Very kind of you, thank you! Maybe slightly more defensive but not worth it. Perhaps to defend a difficult result it is better to change the formation: remove AM and put DC, raise the full-backs: 343 Kippa Sym U
CBP87 said: Yes it didn't perform as well as this one. Think it got 60.1 or around that mark Expand
I saw that you tried a "balanced" mentality but also modified several other things FM24.3 Katana 4231 96p v1.4:
" Changes- Dribble More, Run wide with ball, take more risks and shoot less often removed from FB Added cross from byline to FB Removed take more risks from DM, AM and AF Removed hold up ball and sit narrower from IF "
I would be curious to see exactly this tactic with these settings, but with a "Balanced" mentality. All the top tactics use it.
Delicious said: Doing my save with de zerbi : none wanna join, so i do literally went for ... :
What can i say? Let's pray Expand
How did your save go with those players? I would like to know the opinion of someone who has tried "only - meta attributes - players" in a real scenario.
Han106 said: On the topic of physical training, everything has to do with the my personal weights and how it effects the results I get. You can read how I made the weights for my experiments below or just read the TL;DR if you can trust the weights I've cooked .
How the Weights for my Training experiments were formed
I made weights that are based on the Chinese Machine Learning FM Study. It's probably the most quality test on attributes we might ever see for some time due to sample size and the process that is AI machine learning. You can find the weights from the experiment called ykykyk balanced here from @Mark's post on it.
Here is an example of the Full Backs for ykykyk balanced.
There was a problem with just copying these weights 1 for 1 for me.
I feel that Physicals were not weighted important enough. When I was playing FM using these weights a lot of players I was being recommended(as a lower league club) were over the hill and were really declining the league in the 2 most important attributes Pace and Acceleration, but had great Technical/Mental skill to "make up" for it.
Then I used the weights that @ZaZ created all ratings under 50 minus 25 weights which @Markbalanced here. These weights fixed this problem for me by decreasing weights on the less important attributes which coincidentally really fixed the importance for the Physical Attributes.
Here is an example of the Full Backs for all ratings under 50 minus 25.
However, the problem with these weights is that I'm using the top tactic in the Patch 24.2.0 (v2.0) - Tactic Testing Table. The Machine Learning Weights are based off of this tactic from FM22. The meta tactics for FM24 are different from 2 years ago with the biggest difference being the role of the Fullback. The IWB played more like a recycle the ball DM which shows in these weights. Now the Fullback has the responsibilities of a Winger, and needs more weights to represent this.
Here is an example of changes I made to my weights to attempt to accomplish this which you can find here .
For example, I raised some weights in things like Passing, Crossing, and Technique to what I felt best emulated the role of a FB in that tactic.
I made tweaks like this to these weights to fit the top tactic for FM 24 for not just Fullback but the other roles as well(but should work other 4231 tactics).
TL;DR The weights are my attempt at mixing Chinese Machine Learning with prioritizing Physical Attributes to fit FM 24.
Because of that, almost all of the weights above 70 in my weights are trained with any sort of Physical training. I have screenshots here underlining these attributes in green.
Looking at these weights, Physical Attributes are weighted as importantly as the center of the universe. Because of that I try to maximize their growth as much as reasonably possible instead of being efficient with just 1 or 2 sessions.
If the results from physical training showed that more is better then I would do more, but it seems the maximum training sessions that grow Physical sessions in a week is 3. So that's why in the foundational 11 training schedule there are 3 physical sessions in it. Expand
DreadPirateRoberts said: Well I am pretty sure 2,400 matches equals a margin of error of max 1-2 points. The difference between adding and removing 5 pace is 10 points. Secondly, there have been tests done where someone put all the "unimportant" attributes to 1, which resulted in horrific results. (like losing 9-0 every game) but when they put all those stats to 5, suddenly they only lost something like 3 out of 20 games in the prem with luton, basically a huge difference. This indicates that the attribute threshold is somewhere in between 5 and 10, after which any subsequent increase does nothing! Expand
Exact! We know that probably for "normal" attributes the threshold is between 5 and 10. Having said that, pace could also have its own threshold, and if it does, it is certainly above 10, but where?
Let's change our point of view then. If we start with pace -5 we score 29 points. If we increase pace by 5 (default value) we get 60 points, for a total of +31 points. If we increase the pace by 5 again we get 81 points, for a total of +21 points. If we increased the pace by another 5, maybe this time we would "only" +15 points for example (I don't know how much the default value was). This is called diminishing return.
It's clear that pace is by far the most important attribute in the game, I'm not disputing that.
I would like to find out if there is diminishing return on attributes, because if that were the case, a player with pace 15, for example, would not be that much worse than one with pace 17. Where instead he could be significantly better than one with pace 13.
Interesting, by adding 5 pace points we gained 21 points, while by subtracting 5 pace points we lost 31 points. Does this mean that there is a diminishing return when increasing the value of an attribute? Have any studies ever been done on this?
Yes, I saw that test...maybe with 2 AF and 2 Mez(At) you are more dangerous using the center? And so you get worse results using "focus play to flanks"?
I expect that using this same tactic but with a balanced mentality, you will score the same points, but with 5 fewer goals conceded and 5 fewer goals scored. It would be useful to defend the result once you are ahead!
@Avenger22 congratulations for the result! I really appreciate realistic tactics. Can you try all these tactical instructions again with a balanced mentality?
