GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: In regards to physiotherapists (...) I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for national teams. Expand Well, it just isn't. Of course in a club you simply don't need physio (maybe for less injuries) - a day off and You have a newborn team, but in a national rep. - you play a match and with 2 level physio 4 days later your players are close to "needs a day of rest" (and with 18 they are "a bit tired" ). By the way, I'm not sure if EBSM material wasn't about sport scientists but it's not so important. Yarema said: Now add 40 CA to them in nonessential attributes and sim again. Also the not engineered distribution is sort of true but not really. Using the meta schedules to boost physicals to levels that were obviously not intended is kind of engineering them, although they do happen "naturally" as opposed to straight up editing them. Expand Sure, with better concentration, dribbling and finishing they would be much better. But until there is no other team with good, physical players they are getting along. And, maybe that's not my coaches, but default FM schedules that give not enough quickness who sucks? CA points are really badly distributed: leadership (0 importance, unless...) is so expenxive - why? cooperation (0 importance) expensive - why? And physicals, most important, are just cheap - I can have decent player of 45 CA. When I see a CB 24 yo., 160 CA, pa, acc 10-11 I think something is really wrong in this game. It reminds me, that some time ago a club from my town won a domestic championship with a technically very weak but big, strong and quick team (and doing mainly physical training). So it happens irl, but of course not on a very high level
iezzex said: Do club rep affect result? Expand GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: On 'full detail', can't remember now, but I don't think so. Expand Actually, it does. Rather not in league but in cups: the greater gap in rep between clubs the greater the chance players from lower rep will be kind of intimidated/scared and play well below their potential, even with opponents on equal level. And (sometimes it helps) if you are a coach of such a lower rep team "nobody bet on us and this is our chance" speech is just obligatory. On the other hand, when in national teams (I know it's luckily abandoned in FM26) the reputation, in this case "ranking", is crucial. Firstly - You won't win with a team of much better ranking - ok, there is a minimal chance, but only a minimal - no matter how good players You have. And secondly, even more important, a level of physioterapists you get depends on your ranking. And tournaments like World Cup are scripted by SI in such a way that without very good or even best physioterapists You play with deadmen from 3-5 match - there's nothing you can do about it
Yarema said: Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure... Expand tam1236 said: Historical photo of my team after winning Champions League (...)As You can see they don't play in PL but ... Expand ... but I was really very, very curious, so I transferred in an editor the team from a table above to Arsenal (of course get rid off regular Arsenal players). And simulated whole season. They finished at 3rd place, after Chelsea and Liverpool (83-81-79 pts) and over MU (71). /Lost all cups/. Average CA of basic 11 was 103. Second part was transferring same FC Vaduz but 2 seasons later - stronger team, some weaker players sold, some came from an academy - average CA 119 (I blocked attributes) - and it's not "engineered distribution" - all from coaching and playing. They won PL over Chelsea and MC (88-83-80 pts) /won FA, lost Europa League/.
Yarema said: I think FM-Arena attribute tests for the past few editions show linear effect for pretty much all of the attributes. Expand keithb said: That's correct for some. Yarema and all of us knew this
Some you need a little bit. Expand I have problem with reading... So they are not linear. Am i right? Or "linear for pretty much all of the attributes"?
Yarema said: I think FM-Arena attribute tests for the past few editions show linear effect for pretty much all of the attributes. Expand Many tests published on FM-Arena showed VERY unlinear effect for some attributes.
Yarema said: Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure, but most of people looking for ratings aren't after that. They simply want a scoring system that will tell them player X is better than player Y, and I think you've strayed further and further from the original intention with each iteration. Expand Historical photo of my team after winning Champions League (I admit we were very lucky), just at the beginning of the new season (in which we won ChL again). No attributes/training facilities/parameters editing, no savescumming - all real in-game development (by the way no player with pac/acc 20/20 - so reaching this values by most of the team was IMO a fake of You-know-who) . All players (but one, the oldest-the slowest-no determination) come from my youth academy. Of course now the team is much better, but as average still rather CA 115-120 then 130 boys (nobody over 140 all the time, but I have a first-team-player with PA>150). As You can see they don't play in PL but England is set as a playable fraction with normal league.
Just fix the bugs... especially players' mental/logical ones. (and I don't believe they do it) Nothing else matters.
But if I could get more. Bring back numbers to attributes if (didn't play 26) they really disappeared, and yes, better management u-19,u-21,u-18. For example stop stealing players from other youth teams just to sit them on a bench during a match. It ends with perspective players constantly sitting during u-21 matches instead of playing for u-19. Make matches little bit harder.
