Thank you for this test. As suspected a little bit of weak foot ability is good, but after that doesn't seem to be worth the cost. And for that reason I don't really like players who are good with both feet.
There might be an argument to be made to train weak foot of players who are terrible at it.
Possebrew said: Awesome work! I'm lacking superlatives to thank you!
The extremes of 1 in some of these attributes are staggering. At the same time, this is also good news! It means you can't just take a player with 20Pac/Acc/Dri and dominate everything. Well-rounded players are still desirable.
I wouldn't have expected that being single footed has such a big impact. This comes in stark contrast to some mainstream advice that it's not worth improving the weak-foot. It also means that it's worth comparing boosting off-foot VS traits like: 'Avoid weaker foot'
The gap between low determination, anticipation, concentration & dribbling is also surprising.
Decision being worthless left me flabbergasted! Expand
The difference between onefooted and both footed is really not that big and considering CA cost I'd argue it's better to invest that into some actual attributes. Could maybe use a test with value of say 6 and 10 or something.
ZaZ said: As far as I know, players are always training for a position, and the role is used to define the base attributes to grow during training. Optimally, you should use the position that gives the best attributes, but I usually do their expected role in tactic just because I like to see maximum tactic familiarity (which probably has no effect in performance). Expand
Still not sure if it trains all roles for a certain position or the one you use in the tactic. The main issue though seems to be that when I select both role and additional training the players complain about too much work and if I remove the role it's mostly fine. So something doesn't add up. With Match practice being such a vital part of training schedules some clarity would be nice.
Flashedmind said: Having analysed this post and related posts and discussions on training schedules, I think I agree with one of ZaZ's comments that you can use the physical attribute maximisation schedule in the youth team and then use the D6 schedule for the first team.
The most interesting finding to me is that you can "cheat" a player's CA-PA ratio if you have the time for it. The schedules show that you can increase a player's CA by around 5-6 per year, all of these points distributed across paca-acc-jump (e.g +2 in each). The main advantage is that you retain the player's PA, because you don't "waste" it on other, less important attributes (which is sad but true in current engine). If you do this from ages 15-18, you can add +6 to pace-acc-jump which is a lot, and then shift towards the schedules that focus on CA growth when the player goes to first team.
Practical example: let's say player has 80 CA and 150 PA, which means that 70 CA can still be attributed in development. If you use the D6 schedule, the player will grow 25 CA per year, of which 5 goes into pace-acc-jump and 20 into other attributes. This means that after 3 years the player will have reached their potential and the distribution of attributes will be on a ratio 1/4 physical/other.
For the same example, if you use the physical attribute maximising schedule, after 3 years the player will have gone from 70 CA to around 85 CA with all increases in attributes in pace-acc-jump (around +5 each). The difference is that the player still has a lot of their potential to be fulfilled, and then you can switch to the D6 schedule once the desired physical attributes are reached. The 85 CA player still has 65 CA to fill in, meaning that another 2-3 years of using D6 schedule can be used to maximise CA growth whilst still developing the physicals.
If you use the physical schedule for 5 years, the player should have around +10 in pace-acc-jump and then have 40 CA left to distribute across mental/technicals, which is still a lot if you can pick the attributes to be developed.
In other words, if you have the time, you can finetune a player's development by first allowing their physicals to be developed greatly and then shifting to other attributes whilst not neglecting physicals.
Im aware that overall, playing matches is most important and that the player's hidden attributes are a decisive factor. I'm also well aware that a lot more discussions can be had on this matter and that further finetuning of these findings is necessary (e.g. the impact of coaching staff, the negative impact on team cohesion or tactical familiarity of the schedules).
Thoughts? Expand
Assuming it actually works in this ideal way. The issue is you are taking numbers from a perfect player. A 150 PA player with less than ideal professionalism will not grow in this way. Anyone who has been tracking development of players will tell you that yes maybe 25 CA per season is sometimes possible, it's very improbable even with the best of prospects and certainly not year after year.
