction of gegenpress, and/or just the incompetence of the new match engine team (Nic Madden who joined SI for FM16 replaced Paul Collyer as head of match engine/match ai from FM18 onwards according to ChatGPT?), permitted for more overpowered tactics.
So based on this, it seems like player attributes in FM have always been misleading BS, but perhaps at least in some earlier versions, it was adequately obscured by the constraints of the tactic, which is overall more consequential than attributes themselves (though it won't save a dud team, and the ratio seems something like 70/30), and were either more balanced before or it simply wasn't yet exploited by people like Knap fully. Personally I reckon it's both things together.
This may actually be quite useful to know, because if the underlying attribute mechanics have always been the same, and they only have some degree of control over the tactic impact, it seems to me to mean that FM26, FM27, FM28, etc. are either going to have strong exploit tactics, in which case the attribute meta works the same and we can predict that just by looking at the exploit tactic degree of success, or tactics have been flattened down, in which case the attribute meta still applies but now you need more of those lesser attributes in the meta (i.e. anticipation, composure, dribbling, etc.) in order to actually win the season. And they can't go too far down the 2nd route, because then players would complain about not being able to win anything. That's my theory anyway.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: @Zighnetar
I inputted my player template that finished ~5th in the Premier League in FM24, into FM17, and got 14th with the 'GOODBYE 442' tactic. But that meant the good results were within reach, so I increased pace & acc from 15 to 16, and got 8th:
So it seems that most attributes not mattering is true in FM17 as it is in FM24. Perhaps not exactly the same, but not far off in any case.
I suspect the difference between 14th/8th for FM17 and 5th for FM24 is actually the quality of the tactic. And perhaps it is the case that the introduction of gegenpress, and/or just the incompetence of the new match engine team (Nic Madden who joined SI for FM16 replaced Paul Collyer as head of match engine/match ai from FM18 onwards according to ChatGPT?), permitted for more overpowered tactics.
So based on this, it seems like player attributes in FM have always been misleading BS, but perhaps at least in some earlier versions, it was adequately obscured by the constraints of the tactic, which is overall more consequential than attributes themselves (though it won't save a dud team, and the ratio seems something like 70/30), and were either more balanced before or it simply wasn't yet exploited by people like Knap fully. Personally I reckon it's both things together.
This may actually be quite useful to know, because if the underlying attribute mechanics have always been the same, and they only have some degree of control over the tactic impact, it seems to me to mean that FM26, FM27, FM28, etc. are either going to have strong exploit tactics, in which case the attribute meta works the same and we can predict that just by looking at the exploit tactic degree of success, or tactics have been flattened down, in which case the attribute meta still applies but now you need more of those lesser attributes in the meta (i.e. anticipation, composure, dribbling, etc.) in order to actually win the season. And they can't go too far down the 2nd route, because then players would complain about not being able to win anything. That's my theory anyway.
In any game where results depend on the position of autonomous agents, the speed in which they change position will always be one of the most important factors. It is only natural because moving faster allows agents to correct their inefficiency.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: @Zighnetar
I inputted my player template that finished ~5th in the Premier League in FM24, into FM17, and got 14th with the 'GOODBYE 442' tactic. But that meant the good results were within reach, so I increased pace & acc from 15 to 16, and got 8th:
So it seems that most attributes not mattering is true in FM17 as it is in FM24. Perhaps not exactly the same, but not far off in any case.
I suspect the difference between 14th/8th for FM17 and 5th for FM24 is actually the quality of the tactic. And perhaps it is the case that the introduction of gegenpress, and/or just the incompetence of the new match engine team (Nic Madden who joined SI for FM16 replaced Paul Collyer as head of match engine/match ai from FM18 onwards according to ChatGPT?), permitted for more overpowered tactics.
So based on this, it seems like player attributes in FM have always been misleading BS, but perhaps at least in some earlier versions, it was adequately obscured by the constraints of the tactic, which is overall more consequential than attributes themselves (though it won't save a dud team, and the ratio seems something like 70/30), and were either more balanced before or it simply wasn't yet exploited by people like Knap fully. Personally I reckon it's both things together.
This may actually be quite useful to know, because if the underlying attribute mechanics have always been the same, and they only have some degree of control over the tactic impact, it seems to me to mean that FM26, FM27, FM28, etc. are either going to have strong exploit tactics, in which case the attribute meta works the same and we can predict that just by looking at the exploit tactic degree of success, or tactics have been flattened down, in which case the attribute meta still applies but now you need more of those lesser attributes in the meta (i.e. anticipation, composure, dribbling, etc.) in order to actually win the season. And they can't go too far down the 2nd route, because then players would complain about not being able to win anything. That's my theory anyway.
Well, yes, but take a look at my tests. It's clear that setting all physical attributes to 18, plus work rate, anticipation, and dribbling to 20, landed me 19th in the table?
Speed is still important, but not as crucial as in the new Football Manager. I suspect that what we see in the engine when a player runs and scores a goal is some kind of mix of speed and other attributes. Did they simply take the easy way out in newer Football Manager games and make simpler calculations? What do I mean? The engine is designed so that a few attributes are considered, and the rest are added and divided along the way. What I mean is, if a player runs one-on-one with the goalkeeper, whether he scores a goal is a weighted average of several attributes, including speed. Such an engine is then easy to code.