ZaZ said: Yes, it can. It depends on how much CA it has left, Expand Nope. Zero has left. In theory they can progress losing unimportant attributes and gaining the important ones but from my experience they will not. One of them is much(!) better in crucial: acc. And much better in important finishing (diff 6), stamina, agility. And better in pace, work rate and long shots too. The second - is better in trash attributes like marking , tackling, aggression (unless player has 1,2 is trash). The only important are composure, jumping reach (only a bit better) and anticipation not even close to acceleration or pace.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I would savescum a whole year in advance to see the newgen results instead of reloading just before newgen day, in recent versions, and I couldn't remember why. Now I see it's no doubt because certain things are being set a few months earlier than intake day with the new 'Youth Preview' system. Expand I have the same feeling from my long-time savescummings (actually just tests - I played whole, normal season after that). The general shape of your newgens is decided during a previous intake-day. It can bye modified by youth facilities etc, by random-generator in intake-day, but not so much (and maybe this is a mysterious hidden factor - for example you don't have facilities which you do have next year). And that's why first intake is much better - it is "half-blind-generated" in a different way maybe during generating profile when starting new game? I need two weeks to be 100% certain.
1 on 1 0% ? Acceleration's come back? Reflex>>Agility ?? Strange, but maybe... On the other hand, I wonder who is the most important person among 11 players (I had the same impression that definitely not a goalkeeper )
What to believe? Some time ago harvestgreen tested that Vision has a distinct positive impact in a range 10-20 and no impact in a range 0-10. And now I see (and the very same harvestgreen): positive in 1-6 and light negative 6-18 ???
Yes, I know what You meant. But results (win, loss, draw. Not numbers) are predetermined (if they are) with some probability, connected to a team quality for example. So if You play one match x time, you will get a proportion of results (no matter in which moment outcome is set). As I know, hypothesis says about recalculating after subs - that's why I suggested no subs.
If, when doing nothing, you get very similar results to helping as much as You can, and to disturbing as much as you can - this means that a) outcome is calculated at the beginning; b) shouts and a speech in a halftime have no impact [ and c) probe is too small, of course - but that would mean that a possible impact is very, very small too ]; And if there is a clear difference - a) outcome is calculated during match ; b) shouts have impact; c) a speech has impact; d) both; e) all . Of course an opponent of the same level would be the best option. 10 times for each model is a small number but I suppose that it could be enough.
Yarema said: There is no way to actually test this in game... Expand Actually I see a way to test it (or shouts' effectiveness) - but definitely not me! One match, 20 repeats, no subs: 10x You made possibly detrimental shouting , 10x You shout in a best possible way - f.e. every 10 min. praise all when in lead , encourage when not). Of course great or idiotic speach in-between.
It's not so hard to accept such an outcome predetermination - we are cheated by this game in so many ways . And quite often I have an impression that an outcome is already set - in my previous post I meant, it is not set , say, one hour before the match (in a beginning of a match - maybe).
PS Some highlights from interesting matches have nothing special in them.
MeanOnSunday said: The number of higher PA players each year also depends on the players that have left the database of active players since the game tries to maintain stable levels of good players in each country. (This is why there tends to be a noticeable jump in high PA recruits in the first year of a save or when you add playable leagues). Expand Would be interesting but do you have any proof? This hypothesis doesn't perfectly fit to the situation because what bothered me, was nearly the same max PA in every probe, nearly the same number of players with high PA>=150, but always PA<160 (though youth rating was set at 200). So if it is generated in such a way as you write, newgens' PA should be also connected with retired players' PA from country X, what I doubt, because lowering youth rating to 1 I got newgens of PA~70 with highest club reputation in a country.
BTW I didnt change any clubs' reputation, but I doubt recruitment works in "your" way (When high-rep, You collect bad players from bad-reputation clubs).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players (...) Expand From many cheats I tried I must say it's not true. Unless you meant "probability of an outcome".
To the topic - I don't see great difference between assistant and me on a bench in a result. But the difference is in subs, and they make unbelivable players' selection if You let them (unless you have all players very good and rounded)
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Junior coaching ~40% PA effect Nation youth rating ~25% PA effect Youth recruitment ~25% PA effect Club reputation acts as tie breaker for youth recruitment Either unique nation or division ID ~25% (or perhaps even more) PA effect (a hidden, unchangeable factor Expand Sorry for digging up old posts, but good estimation - lately made some tests with nation rating. Having clearly best reputation, coaching 20, recruitment 20, youth rating 200 , best swiss newgen was always (~15 times) >150-<160 - not very much randomness, I would even say PA of best five boys was quite regular (btw with rating 1 dropped to >70-<75). I don't suppose this hidden factor is mysterious "football's popularity", which effects no one knows, but rather other more hidden factor.
bigloser said: There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it. Expand I would say, there is definitely a kind of league/country cap. To be true, it's somehow strange to hit 200 PA anywhere. And accidentaly just before cam. I really dont know what kind of edition was made besides locking PA on 200 (or what 200 PA means in attributes). On the other hand Australia has in FM24 same reputation like Romania or Turkey and better then Serbia.
