johnconnerson said: I could just be unlucky, but it seems like a lot of the meta tactics generate a lot of yellow cards. Why is that? It's something I've noticed over the last few games, so it isn't just a FM24 issue.
I recently started a new save using the Katana 4231 tactic and 7 games in my team leads the league in yellow cards. More than DOUBLE the amount as the team ranked 2nd. Is there a way to alleviate that or is that the price I pay for a good defensive tactic? Expand
I usually just accept this will happen and substitute accordingly and rotate around the suspensions. Even with a ton of yellow cards the red cards aren't that common, maybe a couple of games per season where it's really an issue.
Tavares82 said: I have some questions about the fm genie scout. In relation to a player, what is the best position? Expand
Wherever he fits in your tactic. I find it much easier to fit the player to a tactic than the tactic to the player.
The issue with these ratings is that some roles are much easier to get a high score in (for example BWM), and it doesn't mean that it is necessarily the best option or best fit for your tactic. A 73% CWB-S could actually be relatively better than 74,8% IWB-S. Or maybe you just prefer certain roles. You can however compare different players in same role.
And then in the end it's always about performance. Some players will play better in a certain role that you cannot predict by looking at their attributes.
Not too hard to test although I haven't seen anyone do it. Take a sample of a single game played like 200 times each for different scenarios: holiday through, instant result and maybe even watch. I suspect the first two options should be the same, less sure about the 3rd.
masonma71 said: Am just a bit confused, when I look at the tactics testing tables, I notice as well as results for each patch, there is a also a plug and play table. Which would be the definitive list to try, the latest patch or the plug & play Expand
It's the same results, except plug&play has tactics that don't require players natural in uncommon positions (for example MR/L) or an unusual number of players in same position (3 strikers)
It doesn't mean they don't do anything, only that the total effect of various options is quite close. Which is good. People complain non stop how gegenpress is the only way to play the game and that you cannot do other styles. And now when you have 3 more or less equal options it's again not right...
Gianaa9 said: Could you provide IF and FB PIs? I think that using Hold Up on IFs could improve Overlaps’ rating respect to others one, did you used it? Thank You! Expand
Hindering your tactic just to make a specific thing function better is not the way to success.
And the main issue I'd guess from data is that the instructions put players more out of position, thus leaving the team more vulnerable in defense.
So I've watched the EBFM video. Kind of interesting data on double intensity. But when I try it in my own save the fitness level of my players is just that tiny bit worse that they don't fully recover in time for next match in 2 matches per week scenario. Anyone else tried the same?
Meriten said: Individual training has no effect on attributes within a position (no difference between e.g. no-nonsense centre-back and ball playing defender). It has an effect when you train a new position e.g. right defender learns wing-back position. But this is valid for all training sessions.
My test: Spoiler
DL is trained as DL (Wing-back attack) DR is trained as WB (Wing-back attack) Only match practice training Starting point of all attributes = 50 (ingame = 10) Players are 20 years old 4 runs
It seems that DR doesn't train natural fitness and strength.
Expand
I can't tell a thing from this test. The valid comparison is no individual role selected in training vs selected, and then running match practice. Even then I suspect the difference is small.
Do you use individual training? Because that's where I think match practice shines, focusing on those key attributes and possibly new position training.
Just a quick thought. The way resistance training worked in EBFMs tests is somewhat questionable, not entirely sure if it was an oversight by SI, an artifact, statistical noise or something else. And even more important if it was perhaps fixed for FM24
Players still need training to grow after 21, just as much as before. The difference is only that they won't grow without sufficient game time whereas a 17 year old would.
Sane said: hmm, why do you recommend this? After all, Zim has more Pts Dif? Expand
Honestly Zim's looks like an anomaly, because the detailed set piece statistics don't seem to account for the enormous point differential. So possibly it performed well points wise for some other reason or it's not captured in the data.
MeanOnSunday said: Just take a save you’ve played a decent number of years and calculate the average consistency for each age in the division you’ve been playing (including reserves and youth). You will see the increase. Or google it ; there are definitely some videos from either FM22 orFM23. Expand
What are you talking about? I know how consistency improves with age.
I'm questioning that X consistency means a player will play to his full ability in X games out of 25, both the linear mechanism and the 25 number. And also that the ability drop is randomly determined by 1-20 CA drop, why not percentage based, why not influenced by consistency attribute and so on.
Would very much like to see some data on that if anyone has any.
