Hi all, Just curious if this has ever been looked into (I know it is probably very difficult to do).
I guess in games you can have an impact on players with bookings + shouts + changing formation depending on score line but is there a big difference in results compared to instant reult.
When you play with Instant Result then your assistant manager does the team talks, substitutions and the shouts and if he's better than you in those areas then you'll get better results with Instant Result and if he's worse than you then you'll get worse results.
Lapidus said: When you play with Instant Result then your assistant manager does the team talks, substitutions and the shouts and if he's better than you in those areas then you'll get better results with Instant Result and if he's worse than you then you'll get worse results.
It's simple as that. Expand
Say, I wanted to cheese this to the max. Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?) - Motivation - Shouts (?) - Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?) - Determination - Just because it makes everything better?
Possebrew said: Say, I wanted to cheese this to the max. Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?) - Motivation - Shouts (?) - Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?) - Determination - Just because it makes everything better? Expand There is a lot more to managers than those attributes. Their tendencies are probably far more important.
Mainly depends what you want to use him for. I never listen to any of his tactical advice, for me the most important part is JPA and JPP so I can get good reports, and then maybe player management, personality. I should probably look more at substitution tendencies, usage of young players ... but it usually exceeds the time I'm prepared to commit for this particular task.
For a B team manager if I ever need one it's mostly about formation and tactical style and only then everything else.
Possebrew said: Say, I wanted to cheese this to the max. Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?) - Motivation - Shouts (?) - Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?) - Determination - Just because it makes everything better? Expand From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players, but that the outcome will be recalculated when you make substitutions. This still won't sway the outcome much, because each substitution is at best a ~10% difference of 9% of what's on the field. If you're going in with the right tactic already set, the rest doesn't seem to matter.
I think what is most beneficial is non-rotation tendency. You'll have noticed that AI managers rarely, if ever, rotate their players. They keep running them even if they're exhausted, and it is perhaps for the two following reasons. First, low match fitness is significantly more detrimental than low condition, and almost impossible to keep atop of if a player is not playing almost every game of the season. Second, the high morale produced by a run of good form seems to moderately increase the chance of winning the next game, but this also snowballs over the season. Morale appears to return to a neutral baseline fairly quickly, so rotation interrupts and prevents good form from occurring.
Additionally, it's been deduced that giving young players a handful of matches each season or subbing them on in the dying minutes does little to nothing for their development. They need at least ~15 full matches per season at a minimum for development, otherwise they're better off playing friendlies in the reserves.
I realized that at this point, no assistant manager attribute is essential, and so I put this theory to the test. FM24, Manchester City, with a top preset tactic and set routines. Assistant manager was assigned all relevant roles, including setting training.
To reduce the effect of the player variability through the season, and also see if a different effect was seen in an inferior/underdog team, I tested using my 1 CA players Man City team. I created a perfect 200 PA assistant manager with 20 in almost all attributes, and a 1 PA one with the opposite (I even gave them 1/10 English proficiency). Same tactics were used. Simmed only to midseason, since I was running into problems with sacking after that point.
The difference between a perfect assistant manager and an abysmal one is statistically insignificant as to be indistinguishable from random chance variation of results. It may not be just a coincidence that the superior assistant manager does slightly better in both tests, but even if so, the difference between two realistic assistant manager options (stats of 12 vs 16 instead of 1 vs 20) would be minuscule.
Seems to me that one should choose an assistant manager who is a good coach or cheap.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players (...) Expand From many cheats I tried I must say it's not true. Unless you meant "probability of an outcome".
To the topic - I don't see great difference between assistant and me on a bench in a result. But the difference is in subs, and they make unbelivable players' selection if You let them (unless you have all players very good and rounded)
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players, but that the outcome will be recalculated when you make substitutions. This still won't sway the outcome much, because each substitution is at best a ~10% difference of 9% of what's on the field. If you're going in with the right tactic already set, the rest doesn't seem to matter.
I think what is most beneficial is non-rotation tendency. You'll have noticed that AI managers rarely, if ever, rotate their players. They keep running them even if they're exhausted, and it is perhaps for the two following reasons. First, low match fitness is significantly more detrimental than low condition, and almost impossible to keep atop of if a player is not playing almost every game of the season. Second, the high morale produced by a run of good form seems to moderately increase the chance of winning the next game, but this also snowballs over the season. Morale appears to return to a neutral baseline fairly quickly, so rotation interrupts and prevents good form from occurring.