I have u21 manager and I can manage team selection. Same u18. Dont have u19 manager and same result. I think selection is always made if you don't do it. And really don't know what's the function of all these managers and assistants. Do they have any job or are they just individuals to spend money on , make nice background and nothing more? (And don't say about arranging frendlies , in this they really suck) ok they can act as a coach (with some exceptions not the best one).
This game is so buggy that it depends which team You pick But generally U19 should copy first team tactic without possibility to change it by anybody and when you get an information about match next day, You can modify a team - same reserve. Selection made in that moment shows on the pitch. Or made in time between the information and midnight. But if You play bugged team, sometimes Reserve plays their own tactics, sometimes doesn't see none of reserve players and plays only match generated-ones, and sometimes ignore your selection of players for a match. It also takes bench-players from other teams. And sometimes You can manage U19 just like first team, watch their matches and make subs and other changes during match
Well, it just isn't. Of course in a club you simply don't need physio (maybe for less injuries) - a day off and You have a newborn team, but in a national rep. - you play a match and with 2 level physio 4 days later your players are close to "needs a day of rest" (and with 18 they are "a bit tired" ). By the way, I'm not sure if EBSM material wasn't about sport scientists but it's not so important.
Yarema said: Now add 40 CA to them in nonessential attributes and sim again.
Also the not engineered distribution is sort of true but not really. Using the meta schedules to boost physicals to levels that were obviously not intended is kind of engineering them, although they do happen "naturally" as opposed to straight up editing them.Sure, with better concentration, dribbling and finishing they would be much better. But until there is no other team with good, physical players they are getting along. And, maybe that's not my coaches, but default FM schedules that give not enough quickness who sucks? CA points are really badly distributed: leadership (0 importance, unless...) is so expenxive - why? cooperation (0 importance) expensive - why? And physicals, most important, are just cheap - I can have decent player of 45 CA. When I see a CB 24 yo., 160 CA, pa, acc 10-11 I think something is really wrong in this game.
It reminds me, that some time ago a club from my town won a domestic championship with a technically very weak but big, strong and quick team (and doing mainly physical training). So it happens irl, but of course not on a very high level
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: On 'full detail', can't remember now, but I don't think so.
Actually, it does. Rather not in league but in cups: the greater gap in rep between clubs the greater the chance players from lower rep will be kind of intimidated/scared and play well below their potential, even with opponents on equal level. And (sometimes it helps) if you are a coach of such a lower rep team "nobody bet on us and this is our chance" speech is just obligatory.
On the other hand, when in national teams (I know it's luckily abandoned in FM26) the reputation, in this case "ranking", is crucial. Firstly - You won't win with a team of much better ranking - ok, there is a minimal chance, but only a minimal - no matter how good players You have. And secondly, even more important, a level of physioterapists you get depends on your ranking. And tournaments like World Cup are scripted by SI in such a way that without very good or even best physioterapists You play with deadmen from 3-5 match - there's nothing you can do about it
tam1236 said:
Historical photo of my team after winning Champions League (...)As You can see they don't play in PL but ...
... but I was really very, very curious, so I transferred in an editor the team from a table above to Arsenal (of course get rid off regular Arsenal players). And simulated whole season. They finished at 3rd place, after Chelsea and Liverpool (83-81-79 pts) and over MU (71). /Lost all cups/. Average CA of basic 11 was 103. Second part was transferring same FC Vaduz but 2 seasons later - stronger team, some weaker players sold, some came from an academy - average CA 119 (I blocked attributes) - and it's not "engineered distribution" - all from coaching and playing. They won PL over Chelsea and MC (88-83-80 pts) /won FA, lost Europa League/.
keithb said: That's correct for some. Yarema and all of us knew this
Some you need a little bit.
I have problem with reading...
So they are not linear. Am i right? Or "linear for pretty much all of the attributes"?
Many tests published on FM-Arena showed VERY unlinear effect for some attributes.