So instead of 5 points in physicals and 5 CA growth it'll be more like 1-2. Additionally since his growth will be so slow it'll take a long time before you are able to offer him game time. Also no other team will want to take him on loan because his CA will be so low, doesn't matter if his distribution is super meta.
I think the tests are valid, but in a real game once you factor in that PA isn't 200, that facilities aren't always 20/20, coaches not ideal, professionalism rarely 20, you can't really offer them enough game time ... everything put together means that the redistribution into physical attributes is probably way too slow. Unless you want to waste 5 seasons for each player in the hopes that some of them work out and that you can catch up on CA growth afterwards (also very questionable as growth slows down with age).
Do you feel the super rest day is necessary in 1 match weeks? The way I see is for it to be worth it it would have to be right on the breaking point so that 1 day super rest completely rests the squad and 1 day of "normal" rest doesn't so the squad would take the 2nd normal rest day as well (or possibly 2 vs 3 day rest situation)
For me the striker is easily scoring 1 goal per game, with the rest of the front 3 scoring about a goal every 2nd game and a ton of assists between then. Even the fullbacks are contributing massively and the DMs with a 25 yard strike every now and then. Honestly this tactic is incredibly efficient and fun to watch.
Quick question, does travel work the same as rest? What I mean is the day after an away match one of those rest slots will be filled with travel. Do players still get a super rest?
But both tactics have the exact same form. Both team and player instructions. There is no differences.
From point of your explanations, the algorithm needs to measure the same RNG paramaters and finish at same point the test for both tactics. Am I wrong? But mine tested with 2400, Gerrard's tested with 3600.
So could you tell me, what is the exact differences between these two tactics from view of the algorithm? Why it is react different? Or what is the more positive RNG parameters in Gerrard's tactic? Set pieces? Opposite instructions etc? What caused that?
And don't get me wrong mate. I'm just curious. Expand
The test isn't precise, there is a lot of RNG involved. The algorithm does not evaluate tactics, it's based on results. After X runs you need to be above Y points to get more runs. So for example after 2400 runs your tactic scored slightly lower and fell under the threshold for further testing while the other tactic didn't and got another 1200 runs. Purely based on luck.
In the end testing will say putting dribble more on everyone is a +0,5 point gain so everyone will put it in their tactic ... That is why there is less diversity, not because it doesn't work but because we know one thing is just a tiny bit better.
Sanfierro said: Thank you too. Unfortunately, I could not find the topics that answered my other questions in my searches. I guess I am having trouble finding keywords because my native language is not English. Could you please tell me which correct keywords I should use to search? For example, my searches for "cosmetic ti/pi" did not yield any results. Expand
The whole Guides, Researches and Hints for Football Manager area is full of them. Search functions on this site aren't like google, you won't find results with such specific words.
To answer your original questions a bit. 1. Obviously don't completely ignore other attributes, there is a lot speed can fix but not everything. The question is way too broad to give a definitive answer. 2. you can do that, a lot of players don't like and it and the effect isn't huge anyway 3. gegenpress is OP, there are some others that work. Defensive tactics are just inferior in the match engine.
But mainly pick things you enjoy. If you prefer possession game use that rather than bleeding out of your eyes because you can't stand gegenpress even if it scores 2% higher. If you like a player because of the name, technical skill or whatever but maybe isn't the fastest there are ways to make it work as well. Point is don't be a robot doing everything by the book, have some fun.
There are numerous videos on effective scouting techniques. Basically scout a lot of players and only then look for the attributes you want. You want to build as big of a database of scouted players as you can. That way you can then make better choices. Stars are a pretty good first approximation of someones ability.
Depending how low league you start there are different options. In England for example you can get to at least Championship on DoF suggestions for free agents alone. Trial those players for 2 weeks and it's equivalent to full scouting the player except it's free. Complement the free agents with some cheap or free loans and you'll have a promotion capable team each season. After you reach Championship (or something on that level financially in other countries) start building that database: recruitment focuses, national team scouting, team reports, key players at clubs, international tournaments...
