If I had the time, resources and know-how to do these tests I would look into granularity and diminishing/increasing returns on the key attributes as well as matchups in certain roles. I recall at least one test on an older version of FM that highlighted strength as a significant attribute for strikers specifically (and inductively for centre backs as well), it doesn't rate highly on a team level but is it important for box players specifically?
Same goes for advantage/disadvantage in the relative stats (e.g. most of them). We see the effects of +10/-10 and in the FM Arena tests +5/-5, but we can't assume linear relationships. Looking granularly at increments of 2 could see if it is most important to just have an edge or if the effect becomes significant when you're outclassing your opponent (which is seldom feasible in a save and in such a case you'll win easily regardless of your knowledge of key attributes). I could imagine duel-related attributes like jumping and strength being a case of being ahead is what primarily counts with diminishing returns (and being significantly more important at certain positions as earlier mentioned), whereas pace/acceleration sees you advantage increasing exponentially the higher you go - especially on a team level.
Going deeper how do the valuable attributes interact? We know from tests that the poor attributes can be done without all at once but do the good ones boost each other, so I'm not sure it's worth the effort investigating whether there is a scenario where technique could be slightly beneficial. It's more interesting to see where and how the provably beneficial attributes interact. As mentioned above is 15/15/15 Pace/Acc/Dribbling better than 17/17/10? I could see dribbling having a multiplying effect with a pace advantage compared to equal like in the isolated experiment.
twkmax said: @harvestgreen22 Why do, for some attributes, your results differ a lot from the ykykyk05251 (a chinese game developer) results? Expand
I don't know him. I'm a new player , just played from late October My guess is that the initial conditions and version of the game he used were different from mine
Summary: 7. Under Control variable, From 1, 2, and 3, you can see, Even in the multivariable case, considering multiple technical type of attributes,
technical type of attributes 15 + Technique 10 (73.7) > technical type of attributes 15+ Technique 15 (60.3) ，This means that in this case, Technique is bad technical type of attributes 15 + Flair 10 (73.7) ≈/> technical type of attributes 15 + Flair 10 (71.7) ，This means that in this case, Flair have little/no influence
8. In the case of 4, 5, and 6, it's a little special, Dribbling 20 + Technique 20 (44.2) < Dribbling 20 + Technique 10 (53.6) Higher Technique is having a negative effect with Dribbling This means that in this case, Technique is bad
Passing 20 + Technique 20 (27.9) ≈/> Passing 20 + Technique 10 (24.5) Higher Technique may or may not have a positive effect with Passing Not much difference. It is also possible that the sample size is not large enough and resulting in random error
Finishing 20 + Technique 20 (33.7) ≈ Finishing 20 + Technique 10 (33.3) Higher Technique had no effect on Finishing passing
9. What is surprising is number 5, which means that it is possible for Technique to have some positive Stats and negative effects on others Expand
That does help understanding that Technique and Flair are bad in general, or with most attributes.
But because it is not an extensive test with all other attributes, we don't know if there's an attribute that will unlock great potential in Technique and Flair.
My suggestion is the same as my previous post here: Test all 3 attribute combinations with a small sample size. There are 36 player attributes. That should be 648 separate tests. Then averaging the results for every 2 attribute combination, we can also see how good each 2 attribute combination is.
Teamwork is how well player follows your tactical instructions. Your test doesn't quite cover that in a way that'd allow to call it useless. It's useful in tactics with a lot of instructions for that specific player and isn't in tactics with very basic sets of instructions. If you used a different (more complicated) tactic for testing, you'd get a different result here. For example a tactic that'd ask the test low teamwork guy to overlap with another low teamwork player.
delra said: "Teamwork [...] can be considered useless."
Teamwork is how well player follows your tactical instructions. Your test doesn't quite cover that in a way that'd allow to call it useless. It's useful in tactics with a lot of instructions for that specific player and isn't in tactics with very basic sets of instructions. If you used a different (more complicated) tactic for testing, you'd get a different result here. For example a tactic that'd ask the test low teamwork guy to overlap with another low teamwork player. Expand
A tactic with loads of instructions is no harder for a player to follow than a basic tactic with almost no instructions. What we call instructions are just the new sliders that we had back in old FM/CM. Every single player role has loads of default instructions, and a tactic with no aditional TIs also have loads of default instructions, you just don't see them. So in theory, a player with low teamwork should be bad at following the game plan of any tactic and just do whatever he feels like instead. So in a Gegenpress tactic, he might be prone to slack off, in a long ball tactic he might just do short simple passes because he doesn't like doing long passes etc. This would mean that a team with low Teamwork should be horrible at executing a game plan or show any cohesion.
If I had the time, resources and know-how to do these tests I would look into granularity and diminishing/increasing returns on the key attributes as well as matchups in certain roles. I recall at least one test on an older version of FM that highlighted strength as a significant attribute for strikers specifically (and inductively for centre backs as well), it doesn't rate highly on a team level but is it important for box players specifically?
Same goes for advantage/disadvantage in the relative stats (e.g. most of them). We see the effects of +10/-10 and in the FM Arena tests +5/-5, but we can't assume linear relationships. Looking granularly at increments of 2 could see if it is most important to just have an edge or if the effect becomes significant when you're outclassing your opponent (which is seldom feasible in a save and in such a case you'll win easily regardless of your knowledge of key attributes). I could imagine duel-related attributes like jumping and strength being a case of being ahead is what primarily counts with diminishing returns (and being significantly more important at certain positions as earlier mentioned), whereas pace/acceleration sees you advantage increasing exponentially the higher you go - especially on a team level.