Additionally, it's been deduced that giving young players a handful of matches each season or subbing them on in the dying minutes does little to nothing for their development. They need at least ~15 full matches per season at a minimum for development, otherwise they're better off playing friendlies in the reserves.
I realized that at this point, no assistant manager attribute is essential, and so I put this theory to the test. FM24, Manchester City, with a top preset tactic and set routines. Assistant manager was assigned all relevant roles, including setting training.
To reduce the effect of the player variability through the season, and also see if a different effect was seen in an inferior/underdog team, I tested using my 1 CA players Man City team. I created a perfect 200 PA assistant manager with 20 in almost all attributes, and a 1 PA one with the opposite (I even gave them 1/10 English proficiency). Same tactics were used. Simmed only to midseason, since I was running into problems with sacking after that point.
The difference between a perfect assistant manager and an abysmal one is statistically insignificant as to be indistinguishable from random chance variation of results. It may not be just a coincidence that the superior assistant manager does slightly better in both tests, but even if so, the difference between two realistic assistant manager options (stats of 12 vs 16 instead of 1 vs 20) would be minuscule.
Seems to me that one should choose an assistant manager who is a good coach or cheap. Expand
Does this also imply that the touchline shout and stuff are not statically significant for the whole season too
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players, but that the outcome will be recalculated when you make substitutions. This still won't sway the outcome much, because each substitution is at best a ~10% difference of 9% of what's on the field. If you're going in with the right tactic already set, the rest doesn't seem to matter.
I think what is most beneficial is non-rotation tendency. You'll have noticed that AI managers rarely, if ever, rotate their players. They keep running them even if they're exhausted, and it is perhaps for the two following reasons. First, low match fitness is significantly more detrimental than low condition, and almost impossible to keep atop of if a player is not playing almost every game of the season. Second, the high morale produced by a run of good form seems to moderately increase the chance of winning the next game, but this also snowballs over the season. Morale appears to return to a neutral baseline fairly quickly, so rotation interrupts and prevents good form from occurring.
Additionally, it's been deduced that giving young players a handful of matches each season or subbing them on in the dying minutes does little to nothing for their development. They need at least ~15 full matches per season at a minimum for development, otherwise they're better off playing friendlies in the reserves.
I realized that at this point, no assistant manager attribute is essential, and so I put this theory to the test. FM24, Manchester City, with a top preset tactic and set routines. Assistant manager was assigned all relevant roles, including setting training.
To reduce the effect of the player variability through the season, and also see if a different effect was seen in an inferior/underdog team, I tested using my 1 CA players Man City team. I created a perfect 200 PA assistant manager with 20 in almost all attributes, and a 1 PA one with the opposite (I even gave them 1/10 English proficiency). Same tactics were used. Simmed only to midseason, since I was running into problems with sacking after that point.
The difference between a perfect assistant manager and an abysmal one is statistically insignificant as to be indistinguishable from random chance variation of results. It may not be just a coincidence that the superior assistant manager does slightly better in both tests, but even if so, the difference between two realistic assistant manager options (stats of 12 vs 16 instead of 1 vs 20) would be minuscule.
Seems to me that one should choose an assistant manager who is a good coach or cheap. Expand
I did notice that it's better to sub players out based on their current match-rating than based on condition.
6.2 players seldom recover to get an 8.0 Replacing these bums with a fresh player that starts at 6.7 sometimes ends in a "super-sub" situation.
It's almost as if the the game rolls some dice for each player during the match on whether they will have a good match or a bad match, and then it spends the rest of the game working towards the outcome of the dice.
I also noticed that when I use Instant Result and sometimes check the player ratings at the end, I find that the the assistant did not sub out a player, and they end up with a 4.8 or other crazy-low rating.
If this hunch were correct (and I don't know how to prove that it is not), then I still wouldn't know whether a single sub rerolls the entire match outcome, or just decides the fate of this new sub. I'd lean on the latter. In either case, the aggregate result might tilt.
