I'm thinking of progression of meta tactics. At start it was like you need 2 DM or you are leaking goals. Then it was OK you need 1, but like a BWM/DM/DLP on defend duty. And now we are down to 1 kinda DM, who is maybe not always there. I find it interesting.
Delicious said: Because some of them reported me that players were literally dying at min 65, that's why i am asking, i didn't really test it my self. If i have news about that will bring them to you asap Expand
I don't think that has anything to do with the training. Feels like they tuned something in the update to make players tire more quickly in matches, like 10-15% maybe. Probably more realistic if I'm honest, if you are pressing whole 90 mins it should show. With timely substitutions it can be largely mitigated.
Reason why I think it's not training is that they enter the games in full condition. It's not like a day before the match they were fine and then that training day completely ruined them. Tiredness is left over from the previous match, if they aren't fit they aren't training anyway - that's the beauty and simplicity of it.
In the end this is a game, not a simulation. And I think some things are coded to provide some sort of reward. Most saves end within 5 or 6 seasons, you can't make a game that would only pay you off in year 20, very few will reach it. So it makes sense you can (with some skill) outplay the AI. Progress has to be challenging but reachable and if you are really experienced that reachable becomes almost guaranteed.
Sure some of the decisions could be better, but we are also actively trying to exploit any flaws. For example unlike real life you get a pretty good idea of young players potential, even exact if you look at PA and other hidden attributes. It's also fairly easy to develop young players (as a human manager, AI could really use an upgrade here), they are rarely flops and even then you can still probably sell for profit. All of it leading to the "common knowledge of how to play the game" which is actually just exploiting what the AI is bad at to get ahead. If it did this well and for example undervalued older still good players then the meta strategy would be to buy those. Gamers will always find the optimal way to progress through the game and then complain it's not challenging enough.
Yes they nerfed it somewhat. Although if you have a dominant player in the air (CB or ST) it's still pretty good, just not broken ... until someone finds a new broken routine
Honestly mine is still scoring, probably same or even more than before. Capitalising on every mistake the defenders make.
The type of goals he scores have changed, more low to midheight crosses that end with a successful shot on target, more scrappy balls inside the area that he can pounce on, deflections etc.
CMs tend to get in better positions now and are more effective. Their build up play also looks better.
Overall still an exciting as effective tactic to use, but I would like it a bit closer to some other formations. Perhaps with some tweaks it can get there.
I'm more placing this idea out there than actually testing
As far as specifically individual role attributes go I don't notice much change, however the progress graphs look good and I get more inbox messages of good training progress than I used to. For whatever that counts. Like I said could be only dumb luck.
I've been experimenting with taking your base training and rest settings and changing attacking sessions into chance creation and conversion, and defensive into aerial and ground defence. Main idea was basically to have every session (other than physical) work on individual roles, just to see if it actually does anything.
Only done like 1 season with the new schedule, results seem quite decent. Hard to evaluate without more rigorous testing, but lets say I'll be sticking to it for now. It's equally possible something just clicked, or I have players that progress better and the original training would have worked just as well if not better.
I think you guys are getting confused. There are personal instructions and there are positional instructions. You aren't implementing anything by changing that, you are merely swapping views between personal and positional instructions. Both still apply.
"There's a lot of factors that come in to play e.g. movement speed of players, bravery, strength, body position. It's rare that two players with the same jumping reach will be differentiated by their height since its extremely unlikely that these other factors are also going to all be the same. Personally I just look at jumping reach when judging players, never really check the height since it's factored in."
That's the only post I've found from an actual SI guy
Height doesn't matter in terms of aerial ability. 170 cm with 15 jumping reach is just as good as 190 cm with 15. However obviously taller players will tend to have those attributes higher.
It might influence player development slightly, taller getting slightly more progress into aerial ability and smaller into speed. But I've not seen definitive tests.
I just do it every sunday when I get training for next 2 weeks in the inbox, can fix everything there in a few seconds.
Only thing that really annoys me (and this has nothing to do with the schedule) is that if the match is played on sunday the game will override whatever training is planned for monday with recovery, so I have to manually fix that.
Been using your training schedule for pretty much whole FM23 cycle. It's so easy to use no matter what the match schedule is and results are good both in terms of progression and match results, helps when players are well rested for matches. The most "1 click per week and forget about it" schedule I've seen
Might be a good test to try now that we have some of these broken corner routines. Since it's scoring like 20+ goals per season we should be able to pick up the signal even in the raw goals per season data.
I like having a good set piece taker, but it's not something I'm focusing on. Usually one of the midfielders I pick up for other reasons has good enough attributes. I wouldn't sacrifice more than maybe half a star of ability to keep such a player on the field.
Especially for free kicks I'm not too sure how much it matters. You see some absolutely ridiculous goals from below average takers, and my 17 FK, 17 long shots, 15 technique guy hits only posts. For corners I do think it matters, but shouldn't really need 18+, depending on the level 13+ should be good, maybe above 15 for top clubs.
I don't think that has anything to do with the training. Feels like they tuned something in the update to make players tire more quickly in matches, like 10-15% maybe. Probably more realistic if I'm honest, if you are pressing whole 90 mins it should show. With timely substitutions it can be largely mitigated.
Reason why I think it's not training is that they enter the games in full condition. It's not like a day before the match they were fine and then that training day completely ruined them. Tiredness is left over from the previous match, if they aren't fit they aren't training anyway - that's the beauty and simplicity of it.
Sure some of the decisions could be better, but we are also actively trying to exploit any flaws. For example unlike real life you get a pretty good idea of young players potential, even exact if you look at PA and other hidden attributes. It's also fairly easy to develop young players (as a human manager, AI could really use an upgrade here), they are rarely flops and even then you can still probably sell for profit. All of it leading to the "common knowledge of how to play the game" which is actually just exploiting what the AI is bad at to get ahead. If it did this well and for example undervalued older still good players then the meta strategy would be to buy those. Gamers will always find the optimal way to progress through the game and then complain it's not challenging enough.
Have we even see much testing on strikerless since update? Some people say it's much stronger now.
The type of goals he scores have changed, more low to midheight crosses that end with a successful shot on target, more scrappy balls inside the area that he can pounce on, deflections etc.
CMs tend to get in better positions now and are more effective. Their build up play also looks better.
Overall still an exciting as effective tactic to use, but I would like it a bit closer to some other formations. Perhaps with some tweaks it can get there.
As far as specifically individual role attributes go I don't notice much change, however the progress graphs look good and I get more inbox messages of good training progress than I used to. For whatever that counts. Like I said could be only dumb luck.
Only done like 1 season with the new schedule, results seem quite decent. Hard to evaluate without more rigorous testing, but lets say I'll be sticking to it for now. It's equally possible something just clicked, or I have players that progress better and the original training would have worked just as well if not better.
That's the only post I've found from an actual SI guy
It might influence player development slightly, taller getting slightly more progress into aerial ability and smaller into speed. But I've not seen definitive tests.
Only thing that really annoys me (and this has nothing to do with the schedule) is that if the match is played on sunday the game will override whatever training is planned for monday with recovery, so I have to manually fix that.
Especially for free kicks I'm not too sure how much it matters. You see some absolutely ridiculous goals from below average takers, and my 17 FK, 17 long shots, 15 technique guy hits only posts. For corners I do think it matters, but shouldn't really need 18+, depending on the level 13+ should be good, maybe above 15 for top clubs.