Going deeper how do the valuable attributes interact? We know from tests that the poor attributes can be done without all at once but do the good ones boost each other, so I'm not sure it's worth the effort investigating whether there is a scenario where technique could be slightly beneficial. It's more interesting to see where and how the provably beneficial attributes interact. As mentioned above is 15/15/15 Pace/Acc/Dribbling better than 17/17/10? I could see dribbling having a multiplying effect with a pace advantage compared to equal like in the isolated experiment.
@harvestgreen22 Why do, for some attributes, your results differ a lot from the ykykyk05251 (a chinese game developer) results?
twkmax said: @harvestgreen22 Why do, for some attributes, your results differ a lot from the ykykyk05251 (a chinese game developer) results?
I don't know him. I'm a new player , just played from late October
My guess is that the initial conditions and version of the game he used were different from mine
@harvestgreen22 This is the original thread, which you might find interesting: https://playgm.cc/thread-943500-5-1.html
harvestgreen22 said: More testing of the effects of multivariables，
1.
Passing传球15
Crossing传中15
Dribbling盘带15
Tackling抢断15
Finishing射门15
First touch停球15
Heading头球15
longshot远射15
Technique技术10
Flair才华10
other其他属性10
Goal difference 净胜球≈73.7
2.
Passing传球15
Crossing传中15
Dribbling盘带15
Tackling抢断15
Finishing射门15
First touch停球15
Heading头球15
longshot远射15
Technique技术15
Flair才华10
other其他属性10
Goal difference 净胜球≈60.3
3.
Passing传球15
Crossing传中15
Dribbling盘带15
Tackling抢断15
Finishing射门15
First touch停球15
Heading头球15
longshot远射15
Technique技术10
Flair才华15
other其他属性10
Goal difference 净胜球≈71.7
4.
Dribbling盘带20
Technique技术20
other其他属性10
Goal difference 净胜球≈44.2
Dribbling盘带20
Technique技术10
other其他属性10
Goal difference 净胜球=53.6
5.
Passing传球20
Technique技术20
other其他属性10
Goal difference 净胜球≈27.9
Passing传球20
Technique技术10
other其他属性10
Goal difference 净胜球=24.5
6.
Finishing传球20
Technique技术20
other其他属性10
Goal difference 净胜球≈33.7
Finishing传球20
Technique技术10
other其他属性10
Goal difference 净胜球=33.3
Summary:
7.
Under Control variable,
From 1, 2, and 3, you can see,
Even in the multivariable case, considering multiple technical type of attributes,
technical type of attributes 15 + Technique 10 (73.7) > technical type of attributes 15+ Technique 15 (60.3) ，This means that in this case, Technique is bad
technical type of attributes 15 + Flair 10 (73.7) ≈/> technical type of attributes 15 + Flair 10 (71.7) ，This means that in this case, Flair have little/no influence
8.
In the case of 4, 5, and 6, it's a little special,
Dribbling 20 + Technique 20 (44.2) < Dribbling 20 + Technique 10 (53.6)
Higher Technique is having a negative effect with Dribbling
This means that in this case, Technique is bad
Passing 20 + Technique 20 (27.9) ≈/> Passing 20 + Technique 10 (24.5)
Higher Technique may or may not have a positive effect with Passing
Not much difference.
It is also possible that the sample size is not large enough and resulting in random error
Finishing 20 + Technique 20 (33.7) ≈ Finishing 20 + Technique 10 (33.3)
Higher Technique had no effect on Finishing passing
9.
What is surprising is number 5,
which means that it is possible for Technique to have some positive Stats and negative effects on others
That does help understanding that Technique and Flair are bad in general, or with most attributes.
But because it is not an extensive test with all other attributes, we don't know if there's an attribute that will unlock great potential in Technique and Flair.
My suggestion is the same as my previous post here: Test all 3 attribute combinations with a small sample size. There are 36 player attributes. That should be 648 separate tests. Then averaging the results for every 2 attribute combination, we can also see how good each 2 attribute combination is.
"Teamwork [...] can be considered useless."
Teamwork is how well player follows your tactical instructions. Your test doesn't quite cover that in a way that'd allow to call it useless. It's useful in tactics with a lot of instructions for that specific player and isn't in tactics with very basic sets of instructions. If you used a different (more complicated) tactic for testing, you'd get a different result here. For example a tactic that'd ask the test low teamwork guy to overlap with another low teamwork player.
delra said: "Teamwork [...] can be considered useless."
Teamwork is how well player follows your tactical instructions. Your test doesn't quite cover that in a way that'd allow to call it useless. It's useful in tactics with a lot of instructions for that specific player and isn't in tactics with very basic sets of instructions. If you used a different (more complicated) tactic for testing, you'd get a different result here. For example a tactic that'd ask the test low teamwork guy to overlap with another low teamwork player.
A tactic with loads of instructions is no harder for a player to follow than a basic tactic with almost no instructions. What we call instructions are just the new sliders that we had back in old FM/CM. Every single player role has loads of default instructions, and a tactic with no aditional TIs also have loads of default instructions, you just don't see them. So in theory, a player with low teamwork should be bad at following the game plan of any tactic and just do whatever he feels like instead. So in a Gegenpress tactic, he might be prone to slack off, in a long ball tactic he might just do short simple passes because he doesn't like doing long passes etc. This would mean that a team with low Teamwork should be horrible at executing a game plan or show any cohesion.
What are the best attributes for GKs?
Is it speed on them aswell or is it GK attributes like reflexes?