But even so... how does the game deal with: "oh, you were supposed to lose 1:2, but now you're supposed to win 3:2, but there's not enough time left to give you a penalty or a free-kick to justify the goal"
This is a whole lot of speculation on my end, with precious little to back any of it up.
My initial question was more in-line with: "Hey, what if we hired Marco Rose/Diego Simeone as an Assistant Manager. Would we win more than if we hire a random cheap AM from the LLM, who just happens to have godly Mentals, but horrible Coach Attributes?"
tam1236 said: From many cheats I tried I must say it's not true. Unless you meant "probability of an outcome". Expand I was going to say yes and no, but after digging into it again, I have to retract the pre-determination claim. There's people who claim this going two decades back, but I couldn't find anything from say Paul Collyer himself (if anything, he says the opposite).
Possebrew said: I did notice that it's better to sub players out based on their current match-rating than based on condition.
6.2 players seldom recover to get an 8.0 Replacing these bums with a fresh player that starts at 6.7 sometimes ends in a "super-sub" situation.
It's almost as if the the game rolls some dice for each player during the match on whether they will have a good match or a bad match, and then it spends the rest of the game working towards the outcome of the dice. Expand
Yes, this is actually 'consistency' and/or 'important matches' in action I think. Determination and concentration too for specific times or circumstances in the match.
TactocTestor said: Does this also imply that the touchline shout and stuff are not statically significant for the whole season too Expand
I compared AI assistants, but I don't know if human management does better than AI assistant. We have Miles' cryptic assertion that 'touchline shouts weren't influential to morale'. My impression is that touchline shouts were designed primarily to correct particular deficiencies in the mindset of players. We know that the 'pressure' personality attribute has a outsized impact upon performance, so if you say 'no pressure!' to an ST with pressure 6 who just missed a penalty it probably does something.. but let's make a guesstimate:
I count 20 games in a premier league save I have where the game was won or lost by a single goal, or drawn We have been told by SI staff that shouts last ~10 minutes The winning team must typically score at least 2-3 goals over the 90 minutes, so let's say 35 minutes per goal So your shout, if 100% effective but not always employed at the right time, secures wins in 28.5% of 20 matches That's 15% of all the matches HarvestGreen finds recently that pressure 6 > 18 = +8.9% win rate 0.15 x 0.089 = +1.335% to season wins from shouting 'no pressure!' once every match to your striker who is vulnerable to pressure Maybe you say it multiple times during matches, or pick just the right times, but this would be balanced by the fact that sometimes it simply doesn't work or the player gets fed up of the overuse of it
Yarema said: I feel like shouts in FM26 have even less of an impact than before. Expand
If shouts were removed from the game and then added in a patch, then perhaps this was done by the developers in order to make users believe that they are directly participating in the game and influencing the outcome. but I still scream)
tam1236 said: From many cheats I tried I must say it's not true. Unless you meant "probability of an outcome".
To the topic - I don't see great difference between assistant and me on a bench in a result. But the difference is in subs, and they make unbelivable players' selection if You let them (unless you have all players very good and rounded) Expand There is no way to actually test this in game. Save scumming doesn't work to check this because it's supposedly determined as the match loads. To put it more plainly lets say you have 80% to win, 15% draw and 5% chance to lose. When you enter the match it'll determine what the exact result will be assuming nothing changes, but if you quit the game and enter the match again it'll "roll" the exact result again, so you don't necessarily end up with the same scoreline. That's the theory at least.
I understand it's a hard concept to accept because it basically says you are (almost) powerless as a player. But if we think about a match highlight for example, the game already knows the end result of the highlight otherwise it wouldn't show it to you. So then it's just a matter of extrapolating 1 highlight into the whole match. At best it's a series of these predetermined events and we can speculate whether the whole match is predetermined with recalculations after every player input or if there are automatic recalculations even wouth additional input.
Yarema said: There is no way to actually test this in game. Save scumming doesn't work to check this because it's supposedly determined as the match loads. To put it more plainly lets say you have 80% to win, 15% draw and 5% chance to lose. When you enter the match it'll determine what the exact result will be assuming nothing changes, but if you quit the game and enter the match again it'll "roll" the exact result again, so you don't necessarily end up with the same scoreline. That's the theory at least.
