Thank you for that detailed response! Very interesting findings regarding the locking mechanism. I've also been using the same test setup, how many games / seasons is your sample size?
Hello @harvestgreen22 , thanks again for your work! I have some questions about your test setup. I've been using the same base-file that you seem to be using (from EBFM), frozen with FMRTE, etc.
When doing some tactics testing, I've noticed that even when simulating 10-20 seasons, I couldn't reproduce the same results on average in many cases, because some variables can't be frozen (like player links). Have you been able to reproduce your findings here?
I'm also curious why the "baseline" has a positive goal difference, shouldn't a baseline roughly have +0?
I was wondering if your findings here have some implications on unbiased tactic testing @Zippo - as you've stated in some other threads, increasing the attributes by a minor amount will have more impact on results than optimizing a tactic. Do all players in your tactic tests have the same attributes in pace/acceleration? If not, wouldn't this cause a strong bias to tactics that use the "fastest" positions more?
Thanks for the updates! A thing I was wondering for a while: PPMs don't seem to have a huge effect on results from other tests I've seen. But I was wondering: Since Pace and Acceleration are so effective, what about PPMs that rely on those stats, particularly "Knocks Ball Past Opponent"? Is there any difference in having something like 20 Pace / Acc vs having 20 in both plus that PPM?
Looking at the initial tests from @harvestgreen22, it is clear that not all attributes have a linear effect. Attributes like work rate seem to have a "saturation point", so anything above 10 has diminishing returns. There may be something similar at play here - testing with 1 technique might have a high effect, 10 might be some kind of sweet spot, while the drop above might be due to something like statistical noise or some other threshold that allows actions that aren't helpful, especially if the whole team is doing them.
Thanks for providing an update! So it looks like when just looking to get the max meta attributes without too much CA, X8 could be one of the best choices next to pure resting. For the A squad, the choice is quite a bit more difficult!
Thanks for your effort @harvestgreen22 <3 Would you mind testing how a single session of set-piece and/or team bonding would affect the results, especially with the lighter sessions like Y6? I'd imagine something like that could be the best of both worlds in terms of development, match fitness and other benefits. But it could also be quite detrimental to the player developement.
I have some questions about your test setup. I've been using the same base-file that you seem to be using (from EBFM), frozen with FMRTE, etc.
When doing some tactics testing, I've noticed that even when simulating 10-20 seasons, I couldn't reproduce the same results on average in many cases, because some variables can't be frozen (like player links).
Have you been able to reproduce your findings here?
I'm also curious why the "baseline" has a positive goal difference, shouldn't a baseline roughly have +0?
A thing I was wondering for a while: PPMs don't seem to have a huge effect on results from other tests I've seen. But I was wondering: Since Pace and Acceleration are so effective, what about PPMs that rely on those stats, particularly "Knocks Ball Past Opponent"? Is there any difference in having something like 20 Pace / Acc vs having 20 in both plus that PPM?
Would you mind testing how a single session of set-piece and/or team bonding would affect the results, especially with the lighter sessions like Y6? I'd imagine something like that could be the best of both worlds in terms of development, match fitness and other benefits. But it could also be quite detrimental to the player developement.