This experiment caught my eye. No idea what is going on or why but I thought it was interesting enough to share and maybe spark a debate.
So apparently if players don't train at all their CA won't change much (at a young age) but they will start losing attribute points in technical and mental areas and gain them in physicals instead seems like throughout their career. Considering how strong physical attributes are in the match engine and if we look at some of those players ... I think there is potential there for something completely broken. With a few tweaks obviously.
The score dropped from 67.4 pts to 62.3 pts so the difference is just about 4 pts. I'd say it isn't a big difference so if you don't happy about the high amount of cards your team gets during a season then you can remove "Tackle Harder" and "Get Stuck In". Expand
5 points for a "single" setting? I'd say it's quite a big effect. Probably more than almost any other buttons you can change in a tactic.
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)
Non-dominant feet = 6 11.7
Non-dominant feet = 10 12.7
Left Feet = Right Feet = 20 20.1
Thank you for this test. As suspected a little bit of weak foot ability is good, but after that doesn't seem to be worth the cost. And for that reason I don't really like players who are good with both feet.
There might be an argument to be made to train weak foot of players who are terrible at it.
The extremes of 1 in some of these attributes are staggering.
At the same time, this is also good news!
It means you can't just take a player with 20Pac/Acc/Dri and dominate everything.
Well-rounded players are still desirable.
I wouldn't have expected that being single footed has such a big impact. This comes in stark contrast to some mainstream advice that it's not worth improving the weak-foot. It also means that it's worth comparing boosting off-foot VS traits like: 'Avoid weaker foot'
The gap between low determination, anticipation, concentration & dribbling is also surprising.
Decision being worthless left me flabbergasted!
The difference between onefooted and both footed is really not that big and considering CA cost I'd argue it's better to invest that into some actual attributes. Could maybe use a test with value of say 6 and 10 or something.
Still not sure if it trains all roles for a certain position or the one you use in the tactic. The main issue though seems to be that when I select both role and additional training the players complain about too much work and if I remove the role it's mostly fine. So something doesn't add up. With Match practice being such a vital part of training schedules some clarity would be nice.
The most interesting finding to me is that you can "cheat" a player's CA-PA ratio if you have the time for it. The schedules show that you can increase a player's CA by around 5-6 per year, all of these points distributed across paca-acc-jump (e.g +2 in each). The main advantage is that you retain the player's PA, because you don't "waste" it on other, less important attributes (which is sad but true in current engine). If you do this from ages 15-18, you can add +6 to pace-acc-jump which is a lot, and then shift towards the schedules that focus on CA growth when the player goes to first team.
Practical example: let's say player has 80 CA and 150 PA, which means that 70 CA can still be attributed in development. If you use the D6 schedule, the player will grow 25 CA per year, of which 5 goes into pace-acc-jump and 20 into other attributes. This means that after 3 years the player will have reached their potential and the distribution of attributes will be on a ratio 1/4 physical/other.
For the same example, if you use the physical attribute maximising schedule, after 3 years the player will have gone from 70 CA to around 85 CA with all increases in attributes in pace-acc-jump (around +5 each). The difference is that the player still has a lot of their potential to be fulfilled, and then you can switch to the D6 schedule once the desired physical attributes are reached. The 85 CA player still has 65 CA to fill in, meaning that another 2-3 years of using D6 schedule can be used to maximise CA growth whilst still developing the physicals.
If you use the physical schedule for 5 years, the player should have around +10 in pace-acc-jump and then have 40 CA left to distribute across mental/technicals, which is still a lot if you can pick the attributes to be developed.
In other words, if you have the time, you can finetune a player's development by first allowing their physicals to be developed greatly and then shifting to other attributes whilst not neglecting physicals.
Im aware that overall, playing matches is most important and that the player's hidden attributes are a decisive factor. I'm also well aware that a lot more discussions can be had on this matter and that further finetuning of these findings is necessary (e.g. the impact of coaching staff, the negative impact on team cohesion or tactical familiarity of the schedules).