I understand it's a hard concept to accept because it basically says you are (almost) powerless as a player. But if we think about a match highlight for example, the game already knows the end result of the highlight otherwise it wouldn't show it to you. So then it's just a matter of extrapolating 1 highlight into the whole match. At best it's a series of these predetermined events and we can speculate whether the whole match is predetermined with recalculations after every player input or if there are automatic recalculations even wouth additional input. Expand
Much of the game's functionality and testing capabilities doesn't work or works in incomprehensible ways. Decision, Vision, Teamwork, and Bravery all gave negative player scores when analyzing players. Maybe the shouting is just detrimental.
Yarema said: There is no way to actually test this in game... Expand Actually I see a way to test it (or shouts' effectiveness) - but definitely not me! One match, 20 repeats, no subs: 10x You made possibly detrimental shouting , 10x You shout in a best possible way - f.e. every 10 min. praise all when in lead , encourage when not). Of course great or idiotic speach in-between.
It's not so hard to accept such an outcome predetermination - we are cheated by this game in so many ways . And quite often I have an impression that an outcome is already set - in my previous post I meant, it is not set , say, one hour before the match (in a beginning of a match - maybe).
PS Some highlights from interesting matches have nothing special in them.
Antal said: What do they consider important matches, bro? My understanding is any knockout game in a cup. Championship games are generally not important. Expand It's more than you think. Premier league games count as important matches, but to a lesser extent than cup finals. EBFM's video if you want the stats.
tam1236 said: Actually I see a way to test it (or shouts' effectiveness) - but definitely not me! One match, 20 repeats, no subs: 10x You made possibly detrimental shouting , 10x You shout in a best possible way - f.e. every 10 min. praise all when in lead , encourage when not). Of course great or idiotic speach in-between.
It's not so hard to accept such an outcome predetermination - we are cheated by this game in so many ways . And quite often I have an impression that an outcome is already set - in my previous post I meant, it is not set , say, one hour before the match (in a beginning of a match - maybe).
PS Some highlights from interesting matches have nothing special in them. Expand I was talking about the whole match being predetermined until a change occurs, for example subs, tactical changes, shouts etc.
As for testing shouts, the issue is if you start the same game 20 times and do absolutely nothing you might get 10 or even 20 different results. There is so much noise in the signal that you'd need a much much larger sample. It may be doable but it would require significant effort just to establish if they have any effect or not.
Yes, I know what You meant. But results (win, loss, draw. Not numbers) are predetermined (if they are) with some probability, connected to a team quality for example. So if You play one match x time, you will get a proportion of results (no matter in which moment outcome is set). As I know, hypothesis says about recalculating after subs - that's why I suggested no subs.
If, when doing nothing, you get very similar results to helping as much as You can, and to disturbing as much as you can - this means that a) outcome is calculated at the beginning; b) shouts and a speech in a halftime have no impact [ and c) probe is too small, of course - but that would mean that a possible impact is very, very small too ]; And if there is a clear difference - a) outcome is calculated during match ; b) shouts have impact; c) a speech has impact; d) both; e) all . Of course an opponent of the same level would be the best option. 10 times for each model is a small number but I suppose that it could be enough.
Hi all,
Just curious if this has ever been looked into (I know it is probably very difficult to do).
I guess in games you can have an impact on players with bookings + shouts + changing formation depending on score line but is there a big difference in results compared to instant reult.
Does anyone do both and notice a difference?
Any thoughts would be great.
When you play with Instant Result then your assistant manager does the team talks, substitutions and the shouts and if he's better than you in those areas then you'll get better results with Instant Result and if he's worse than you then you'll get worse results.
It's simple as that.
Lapidus said: When you play with Instant Result then your assistant manager does the team talks, substitutions and the shouts and if he's better than you in those areas then you'll get better results with Instant Result and if he's worse than you then you'll get worse results.
It's simple as that.
Say, I wanted to cheese this to the max.
Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?)
- Motivation - Shouts (?)
- Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?)
- Determination - Just because it makes everything better?
Possebrew said: Say, I wanted to cheese this to the max.
Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?)
- Motivation - Shouts (?)
- Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?)
- Determination - Just because it makes everything better?
I guess, no one except the game devs can be 100% right on that.