Historical photo of my team after winning Champions League (I admit we were very lucky), just at the beginning of the new season (in which we won ChL again). No attributes/training facilities/parameters editing, no savescumming - all real in-game development (by the way no player with pac/acc 20/20 - so reaching this values by most of the team was IMO a fake of You-know-who) . All players (but one, the oldest-the slowest-no determination) come from my youth academy. Of course now the team is much better, but as average still rather CA 115-120 then 130 boys (nobody over 140 all the time, but I have a first-team-player with PA>150). As You can see they don't play in PL but England is set as a playable fraction with normal league.
Nothing else matters.
But if I could get more.
Bring back numbers to attributes if (didn't play 26) they really disappeared, and yes, better management u-19,u-21,u-18. For example stop stealing players from other youth teams just to sit them on a bench during a match. It ends with perspective players constantly sitting during u-21 matches instead of playing for u-19.
Make matches little bit harder.
Nope. Zero has left. In theory they can progress losing unimportant attributes and gaining the important ones but from my experience they will not. One of them is much(!) better in crucial: acc. And much better in important finishing (diff 6), stamina, agility. And better in pace, work rate and long shots too. The second - is better in trash attributes like marking , tackling, aggression (unless player has 1,2 is trash). The only important are composure, jumping reach (only a bit better) and anticipation not even close to acceleration or pace.
Decision is clear.
I have the same feeling from my long-time savescummings (actually just tests - I played whole, normal season after that). The general shape of your newgens is decided during a previous intake-day. It can bye modified by youth facilities etc, by random-generator in intake-day, but not so much (and maybe this is a mysterious hidden factor - for example you don't have facilities which you do have next year).
And that's why first intake is much better - it is "half-blind-generated" in a different way maybe during generating profile when starting new game? I need two weeks to be 100% certain.
On the other hand, I wonder who is the most important person among 11 players (I had the same impression that definitely not a goalkeeper )
Don't feed
If, when doing nothing, you get very similar results to helping as much as You can, and to disturbing as much as you can - this means that a) outcome is calculated at the beginning; b) shouts and a speech in a halftime have no impact [ and c) probe is too small, of course - but that would mean that a possible impact is very, very small too ]; And if there is a clear difference - a) outcome is calculated during match ; b) shouts have impact; c) a speech has impact; d) both; e) all . Of course an opponent of the same level would be the best option. 10 times for each model is a small number but I suppose that it could be enough.
Actually I see a way to test it (or shouts' effectiveness) - but definitely not me!
One match, 20 repeats, no subs: 10x You made possibly detrimental shouting , 10x You shout in a best possible way - f.e. every 10 min. praise all when in lead , encourage when not). Of course great or idiotic speach in-between.
It's not so hard to accept such an outcome predetermination - we are cheated by this game in so many ways
PS Some highlights from interesting matches have nothing special in them.
Would be interesting but do you have any proof?
This hypothesis doesn't perfectly fit to the situation because what bothered me, was nearly the same max PA in every probe, nearly the same number of players with high PA>=150, but always PA<160 (though youth rating was set at 200). So if it is generated in such a way as you write, newgens' PA should be also connected with retired players' PA from country X, what I doubt, because lowering youth rating to 1 I got newgens of PA~70 with highest club reputation in a country.
BTW I didnt change any clubs' reputation, but I doubt recruitment works in "your" way (When high-rep, You collect bad players from bad-reputation clubs).
From many cheats I tried
To the topic - I don't see great difference between assistant and me on a bench in a result. But the difference is in subs, and they make unbelivable players' selection if You let them (unless you have all players very good and rounded)
Nation youth rating ~25% PA effect
Youth recruitment ~25% PA effect
Club reputation acts as tie breaker for youth recruitment
Either unique nation or division ID ~25% (or perhaps even more) PA effect (a hidden, unchangeable factor
Sorry for digging up old posts, but good estimation - lately made some tests with nation rating. Having clearly best reputation, coaching 20, recruitment 20, youth rating 200 , best swiss newgen was always (~15 times) >150-<160 - not very much randomness, I would even say PA of best five boys was quite regular (btw with rating 1 dropped to >70-<75). I don't suppose this hidden factor is mysterious "football's popularity", which effects no one knows, but rather other more hidden factor.
I would say, there is definitely a kind of league/country cap.
To be true, it's somehow strange to hit 200 PA anywhere. And accidentaly just before cam. I really dont know what kind of edition was made besides locking PA on 200 (or what 200 PA means in attributes).
On the other hand Australia has in FM24 same reputation like Romania or Turkey and better then Serbia.
But if You play bugged team, sometimes Reserve plays their own tactics, sometimes doesn't see none of reserve players and plays only match generated-ones, and sometimes ignore your selection of players for a match. It also takes bench-players from other teams.
And sometimes You can manage U19 just like first team, watch their matches and make subs and other changes during match