Thoughts?
Assuming it actually works in this ideal way. The issue is you are taking numbers from a perfect player. A 150 PA player with less than ideal professionalism will not grow in this way. Anyone who has been tracking development of players will tell you that yes maybe 25 CA per season is sometimes possible, it's very improbable even with the best of prospects and certainly not year after year.
So instead of 5 points in physicals and 5 CA growth it'll be more like 1-2. Additionally since his growth will be so slow it'll take a long time before you are able to offer him game time. Also no other team will want to take him on loan because his CA will be so low, doesn't matter if his distribution is super meta.
I think the tests are valid, but in a real game once you factor in that PA isn't 200, that facilities aren't always 20/20, coaches not ideal, professionalism rarely 20, you can't really offer them enough game time ... everything put together means that the redistribution into physical attributes is probably way too slow. Unless you want to waste 5 seasons for each player in the hopes that some of them work out and that you can catch up on CA growth afterwards (also very questionable as growth slows down with age).
But both tactics have the exact same form. Both team and player instructions. There is no differences.
From point of your explanations, the algorithm needs to measure the same RNG paramaters and finish at same point the test for both tactics. Am I wrong? But mine tested with 2400, Gerrard's tested with 3600.
So could you tell me, what is the exact differences between these two tactics from view of the algorithm? Why it is react different? Or what is the more positive RNG parameters in Gerrard's tactic? Set pieces? Opposite instructions etc? What caused that?
And don't get me wrong mate. I'm just curious.
The test isn't precise, there is a lot of RNG involved. The algorithm does not evaluate tactics, it's based on results. After X runs you need to be above Y points to get more runs. So for example after 2400 runs your tactic scored slightly lower and fell under the threshold for further testing while the other tactic didn't and got another 1200 runs. Purely based on luck.
The whole Guides, Researches and Hints for Football Manager area is full of them. Search functions on this site aren't like google, you won't find results with such specific words.
To answer your original questions a bit.
1. Obviously don't completely ignore other attributes, there is a lot speed can fix but not everything. The question is way too broad to give a definitive answer.
2. you can do that, a lot of players don't like and it and the effect isn't huge anyway
3. gegenpress is OP, there are some others that work. Defensive tactics are just inferior in the match engine.
But mainly pick things you enjoy. If you prefer possession game use that rather than bleeding out of your eyes because you can't stand gegenpress even if it scores 2% higher. If you like a player because of the name, technical skill or whatever but maybe isn't the fastest there are ways to make it work as well. Point is don't be a robot doing everything by the book, have some fun.
Depending how low league you start there are different options. In England for example you can get to at least Championship on DoF suggestions for free agents alone. Trial those players for 2 weeks and it's equivalent to full scouting the player except it's free. Complement the free agents with some cheap or free loans and you'll have a promotion capable team each season. After you reach Championship (or something on that level financially in other countries) start building that database: recruitment focuses, national team scouting, team reports, key players at clubs, international tournaments...
So apparently if players don't train at all their CA won't change much (at a young age) but they will start losing attribute points in technical and mental areas and gain them in physicals instead seems like throughout their career. Considering how strong physical attributes are in the match engine and if we look at some of those players ... I think there is potential there for something completely broken. With a few tweaks obviously.
Katana tactic with "Tackle Harder" and "Gut Stuck In" ( 67.4 pts ) - https://fm-arena.com/thread/10629-katana-4231-att-103p-v1-9/
Katana tactic without "Tackle Harder" and "Gut Stuck In" ( 62.3 pts ) - https://fm-arena.com/thread/10936-katana-4231-att-v1-9-no-th-no-gsi/
The score dropped from 67.4 pts to 62.3 pts so the difference is just about 4 pts. I'd say it isn't a big difference so if you don't happy about the high amount of cards your team gets during a season then you can remove "Tackle Harder" and "Get Stuck In".
5 points for a "single" setting? I'd say it's quite a big effect. Probably more than almost any other buttons you can change in a tactic.
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.