But I guess any or all at once from the below can have impact on the team talk and shouts:
- People Management
- Determination
- Motivation
We can only guess but to be safe we can find an assistant manager that have all of these stat at 20
For doing good in subs probably:
- Judging Current Ability
- Tactical Knowledge
Possebrew said: Say, I wanted to cheese this to the max.
Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?)
- Motivation - Shouts (?)
- Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?)
- Determination - Just because it makes everything better?
There is a lot more to managers than those attributes. Their tendencies are probably far more important.
Yarema said: There is a lot more to managers than those attributes. Their tendencies are probably far more important.
How do you pick Assistant Managers?
Mainly depends what you want to use him for. I never listen to any of his tactical advice, for me the most important part is JPA and JPP so I can get good reports, and then maybe player management, personality. I should probably look more at substitution tendencies, usage of young players ... but it usually exceeds the time I'm prepared to commit for this particular task.
For a B team manager if I ever need one it's mostly about formation and tactical style and only then everything else.
Possebrew said: Say, I wanted to cheese this to the max.
Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?)
- Motivation - Shouts (?)
- Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?)
- Determination - Just because it makes everything better?
From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players, but that the outcome will be recalculated when you make substitutions. This still won't sway the outcome much, because each substitution is at best a ~10% difference of 9% of what's on the field. If you're going in with the right tactic already set, the rest doesn't seem to matter.
I think what is most beneficial is non-rotation tendency. You'll have noticed that AI managers rarely, if ever, rotate their players. They keep running them even if they're exhausted, and it is perhaps for the two following reasons. First, low match fitness is significantly more detrimental than low condition, and almost impossible to keep atop of if a player is not playing almost every game of the season. Second, the high morale produced by a run of good form seems to moderately increase the chance of winning the next game, but this also snowballs over the season. Morale appears to return to a neutral baseline fairly quickly, so rotation interrupts and prevents good form from occurring.
Additionally, it's been deduced that giving young players a handful of matches each season or subbing them on in the dying minutes does little to nothing for their development. They need at least ~15 full matches per season at a minimum for development, otherwise they're better off playing friendlies in the reserves.
I realized that at this point, no assistant manager attribute is essential, and so I put this theory to the test. FM24, Manchester City, with a top preset tactic and set routines. Assistant manager was assigned all relevant roles, including setting training.
Default:
+122 105pts
+89 95pts
+82 92pts
+87 90pts
95.5 pts average
1 PA:
+106 100pts
+81 97pts
+95 96pts
+79 92pts
+83 88pts
94.6 pts average
To reduce the effect of the player variability through the season, and also see if a different effect was seen in an inferior/underdog team, I tested using my 1 CA players Man City team. I created a perfect 200 PA assistant manager with 20 in almost all attributes, and a 1 PA one with the opposite (I even gave them 1/10 English proficiency). Same tactics were used. Simmed only to midseason, since I was running into problems with sacking after that point.
200 PA:
+42 66pts 2nd
+13 48pts 5th
+1 48pts 8th
+10 40pts 8th
50.5 pts average
1 PA:
+27 57pts 2nd
+15 46pts 5th
+19 45pts 7th
+13 43pts 6th
47.75 pts average
The difference between a perfect assistant manager and an abysmal one is statistically insignificant as to be indistinguishable from random chance variation of results. It may not be just a coincidence that the superior assistant manager does slightly better in both tests, but even if so, the difference between two realistic assistant manager options (stats of 12 vs 16 instead of 1 vs 20) would be minuscule.
Seems to me that one should choose an assistant manager who is a good coach or cheap.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players (...)
I must say it's not true. Unless you meant "probability of an outcome".
From many cheats I tried
To the topic - I don't see great difference between assistant and me on a bench in a result. But the difference is in subs, and they make unbelivable players' selection if You let them (unless you have all players very good and rounded)
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players, but that the outcome will be recalculated when you make substitutions. This still won't sway the outcome much, because each substitution is at best a ~10% difference of 9% of what's on the field. If you're going in with the right tactic already set, the rest doesn't seem to matter.
I think what is most beneficial is non-rotation tendency. You'll have noticed that AI managers rarely, if ever, rotate their players. They keep running them even if they're exhausted, and it is perhaps for the two following reasons. First, low match fitness is significantly more detrimental than low condition, and almost impossible to keep atop of if a player is not playing almost every game of the season. Second, the high morale produced by a run of good form seems to moderately increase the chance of winning the next game, but this also snowballs over the season. Morale appears to return to a neutral baseline fairly quickly, so rotation interrupts and prevents good form from occurring.
