Orion said: I highly recommend you reading about methodology of this research - the source method posted on SI forum - because clearly you haven't read it.(...) Expand
I did, and even quoted it a few posts above. You may have missed that context clue. I may not have fully grasped it the way you intended.
Anyway, I understand I'm not the target audience of your work, and I thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
Orion said: This issue should be somehow compensate with data being standardised which means attributes for every player are 'relative' to their league average. The question with this method is - are attributes relation is linear - example if league average is 10 pace, and the player has 15 will the effect be the same as for the league having average pace 15 and player 20.
If we wanted to tackle this issue my guess would be - make a graph of league 'rank' and players average CA and based on the results filter out players playing in leagues with high enough 'rank' (just reminder - rank is a league place in continental ranking).
It's doable but would require additional work. Especially exporting again data for all the players for all the seasons for all the engines since I did not include CA in their export data. Expand
My main concern is that the average includes non-playing players, possibly those not even on the squad roster. While your work has merit and could serve as a base for some sort of star rating for junior player development, I take issue with it being presented as 'the most important attributes for each respective position in FM24.' This phrasing gives a sense of absolute truth, which, in my opinion, leads to misguided conclusions.
I understand that refining the dataset would require a lot of additional work, but I truly believe it would better serve its intended purpose by providing a clearer and more accurate representation of attribute importance at a competitive level.
PS: ingame, each competition has a reputation value, regardless of its continent, and that could serve as a global relative ranking.
Orion said: Yep, and Jumping Reach. Difference is that sometimes some technical attributes like Passing or Technique are showing. Previously it was mostly just Dribbling. Expand
Could the current dataset be skewed by an overrepresentation of lower-level players, whose attributes may not reflect high-level gameplay? You mentioned yourself: 'the data is flooded with players with relatively low CA.' We all know that in lower leagues, and even near the bottom of top leagues, the game tends to be more primal and physical rather than technical.
By focusing on top teams and excluding young, developing players, the analysis might better capture the attributes that truly influence performance at an elite level. Given that, what do you think about refining the sample to focus on actual top-tier teams and filtering out younger, still-developing players?
I feel this would make the findings more representative of how FM is actually played: primarily in the top five leagues, with most players managing elite squads or near-peers, at least from what I’ve seen in the video content and forums. This would, in turn, make your valuable work even more useful to the community. Otherwise, many might draw the wrong conclusions from it: simply because they don’t read the full accompanying text, for whatever reason.
Kma said: Hello Please can you share Player instructions? Expand
- ST : Take More Risks, Tackle Harder - AML/R : Sit Narrower, Close Down More, Tackle Harder, Mark Specific Position (D L/R) - AMC : Take More Risks, Hold Up Ball, Move Into Channels, Tackle Harder - DMs : Take More Risks, Tackle Harder - D L/R : Take More Risks, Cross From Byline, Stay Wider, Tackle Harder - CDs : Dribble More, Tackle Harder - GK : Tackle Harder
My conclusion would be different : OP says "I think he (the youtuber) made the mistake of trusting the game company, the game company didn't make a proper training system, just pretended it had one (just like the "Pace"."
I would say : this player didn't play the game properly, (s)he just pretended to do so.
To me, all this only shows that there are ways to exploit the game, as any program.
Just don't break what's not broken, and we'll be fine.
I might be misremembering, but I think it's been known for years that training just assign ability points the player earn playing matches into a specific group of attributes. And the more reputations the team and the league have, the more ability point are earned.
as a lifelong novice in FM, I'm amazed by such dedication to testing things out and understanding how the game works.
Reading your post, I'm failing to understand something : - you are testing if an attribute not underlined as important for a role actually has an impact, by making it a relative weakness, restricting the ability of the player to "get there". However, you are testing that in a much more granular context than just the role in itself: the tactic ie. If feel like not everything is taken in account.
My question : doesn't the importance of pace actually come from the tactic you set up and the opponents you've faced?
I'm sure that everybody is aware that each role has highlighted attributes.
Almost every FM player zealously follow the highlighted attributes of the roles and that seems quite logical because why wouldn't you follow it? The game tells you what attributes are important for the roles... of course, you trust the game.
As it can be seen on the screenshots "Pace" attribute isn't highlighted for both roles.
So the game tells us "Pace" is nothing for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles and other attributes such as Decisions, Off The Ball, Technique and other are much more important and they are key attributes for the roles.
Ok, let's trust to the game and do what it suggests us to do, we reduce the Pace attribute to "5" and relocate the freed CA to other attributers Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique which according to the game, are the key attributes for the roles and much more important than the Pace attributes.
Please note, it's very important that after the relocation the CA hasn't changed it's stayed the same(147CA), we just relocated it from "Pace" attribute to Decisions, Off The Ball amd Technique attributes which according the game, are more important for the roles than "Pace" attribute.
(...)
I guess, now it should be clear that the star ratings of the roles and the highlighted attributes are not just useless but can be misleading.
We can only question why SI decided to design the game this way.
I did, and even quoted it a few posts above. You may have missed that context clue. I may not have fully grasped it the way you intended.
