So I've been testing this on my journeyman save, previously I was a spreadsheet with calculations for attacking and defending based on attributes weighted by the FM Arena new attribute testing.
That got me three promotions and then three years title wins on the top league (Japan)
I'm currently in Korea and with the weighting based on Orions approach, I'm still winning at the same rate but the football seems better to watch and average player ratings are higher. I'm claiming more player & goals of the month.
In general, my players are slower than than what I would sign on my previous set up but using harvestgreen22 training, I could build up pace and acceleration over time if needed.
One thing that does feel off is the jumping reach ratings. I didn't understand the calculations at first so I'm obviously not an expert on any of this but my suspicions are you need one or two players with high ratings there to score from set pieces and it's those goals that boost the average rating rating - potentially any position could have a high attribute.
It might be along the same line of high free kicks/corners/penalty taking having an impact, but that's purely guesswork on my part
Orion said: The second one - as said in disclaimer - uses Jumping Reach to power of two. So just take Jumping Reach x Jumping Reach x the last coefficient. Polynomial regression can show features 'synergie' that is represented as two features multiplication - or one feature multiplied by itself. Expand
Amazing, thanks so much for taking the time there to keep me right on this
Just about to try out this method, would it be possible to confirm the ST coefficients, is it correct to have Jumping as the first and last of the eight attributes? I just can't quite work out how to apply it to to overall calculations
Fascinating work! I've had a look through the source link and I was wondering, is there any information on what influences the match engine for the statistics of shots on target and shot conversion?
Apologies if this has already been asked but was there any measurements on the types of goals scored with the higher/lower set pieces?
Putting efficiency to one side for a moment I quite like it when my manager profile characteristics has the "sets teams up to be strong at set pieces" in the user the known for section. Actually, it might be show as something different, it's been that long since I had it!
The low scoring attributes might be entirely cosmetic but there are some cosmetic parts I'd like to have on my journey man save but not sure if I'm coming at those in the best way
Footballenjoyer said: The problem is you are applying real life logic to just strings of codes made to give the impression of real life mechanics.
The game can just be broken, it is what it is. The game engine and mechanics had barely been updated the past decade beside the graphics of the match shown.
The game could easily just be take all the attributes + hidden attributes of each team combine them to determine an outcome. The match being shown in game is just picking events to suit the result simulated afterwards.
Work rate below 10? It could just be a string of code that the developer added in to impose a penalty on low work rate players. Since determination and work rate are the fastest growing attributes as long as you play and fine the player consistently. Hence it's not really a real attribute. Expand
That's a fair point, and I totally get where you are coming from but from the testing here and across the rest of the site, specific attributes/lines of code lead to better outcomes don't they? Faster teams with higher jumping reach for example in the outfield or the Chinese based machine learning a wee while back for the keepers attributes I mentioned.
I still use the 2D view to be honest but this isn't about what we see in the match engine, more about the findings that seem to be fairly consistent over the last few years that mobility is king when it comes to winning matches.
I guess what I'm keen to understand is that we know categorically that some attributes are more valuable than others but if there are attributes that have a certain level of dependency on other attributes then they may be overlooked due to a process of testing them in isolation
Apologies in advance as there is a lot of big brain thinking that's going over my head.
If I'm following, the training is based on what we currently think the best attributes are right?
Most of them make sense to me - priority in getting to the ball through pace and acceleration when it's on the deck and jumping reach when it's in the air.
Even Goalkeepers follow a similar logic, Agility to move in the right direction, Reflexes to get there and Arial Ability to be able to reach.
The other physicals like balance and agility factor in essentially to turn/change momentum and the mental like anticipation to start moving in the right direction before it's time to apply the physicals.
If my understanding here is right, and I get that's a big if, the one that's throwing me is Work Rate.
That should help all the physical and mental in so far as it's how often the player attempts to move towards the ball
The revelation that anything after 10 on Work Rate has diminished returns makes me wonder if this is explicitly tied to Stamina.
Like if a players Stamina can't keep up with their Work Rate as suggested by the in-game prompts, does too high a Work Rate turn out to be a bad thing?
Is there a way to re-test Work Rate where Stamina is increased at the same rate to see if that has any impact on the importance of Work Rate?
