idek0k said: I started a save to test this out, in a real club in real conditions. Im the dominant club in the league and we've been doing pretty well. Im in January now, and almost none of my players improved. Most of them had a decline in a lot of attributes with no growth. Is there a reason for this? I followed everything precisely.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the schedule. Im using this one [Quickness]+[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness] Expand
would need more information. Like are your players 26+, do they have medicore personalities, etc. Are your players that are playing actually training or are they resting on training days? You can't have sessions the day after a game because the guys that played won't do pitch/gym work. The test results are basically best case scenario, I'd just do the match practice/attacking/quickness + recovery sessions for the first team.
AIK said: Could be that most tactics are playing with low crosses as well.
My strikers never scores on set pieces. But they score maaaaany goals in open play. Expand
I doubt it. They still float low % crosses with that setting which is why I experimented with a high JR but slower than i normally use striker. I found that IFs and offset AMCs with abnormally high JR got on the end of those more. If the other team has low JR central defenders it's probably just as affective. It's all about difference matchups imo.
He still scored a lot of goals, but nearly all the heading ones were on corners or ones where he wasn't marked.
kvasir said: For most attributes, you can figure out if they’re defensive or offensive based on goals for/goals against, but jumping reach isn’t as clear. Do the +14 goals come mainly from set pieces or open play? It’s probably set pieces, right? This just reinforces how jumping reach doesn’t matter much for strikers, like the ykykyk findings from a few years ago, especially since most top tactics rely on low crosses. Having 2-3 defensive players with good jumping reach should be plenty to score from set pieces and defend them effectively.
If my thinking is off here, let me know. Expand
Anecdotally for me at least, Strikers with high JR get the majority of their goals from set pieces and not the run of play so you are really just cannibalizing goals from your DC that need to have it anyway. So if you have a high JR CB there is not a huge net gain in team goals from having high JR on your striker.
AMLR (IFS) with big JR get more heading goals in the run of play in my experience due to the mismatches against DRLs.
So I suspect JR effectiveness is mostly matchup dependent and these tests basically show what happens if you win nearly every header.
At this point it would be more interesting to test position rating systems to see if it can consistently produce winners against a + 2 or + 4 acc/pac team with the secondary meta attributes + stamina/wr set to 10 & the rest of the worthless attributes set to 1. ie A team with of 14 acc/pac with anything goes vs 16/16 acc/pac or 18 acc/pac team.
Like often times you are picking between a 15/15 AMRL that has 16 dribbling or 15 jumping reach, and a 17/17 player that has 3 jumping reach & 10 dribbling.
In the control group did you lower their technique? By default nearly all the Man City players have over 10 technique so you wouldn't be able to raise it by 10.
In the Machine Learning weights technique was only moderately weighted high on DM(RPM), AMC, ST. One theory is it's bad to have defenders with high technique/flair. The attribute table from 2022 is basically the same as today.
Or another is technique (decisions/vision/passing?) is related to the success of certain traits like tries killer passes/curls ball/round the keeper/shoots with power/places shots/etc. And you would need said traits to get any benefit. But that doesn't explain why it's negative as you would expect it to be neutral. In the Man City example Haaland only has "tries first time shots" related to technique. This is the only thing I can think of.
The most likely scenario is technique was good at some point in previous editions but other changes made in the engine over the years has unintentionally made it bad.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the schedule. Im using this one
[Quickness]+[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
would need more information. Like are your players 26+, do they have medicore personalities, etc. Are your players that are playing actually training or are they resting on training days? You can't have sessions the day after a game because the guys that played won't do pitch/gym work. The test results are basically best case scenario, I'd just do the match practice/attacking/quickness + recovery sessions for the first team.
My strikers never scores on set pieces. But they score maaaaany goals in open play.
I doubt it. They still float low % crosses with that setting which is why I experimented with a high JR but slower than i normally use striker. I found that IFs and offset AMCs with abnormally high JR got on the end of those more. If the other team has low JR central defenders it's probably just as affective. It's all about difference matchups imo.
He still scored a lot of goals, but nearly all the heading ones were on corners or ones where he wasn't marked.
If my thinking is off here, let me know.
Anecdotally for me at least, Strikers with high JR get the majority of their goals from set pieces and not the run of play so you are really just cannibalizing goals from your DC that need to have it anyway. So if you have a high JR CB there is not a huge net gain in team goals from having high JR on your striker.
AMLR (IFS) with big JR get more heading goals in the run of play in my experience due to the mismatches against DRLs.
So I suspect JR effectiveness is mostly matchup dependent and these tests basically show what happens if you win nearly every header.
Like often times you are picking between a 15/15 AMRL that has 16 dribbling or 15 jumping reach, and a 17/17 player that has 3 jumping reach & 10 dribbling.
In the Machine Learning weights technique was only moderately weighted high on DM(RPM), AMC, ST. One theory is it's bad to have defenders with high technique/flair. The attribute table from 2022 is basically the same as today.
Or another is technique (decisions/vision/passing?) is related to the success of certain traits like tries killer passes/curls ball/round the keeper/shoots with power/places shots/etc. And you would need said traits to get any benefit. But that doesn't explain why it's negative as you would expect it to be neutral. In the Man City example Haaland only has "tries first time shots" related to technique. This is the only thing I can think of.
The most likely scenario is technique was good at some point in previous editions but other changes made in the engine over the years has unintentionally made it bad.