Anyway, I understand I'm not the target audience of your work, and I thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
Cheers
If we wanted to tackle this issue my guess would be - make a graph of league 'rank' and players average CA and based on the results filter out players playing in leagues with high enough 'rank' (just reminder - rank is a league place in continental ranking).
It's doable but would require additional work. Especially exporting again data for all the players for all the seasons for all the engines since I did not include CA in their export data.
My main concern is that the average includes non-playing players, possibly those not even on the squad roster. While your work has merit and could serve as a base for some sort of star rating for junior player development, I take issue with it being presented as 'the most important attributes for each respective position in FM24.' This phrasing gives a sense of absolute truth, which, in my opinion, leads to misguided conclusions.
I understand that refining the dataset would require a lot of additional work, but I truly believe it would better serve its intended purpose by providing a clearer and more accurate representation of attribute importance at a competitive level.
PS: ingame, each competition has a reputation value, regardless of its continent, and that could serve as a global relative ranking.
Cheers
Could the current dataset be skewed by an overrepresentation of lower-level players, whose attributes may not reflect high-level gameplay? You mentioned yourself: 'the data is flooded with players with relatively low CA.' We all know that in lower leagues, and even near the bottom of top leagues, the game tends to be more primal and physical rather than technical.
By focusing on top teams and excluding young, developing players, the analysis might better capture the attributes that truly influence performance at an elite level. Given that, what do you think about refining the sample to focus on actual top-tier teams and filtering out younger, still-developing players?
I feel this would make the findings more representative of how FM is actually played: primarily in the top five leagues, with most players managing elite squads or near-peers, at least from what I’ve seen in the video content and forums. This would, in turn, make your valuable work even more useful to the community. Otherwise, many might draw the wrong conclusions from it: simply because they don’t read the full accompanying text, for whatever reason.
- ST : Take More Risks, Tackle Harder
- AML/R : Sit Narrower, Close Down More, Tackle Harder, Mark Specific Position (D L/R)
- AMC : Take More Risks, Hold Up Ball, Move Into Channels, Tackle Harder
- DMs : Take More Risks, Tackle Harder
- D L/R : Take More Risks, Cross From Byline, Stay Wider, Tackle Harder
- CDs : Dribble More, Tackle Harder
- GK : Tackle Harder
https://www.panoz.it/FMItalia/Downloads/Ricerca/FM20_Guida_Completa.htm
Maybe in the PreGameEditor you can correlate that.
PS: "Friendly" is its own competition and has a reputation of 10.
Can we load (or extract/export) the AI tactic from somewhere ?
From 红骑士Sakura
https://www.playgm.cc/thread-971631-1-1.html
While modifying the game engine (previous post), he discovered some logically related Stats of the engine's behavior
(...)
We know that the engine is only used in Full Details mode.
Are you test performed using Full Details mode too, or are simulated in another mode ?
PS: also, what tactic and roles are you using in your test ?
My conclusion would be different : OP says "I think he (the youtuber) made the mistake of trusting the game company, the game company didn't make a proper training system, just pretended it had one (just like the "Pace"
I would say : this player didn't play the game properly, (s)he just pretended to do so.
To me, all this only shows that there are ways to exploit the game, as any program.
Just don't break what's not broken, and we'll be fine.
And the more reputations the team and the league have, the more ability point are earned.
I must admit I don't understand the hype here.
I haven't been able to find what are the Default attributes.
Is it documented somewhere ?
Cheers
as a lifelong novice in FM, I'm amazed by such dedication to testing things out and understanding how the game works.
Reading your post, I'm failing to understand something :
- you are testing if an attribute not underlined as important for a role actually has an impact, by making it a relative weakness, restricting the ability of the player to "get there". However, you are testing that in a much more granular context than just the role in itself: the tactic ie. If feel like not everything is taken in account.
My question :
doesn't the importance of pace actually come from the tactic you set up and the opponents you've faced?
Cheers
Zippo said: Hi there,
I'm sure that everybody is aware that each role has highlighted attributes.
Almost every FM player zealously follow the highlighted attributes of the roles and that seems quite logical because why wouldn't you follow it? The game tells you what attributes are important for the roles... of course, you trust the game.
But let's test it.
For our test we take this tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/5015-433-toast-rack/
(...)
As it can be seen on the screenshots "Pace" attribute isn't highlighted for both roles.
So the game tells us "Pace" is nothing for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles and other attributes such as Decisions, Off The Ball, Technique and other are much more important and they are key attributes for the roles.
Ok, let's trust to the game and do what it suggests us to do, we reduce the Pace attribute to "5" and relocate the freed CA to other attributers Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique which according to the game, are the key attributes for the roles and much more important than the Pace attributes.
Please note, it's very important that after the relocation the CA hasn't changed it's stayed the same(147CA), we just relocated it from "Pace" attribute to Decisions, Off The Ball amd Technique attributes which according the game, are more important for the roles than "Pace" attribute.
(...)
I guess, now it should be clear that the star ratings of the roles and the highlighted attributes are not just useless but can be misleading.
We can only question why SI decided to design the game this way.
>>> Alos, look at the "Part 2" of the test <<<