Additionally, it's been deduced that giving young players a handful of matches each season or subbing them on in the dying minutes does little to nothing for their development. They need at least ~15 full matches per season at a minimum for development, otherwise they're better off playing friendlies in the reserves.
I realized that at this point, no assistant manager attribute is essential, and so I put this theory to the test. FM24, Manchester City, with a top preset tactic and set routines. Assistant manager was assigned all relevant roles, including setting training.
Default:
+122 105pts
+89 95pts
+82 92pts
+87 90pts
95.5 pts average
1 PA:
+106 100pts
+81 97pts
+95 96pts
+79 92pts
+83 88pts
94.6 pts average
To reduce the effect of the player variability through the season, and also see if a different effect was seen in an inferior/underdog team, I tested using my 1 CA players Man City team. I created a perfect 200 PA assistant manager with 20 in almost all attributes, and a 1 PA one with the opposite (I even gave them 1/10 English proficiency). Same tactics were used. Simmed only to midseason, since I was running into problems with sacking after that point.
200 PA:
+42 66pts 2nd
+13 48pts 5th
+1 48pts 8th
+10 40pts 8th
50.5 pts average
1 PA:
+27 57pts 2nd
+15 46pts 5th
+19 45pts 7th
+13 43pts 6th
47.75 pts average
The difference between a perfect assistant manager and an abysmal one is statistically insignificant as to be indistinguishable from random chance variation of results. It may not be just a coincidence that the superior assistant manager does slightly better in both tests, but even if so, the difference between two realistic assistant manager options (stats of 12 vs 16 instead of 1 vs 20) would be minuscule.
Seems to me that one should choose an assistant manager who is a good coach or cheap.
Does this also imply that the touchline shout and stuff are not statically significant for the whole season too
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players, but that the outcome will be recalculated when you make substitutions. This still won't sway the outcome much, because each substitution is at best a ~10% difference of 9% of what's on the field. If you're going in with the right tactic already set, the rest doesn't seem to matter.
I think what is most beneficial is non-rotation tendency. You'll have noticed that AI managers rarely, if ever, rotate their players. They keep running them even if they're exhausted, and it is perhaps for the two following reasons. First, low match fitness is significantly more detrimental than low condition, and almost impossible to keep atop of if a player is not playing almost every game of the season. Second, the high morale produced by a run of good form seems to moderately increase the chance of winning the next game, but this also snowballs over the season. Morale appears to return to a neutral baseline fairly quickly, so rotation interrupts and prevents good form from occurring.
Additionally, it's been deduced that giving young players a handful of matches each season or subbing them on in the dying minutes does little to nothing for their development. They need at least ~15 full matches per season at a minimum for development, otherwise they're better off playing friendlies in the reserves.
I realized that at this point, no assistant manager attribute is essential, and so I put this theory to the test. FM24, Manchester City, with a top preset tactic and set routines. Assistant manager was assigned all relevant roles, including setting training.
Default:
+122 105pts
+89 95pts
+82 92pts
+87 90pts
95.5 pts average
1 PA:
+106 100pts
+81 97pts
+95 96pts
+79 92pts
+83 88pts
94.6 pts average
To reduce the effect of the player variability through the season, and also see if a different effect was seen in an inferior/underdog team, I tested using my 1 CA players Man City team. I created a perfect 200 PA assistant manager with 20 in almost all attributes, and a 1 PA one with the opposite (I even gave them 1/10 English proficiency). Same tactics were used. Simmed only to midseason, since I was running into problems with sacking after that point.
200 PA:
+42 66pts 2nd
+13 48pts 5th
+1 48pts 8th
+10 40pts 8th
50.5 pts average
1 PA:
+27 57pts 2nd
+15 46pts 5th
+19 45pts 7th
+13 43pts 6th
47.75 pts average
The difference between a perfect assistant manager and an abysmal one is statistically insignificant as to be indistinguishable from random chance variation of results. It may not be just a coincidence that the superior assistant manager does slightly better in both tests, but even if so, the difference between two realistic assistant manager options (stats of 12 vs 16 instead of 1 vs 20) would be minuscule.