ZaZ said: Yes, exactly that. If you will do three rests per week, then do all in the same day, or it will have no effect. That does not include Travel when you play away from home, so if you have Travel + Rest + Rest after a match, then the Rest sessions will be wasted, recovering almost the same as if you did three sessions of Overall training (but without the attribute growth). There will be a video about that later at EBFM, so soon you will be able to see the data. Expand
Would the rest session be of any use for players who's condition was low enough to trigger the "no pitch or gym work" intensity scheduling? I'm not totally clear what sessions count as no pitch or gym work so I've been trying Rest/Match Review/Team Bonding recently
Looking forward to seeing the next part of this, was a big fan of Max's schedule but this takes it to the next level!
Can I ask one thing? With the diminishing returns from running multiples of the same sessions, the addition of the second physical session gives 1.4 in attribute growth over the season, is that right?
I'm thinking 1 physical session and 1 ground defence would be more efficient 2 physical sessions, 11.5 growth versus 9.1 but see you went with the 2 physical so I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding the data
That got me three promotions and then three years title wins on the top league (Japan)
I'm currently in Korea and with the weighting based on Orions approach, I'm still winning at the same rate but the football seems better to watch and average player ratings are higher. I'm claiming more player & goals of the month.
In general, my players are slower than than what I would sign on my previous set up but using harvestgreen22 training, I could build up pace and acceleration over time if needed.
One thing that does feel off is the jumping reach ratings. I didn't understand the calculations at first so I'm obviously not an expert on any of this but my suspicions are you need one or two players with high ratings there to score from set pieces and it's those goals that boost the average rating rating - potentially any position could have a high attribute.
It might be along the same line of high free kicks/corners/penalty taking having an impact, but that's purely guesswork on my part
Polynomial regression can show features 'synergie' that is represented as two features multiplication - or one feature multiplied by itself.
Amazing, thanks so much for taking the time there to keep me right on this
Putting efficiency to one side for a moment I quite like it when my manager profile characteristics has the "sets teams up to be strong at set pieces" in the user the known for section. Actually, it might be show as something different, it's been that long since I had it!
The low scoring attributes might be entirely cosmetic but there are some cosmetic parts I'd like to have on my journey man save but not sure if I'm coming at those in the best way
The game can just be broken, it is what it is. The game engine and mechanics had barely been updated the past decade beside the graphics of the match shown.
The game could easily just be take all the attributes + hidden attributes of each team combine them to determine an outcome. The match being shown in game is just picking events to suit the result simulated afterwards.
Work rate below 10? It could just be a string of code that the developer added in to impose a penalty on low work rate players. Since determination and work rate are the fastest growing attributes as long as you play and fine the player consistently. Hence it's not really a real attribute.
That's a fair point, and I totally get where you are coming from but from the testing here and across the rest of the site, specific attributes/lines of code lead to better outcomes don't they? Faster teams with higher jumping reach for example in the outfield or the Chinese based machine learning a wee while back for the keepers attributes I mentioned.
I still use the 2D view to be honest but this isn't about what we see in the match engine, more about the findings that seem to be fairly consistent over the last few years that mobility is king when it comes to winning matches.
I guess what I'm keen to understand is that we know categorically that some attributes are more valuable than others but if there are attributes that have a certain level of dependency on other attributes then they may be overlooked due to a process of testing them in isolation
If I'm following, the training is based on what we currently think the best attributes are right?
Most of them make sense to me - priority in getting to the ball through pace and acceleration when it's on the deck and jumping reach when it's in the air.
Even Goalkeepers follow a similar logic, Agility to move in the right direction, Reflexes to get there and Arial Ability to be able to reach.
The other physicals like balance and agility factor in essentially to turn/change momentum and the mental like anticipation to start moving in the right direction before it's time to apply the physicals.
If my understanding here is right, and I get that's a big if, the one that's throwing me is Work Rate.
That should help all the physical and mental in so far as it's how often the player attempts to move towards the ball
The revelation that anything after 10 on Work Rate has diminished returns makes me wonder if this is explicitly tied to Stamina.
Like if a players Stamina can't keep up with their Work Rate as suggested by the in-game prompts, does too high a Work Rate turn out to be a bad thing?
Is there a way to re-test Work Rate where Stamina is increased at the same rate to see if that has any impact on the importance of Work Rate?
Would the rest session be of any use for players who's condition was low enough to trigger the "no pitch or gym work" intensity scheduling? I'm not totally clear what sessions count as no pitch or gym work so I've been trying Rest/Match Review/Team Bonding recently
Can I ask one thing? With the diminishing returns from running multiples of the same sessions, the addition of the second physical session gives 1.4 in attribute growth over the season, is that right?
I'm thinking 1 physical session and 1 ground defence would be more efficient 2 physical sessions, 11.5 growth versus 9.1 but see you went with the 2 physical so I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding the data