@Delicious do you plan to test DLP + DM combination? Or any other defensive midfield combination? (DLP(Su) + VOL(Su), DLP(Su) + BWM(Su), VOL(Su) + VOL(Su))
dzek said: @Delicious It's kind of weird, the 11 point difference between the other tactic with the only difference being BPD dribbling less. Can you double check to see if you added anything extra by accident?
When looking at some things in the tactics, you might add/remove some instructions by mistake and then forget about them there. Again, it's very strange. Expand
There is also W(Su) instead of IF(Su). Still, a notable difference.
Comparing this tactic, with this: 4231-death-star, we have 11 points of difference and 17 of G.D. just for giving the two BPDs "dribble less"?! When I see these things I realize how unpredictable FM is and how far it is from football simulation.
I had always wondered why the tactics put "dribble more" on DCs, when they are often not good dribblers. Evidently making DCs dribble breaks the engine in some way.
Very kind of you, thank you! Maybe slightly more defensive but not worth it. Perhaps to defend a difficult result it is better to change the formation: remove AM and put DC, raise the full-backs:
343 Kippa Sym U
I saw that you tried a "balanced" mentality but also modified several other things FM24.3 Katana 4231 96p v1.4:
"
Changes-
Dribble More, Run wide with ball, take more risks and shoot less often removed from FB
Added cross from byline to FB
Removed take more risks from DM, AM and AF
Removed hold up ball and sit narrower from IF
"
I would be curious to see exactly this tactic with these settings, but with a "Balanced" mentality. All the top tactics use it.
Thank you!
What can i say? Let's pray
How did your save go with those players? I would like to know the opinion of someone who has tried "only - meta attributes - players" in a real scenario.
Thank you very much!
How the Weights for my Training experiments were formed I made weights that are based on the Chinese Machine Learning FM Study. It's probably the most quality test on attributes we might ever see for some time due to sample size and the process that is AI machine learning. You can find the weights from the experiment called ykykyk balanced here from @Mark's post on it.
Here is an example of the Full Backs for ykykyk balanced.
There was a problem with just copying these weights 1 for 1 for me.
I feel that Physicals were not weighted important enough. When I was playing FM using these weights a lot of players I was being recommended(as a lower league club) were over the hill and were really declining the league in the 2 most important attributes Pace and Acceleration, but had great Technical/Mental skill to "make up" for it.
Then I used the weights that @ZaZ created all ratings under 50 minus 25 weights which @Mark balanced here. These weights fixed this problem for me by decreasing weights on the less important attributes which coincidentally really fixed the importance for the Physical Attributes.
Here is an example of the Full Backs for all ratings under 50 minus 25.
However, the problem with these weights is that I'm using the top tactic in the Patch 24.2.0 (v2.0) - Tactic Testing Table. The Machine Learning Weights are based off of this tactic from FM22. The meta tactics for FM24 are different from 2 years ago with the biggest difference being the role of the Fullback. The IWB played more like a recycle the ball DM which shows in these weights. Now the Fullback has the responsibilities of a Winger, and needs more weights to represent this.
Here is an example of changes I made to my weights to attempt to accomplish this which you can find here
For example, I raised some weights in things like Passing, Crossing, and Technique to what I felt best emulated the role of a FB in that tactic.
I made tweaks like this to these weights to fit the top tactic for FM 24 for not just Fullback but the other roles as well(but should work other 4231 tactics).
TL;DR The weights are my attempt at mixing Chinese Machine Learning with prioritizing Physical Attributes to fit FM 24.
Because of that, almost all of the weights above 70 in my weights are trained with any sort of Physical training. I have screenshots here underlining these attributes in green.
Looking at these weights, Physical Attributes are weighted as importantly as the center of the universe. Because of that I try to maximize their growth as much as reasonably possible instead of being efficient with just 1 or 2 sessions.
If the results from physical training showed that more is better then I would do more, but it seems the maximum training sessions that grow Physical sessions in a week is 3. So that's why in the foundational 11 training schedule there are 3 physical sessions in it.
Congratulations for the work!
There's one thing I've never understood: why in Chinese Machine Learning FM Study on @ZaZ tactic, stamina is indicated as an important attribute for all roles, but in Player Attributes Testing Table it isn't?
Exact! We know that probably for "normal" attributes the threshold is between 5 and 10. Having said that, pace could also have its own threshold, and if it does, it is certainly above 10, but where?
If we increase the pace by 5 again we get 81 points, for a total of +21 points. If we increased the pace by another 5, maybe this time we would "only" +15 points for example (I don't know how much the default value was). This is called diminishing return.
It's clear that pace is by far the most important attribute in the game, I'm not disputing that.
I would like to find out if there is diminishing return on attributes, because if that were the case, a player with pace 15, for example, would not be that much worse than one with pace 17. Where instead he could be significantly better than one with pace 13.
I expect that using this same tactic but with a balanced mentality, you will score the same points, but with 5 fewer goals conceded and 5 fewer goals scored. It would be useful to defend the result once you are ahead!
I really appreciate realistic tactics. Can you try all these tactical instructions again with a balanced mentality?
WB(Su) => WB(At)
VOL(At) => VOL(Su)
WB(Su) => WB(At)
VOL(At) => DM(Su)
When looking at some things in the tactics, you might add/remove some instructions by mistake and then forget about them there. Again, it's very strange.
There is also W(Su) instead of IF(Su). Still, a notable difference.
I had always wondered why the tactics put "dribble more" on DCs, when they are often not good dribblers. Evidently making DCs dribble breaks the engine in some way.