Seems to me that one should choose an assistant manager who is a good coach or cheap.
I did notice that it's better to sub players out based on their current match-rating than based on condition.
6.2 players seldom recover to get an 8.0
Replacing these bums with a fresh player that starts at 6.7 sometimes ends in a "super-sub" situation.
It's almost as if the the game rolls some dice for each player during the match on whether they will have a good match or a bad match, and then it spends the rest of the game working towards the outcome of the dice.
I also noticed that when I use Instant Result and sometimes check the player ratings at the end, I find that the the assistant did not sub out a player, and they end up with a 4.8 or other crazy-low rating.
If this hunch were correct (and I don't know how to prove that it is not), then I still wouldn't know whether a single sub rerolls the entire match outcome, or just decides the fate of this new sub. I'd lean on the latter. In either case, the aggregate result might tilt.
But even so... how does the game deal with: "oh, you were supposed to lose 1:2, but now you're supposed to win 3:2, but there's not enough time left to give you a penalty or a free-kick to justify the goal"
This is a whole lot of speculation on my end, with precious little to back any of it up.
My initial question was more in-line with: "Hey, what if we hired Marco Rose/Diego Simeone as an Assistant Manager. Would we win more than if we hire a random cheap AM from the LLM, who just happens to have godly Mentals, but horrible Coach Attributes?"
tam1236 said: From many cheats I tried
I must say it's not true. Unless you meant "probability of an outcome".
I was going to say yes and no, but after digging into it again, I have to retract the pre-determination claim. There's people who claim this going two decades back, but I couldn't find anything from say Paul Collyer himself (if anything, he says the opposite).
Possebrew said: I did notice that it's better to sub players out based on their current match-rating than based on condition.
6.2 players seldom recover to get an 8.0
Replacing these bums with a fresh player that starts at 6.7 sometimes ends in a "super-sub" situation.
It's almost as if the the game rolls some dice for each player during the match on whether they will have a good match or a bad match, and then it spends the rest of the game working towards the outcome of the dice.
Yes, this is actually 'consistency' and/or 'important matches' in action I think. Determination and concentration too for specific times or circumstances in the match.
TactocTestor said: Does this also imply that the touchline shout and stuff are not statically significant for the whole season too
I compared AI assistants, but I don't know if human management does better than AI assistant. We have Miles' cryptic assertion that 'touchline shouts weren't influential to morale'. My impression is that touchline shouts were designed primarily to correct particular deficiencies in the mindset of players. We know that the 'pressure' personality attribute has a outsized impact upon performance, so if you say 'no pressure!' to an ST with pressure 6 who just missed a penalty it probably does something.. but let's make a guesstimate:
I count 20 games in a premier league save I have where the game was won or lost by a single goal, or drawn
We have been told by SI staff that shouts last ~10 minutes
The winning team must typically score at least 2-3 goals over the 90 minutes, so let's say 35 minutes per goal
So your shout, if 100% effective but not always employed at the right time, secures wins in 28.5% of 20 matches
That's 15% of all the matches
HarvestGreen finds recently that pressure 6 > 18 = +8.9% win rate
0.15 x 0.089 = +1.335% to season wins from shouting 'no pressure!' once every match to your striker who is vulnerable to pressure
Maybe you say it multiple times during matches, or pick just the right times, but this would be balanced by the fact that sometimes it simply doesn't work or the player gets fed up of the overuse of it
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: and/or 'important matches'
What do they consider important matches, bro?
My understanding is any knockout game in a cup.
Championship games are generally not important.
I feel like shouts in FM26 have even less of an impact than before.
Yarema said: I feel like shouts in FM26 have even less of an impact than before.
If shouts were removed from the game and then added in a patch, then perhaps this was done by the developers in order to make users believe that they are directly participating in the game and influencing the outcome.
but I still scream)
tam1236 said: From many cheats I tried
I must say it's not true. Unless you meant "probability of an outcome".