Spoiler
Consistency - How consistently he performs from match to match. On the basis that there is no player that will perform to his current ability 100% of the time, the ratio of what consistency means in terms of how often a player plays at his CA is as follows
20 Consistency = 20/25 games played at CA
10 Consistency = 10/25 games played at CA
1 Consistency = 1/25 games played at CA
The way consistency is used in the full match engine is that the average "off day" will be 10 below the CA. A random factor will be used to determine how much this is less or more than 10.
Please note that physical attributes are not taken into consideration when it comes to consistency. Only the technical and mental attributes are marked down depending on consistency.
Also Match Importance (database value) and Team Blend (Game value) affect the match by match calculation of the "Real CA" (Consistency combined with CA)
It improves with age, starting usually from age 22 onwards. Almost everyone will become consistent, eventually. Starting points at young age are very different but they sort of converge as they get near retirement. Meaning also that players who are more inconsistent will improve consistency more throughout the career.
I recently started a new save using the Katana 4231 tactic and 7 games in my team leads the league in yellow cards. More than DOUBLE the amount as the team ranked 2nd. Is there a way to alleviate that or is that the price I pay for a good defensive tactic?
I usually just accept this will happen and substitute accordingly and rotate around the suspensions. Even with a ton of yellow cards the red cards aren't that common, maybe a couple of games per season where it's really an issue.
In relation to a player, what is the best position?
Wherever he fits in your tactic. I find it much easier to fit the player to a tactic than the tactic to the player.
The issue with these ratings is that some roles are much easier to get a high score in (for example BWM), and it doesn't mean that it is necessarily the best option or best fit for your tactic. A 73% CWB-S could actually be relatively better than 74,8% IWB-S. Or maybe you just prefer certain roles. You can however compare different players in same role.
And then in the end it's always about performance. Some players will play better in a certain role that you cannot predict by looking at their attributes.
It's the same results, except plug&play has tactics that don't require players natural in uncommon positions (for example MR/L) or an unusual number of players in same position (3 strikers)
Barely, and unlikely. Some differences are huge.
Thank You!
Hindering your tactic just to make a specific thing function better is not the way to success.
And the main issue I'd guess from data is that the instructions put players more out of position, thus leaving the team more vulnerable in defense.
Anyway, I think anyone visiting this site is hardly surprised by the results.
My test:
Spoiler DL is trained as DL (Wing-back attack)
DR is trained as WB (Wing-back attack)
Only match practice training
Starting point of all attributes = 50 (ingame = 10)
Players are 20 years old
4 runs
It seems that DR doesn't train natural fitness and strength.
I can't tell a thing from this test. The valid comparison is no individual role selected in training vs selected, and then running match practice. Even then I suspect the difference is small.
Honestly Zim's looks like an anomaly, because the detailed set piece statistics don't seem to account for the enormous point differential. So possibly it performed well points wise for some other reason or it's not captured in the data.
What are you talking about? I know how consistency improves with age.
I'm questioning that X consistency means a player will play to his full ability in X games out of 25, both the linear mechanism and the 25 number. And also that the ability drop is randomly determined by 1-20 CA drop, why not percentage based, why not influenced by consistency attribute and so on.
Would very much like to see some data on that if anyone has any.
Spoiler Consistency - How consistently he performs from match to match. On the basis that there is no player that will perform to his current ability 100% of the time, the ratio of what consistency means in terms of how often a player plays at his CA is as follows
20 Consistency = 20/25 games played at CA
10 Consistency = 10/25 games played at CA
1 Consistency = 1/25 games played at CA
The way consistency is used in the full match engine is that the average "off day" will be 10 below the CA. A random factor will be used to determine how much this is less or more than 10.
Please note that physical attributes are not taken into consideration when it comes to consistency. Only the technical and mental attributes are marked down depending on consistency.
Also Match Importance (database value) and Team Blend (Game value) affect the match by match calculation of the "Real CA" (Consistency combined with CA)
https://fmmvibe.com/forums/topic/8738-player-hidden-attributes-explained/
Yes I get it that someone said it somewhere. There is zero backing for the numbers though. Or if there is I would very much like to see it.
20 Consistency mean that a player plays 20 matches of 25 and his full CA and 5 matches his CA decreased by random number from 1 to 20.
10 Consistency mean that a player plays 10 matches of 25 and his full CA and 15 matches his CA decreased by random number from 1 to 20.
and so on...
I doubt it's that simple and linear. I haven't seen any specific numbers on it, hard to quantify anyway.
It improves with age, starting usually from age 22 onwards. Almost everyone will become consistent, eventually. Starting points at young age are very different but they sort of converge as they get near retirement. Meaning also that players who are more inconsistent will improve consistency more throughout the career.