Notice that when I set all physical attributes to 10 and the rest (technical and mental to 20) I finished 2nd in the Spanish league.
I also think there's a bigger difference between 10 and 20 speed in the new FM than in the old FM 2017. Interestingly, I also tested the 2008 and 2015 versions, and they behaved similarly to the 2026 version. The 2017 version showed significantly different results from the initial tests. I haven't tested other versions.
You say someone improved the match engine since the 2016 version. It's possible they significantly improved it in the 2016-2017 version, or perhaps one of them. Now, looking at a few (2D) matches from the 2017 version, it seems that the players move and think more logically. It looks much better than in the 2024 and 2026 versions. It's possible they changed something since the 2016 and 2017 versions, but with the release of the 2019 version (I'm not sure if it was from this version) they went back to the old algorithms that heavily favored speed because they figured it would be easier to program and stupid people would buy it anyway and fall for it?
ZaZ said: In any game where results depend on the position of autonomous agents, the speed in which they change position will always be one of the most important factors. It is only natural because moving faster allows agents to correct their inefficiency.
Yes, it's quite logical for someone who plays this type of game a lot. As I mentioned above, it's quite possible that in the 2017 version, and possibly in some other version from that period (2016/2018), the algorithm significantly adds other attributes to the calculations. It's possible that it became too complicated or the calculations took too long, and they reverted to the old version. Personally, I'm convinced that the 2017 version differs in this respect from the 2008 version and the new 24-26 versions.
What I mean is that the algorithm itself is mainly based on how the player moves, but when shooting, it adds technique 10 / shot 10 and composure 10 to the speed (20) and we get a SPEED of 13 in the engine at the moment.
I hope you understand what I'm writing. I'm using Google Translator.
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed
Try this experiment. Set all physical attributes to 20, and dribbling, anticipation, and work rate to 20. With these attributes, you win everything in FM 24 and 26. In the 2017 version, you win nothing.
But remember to set all other attributes to 1. Not 8, not 6, just 1.
ZaZ said: In any game where results depend on the position of autonomous agents, the speed in which they change position will always be one of the most important factors. It is only natural because moving faster allows agents to correct their inefficiency.
Yeah exactly it's always been the same thing in every sports game (i.e. Pace in Fifa and speed in other sport games) so I'm always surprised to see people complaining about it being such a big issue in football manager.
Rain said: Yeah exactly it's always been the same thing in every sports game (i.e. Pace in Fifa and speed in other sport games) so I'm always surprised to see people complaining about it being such a big issue in football manager.
If Roberto Carlos was slower, he would not be used as a striker in Winning Eleven.
Zighnetar said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed
Try this experiment. Set all physical attributes to 20, and dribbling, anticipation, and work rate to 20. With these attributes, you win everything in FM 24 and 26. In the 2017 version, you win nothing.
But remember to set all other attributes to 1. Not 8, not 6, just 1.
I was thinking to mention that I am not disputing your findings. Nor even the main conclusion. It's just that I am aware of some likely cavaets from having done the same kind of tests with FM24.
So with the 20 drib/work/ant test, the problem is that it won't work without a couple of other key ones such as concentration. As you saw, adding composure (which is one of the essential attributes), improved the position from 19th to 6th. You say you win everything with it in FM24.. I guess it might be possible, since you do have anticipation added not to mention every physical at 18.. but just be aware that it'd be very much on the knife-edge.
So that one for me is easily explained away.
Winning with 15 physicals is also no problem in FM24, so long as you have the adequate mentals and drib, which you have provided 20 for.
The 20 mental/technical 10 physical one is somewhat more compelling. I've tested a player who just about matches this template, Dybala, in FM24, and the result was very poor. I'm sure that if I played with a full squad of Dybalas, they'd be relegated in FM24.
However it could be one of these two things:
1) Dybala has one key difference, which is having just 9 work rate. Kane and Lewandowski do very well in FM24 which shows that certain high mentals/technicals can make up for even ~13 physicals. But even then, 10 should be a bridge too far
2) It could be that you not done your test on 'full detail', which is something easy to overlook
Nonetheless let us just assume it is valid:
Your test shows that the physical requirement has dropped from ~13 in FM24 to 10 in FM17.
My test shows that what comes 5th in FM24, with an emphasis on pace/acc, comes 14th in FM17 - though increasing pace/acc slightly bumps that up to 8th.
From your 20 ant/comp/drib/work 18 physicals test, it's clear that as in FM24, most mental/technical attributes don't matter at all in FM17. My team coming 8th-14th instead of relegated doubles the evidence for this. This isn't any argument against you at all whatsoever, I just think this is a relevant finding that I want to highlight to others.
I agree and share in with your conclusion that 'speed is still important, but not as crucial as in the new Football Manager'. It seems as though the weighting of speed in FM17 is say a third or a half less, and that this is likely shifted not to all technicals/mentals in general, but to drib/ant/work/comp/conc and so forth.