To the topic - I don't see great difference between assistant and me on a bench in a result. But the difference is in subs, and they make unbelivable players' selection if You let them (unless you have all players very good and rounded)
There is no way to actually test this in game. Save scumming doesn't work to check this because it's supposedly determined as the match loads. To put it more plainly lets say you have 80% to win, 15% draw and 5% chance to lose. When you enter the match it'll determine what the exact result will be assuming nothing changes, but if you quit the game and enter the match again it'll "roll" the exact result again, so you don't necessarily end up with the same scoreline. That's the theory at least.
I understand it's a hard concept to accept because it basically says you are (almost) powerless as a player. But if we think about a match highlight for example, the game already knows the end result of the highlight otherwise it wouldn't show it to you. So then it's just a matter of extrapolating 1 highlight into the whole match. At best it's a series of these predetermined events and we can speculate whether the whole match is predetermined with recalculations after every player input or if there are automatic recalculations even wouth additional input.
Yarema said: There is no way to actually test this in game. Save scumming doesn't work to check this because it's supposedly determined as the match loads. To put it more plainly lets say you have 80% to win, 15% draw and 5% chance to lose. When you enter the match it'll determine what the exact result will be assuming nothing changes, but if you quit the game and enter the match again it'll "roll" the exact result again, so you don't necessarily end up with the same scoreline. That's the theory at least.
I understand it's a hard concept to accept because it basically says you are (almost) powerless as a player. But if we think about a match highlight for example, the game already knows the end result of the highlight otherwise it wouldn't show it to you. So then it's just a matter of extrapolating 1 highlight into the whole match. At best it's a series of these predetermined events and we can speculate whether the whole match is predetermined with recalculations after every player input or if there are automatic recalculations even wouth additional input.
Much of the game's functionality and testing capabilities doesn't work or works in incomprehensible ways. Decision, Vision, Teamwork, and Bravery all gave negative player scores when analyzing players.
Maybe the shouting is just detrimental.
Yarema said: There is no way to actually test this in game...
. And quite often I have an impression that an outcome is already set - in my previous post I meant, it is not set , say, one hour before the match (in a beginning of a match - maybe).
Actually I see a way to test it (or shouts' effectiveness) - but definitely not me!
One match, 20 repeats, no subs: 10x You made possibly detrimental shouting , 10x You shout in a best possible way - f.e. every 10 min. praise all when in lead , encourage when not). Of course great or idiotic speach in-between.
It's not so hard to accept such an outcome predetermination - we are cheated by this game in so many ways
PS Some highlights from interesting matches have nothing special in them.
Antal said: What do they consider important matches, bro?
My understanding is any knockout game in a cup.
Championship games are generally not important.
It's more than you think. Premier league games count as important matches, but to a lesser extent than cup finals. EBFM's video if you want the stats.
tam1236 said: Actually I see a way to test it (or shouts' effectiveness) - but definitely not me!
. And quite often I have an impression that an outcome is already set - in my previous post I meant, it is not set , say, one hour before the match (in a beginning of a match - maybe).
One match, 20 repeats, no subs: 10x You made possibly detrimental shouting , 10x You shout in a best possible way - f.e. every 10 min. praise all when in lead , encourage when not). Of course great or idiotic speach in-between.
It's not so hard to accept such an outcome predetermination - we are cheated by this game in so many ways
PS Some highlights from interesting matches have nothing special in them.
I was talking about the whole match being predetermined until a change occurs, for example subs, tactical changes, shouts etc.
As for testing shouts, the issue is if you start the same game 20 times and do absolutely nothing you might get 10 or even 20 different results. There is so much noise in the signal that you'd need a much much larger sample. It may be doable but it would require significant effort just to establish if they have any effect or not.
Yes, I know what You meant. But results (win, loss, draw. Not numbers) are predetermined (if they are) with some probability, connected to a team quality for example. So if You play one match x time, you will get a proportion of results (no matter in which moment outcome is set). As I know, hypothesis says about recalculating after subs - that's why I suggested no subs.
If, when doing nothing, you get very similar results to helping as much as You can, and to disturbing as much as you can - this means that a) outcome is calculated at the beginning; b) shouts and a speech in a halftime have no impact [ and c) probe is too small, of course - but that would mean that a possible impact is very, very small too ]; And if there is a clear difference - a) outcome is calculated during match ; b) shouts have impact; c) a speech has impact; d) both; e) all . Of course an opponent of the same level would be the best option. 10 times for each model is a small number but I suppose that it could be enough.