And here is the FM Scout Definitive Guide to CA. This does seem to indicate some tapering off for over 16 and under 5.
Hoping this helps inform some of your views. Expand
Yea I saw it myself just before , thank you. I do wonder what the attribute baseline could be though, as that only makes it more complicated. 14->19 passing doesn't do anything, I wonder if 10 or 11 passing would be the same as 14 then..
Yarema said: I don't even know where you are getting these cutoffs. Maybe I missed a test somewhere? Expand
It was a user on here that made a test on their own. I'll link it. The increase from 1 to 5 was crazy big. I'll say that in some way you are saying the same as me. The state of a team being 'bad' or 'good' or 'excellent', could be seen as thresholds, the only problem is that it's not a slow decrease in effectivness , but rather a sudden one.
Yarema said: It's hard to say whether there are diminishing returns on attribute gains or what I suspect it's just harder to achieve higher scores. Going from bad to good is much easier than from good to excellent. Maybe if 5 pace scored 60 points, 10 pace would also be only 81 and not 91.
And anyone reading into anything within 2 points ... just don't. Expand
I don't think that is the answer tho. From 1 -> 5, basically every single attribute has big impact on the result. Once you surpass 5-10, suddenly only like 7 attributes have any effect at all. The effectivness of attributes do not happen incrementally, but rather all of the effectivness lie in the first 5-10 points. They go from being astronomically important, to being disregarded completely. Surely if for example passing is hugely important from 1 to 5, it wouldn't be completely useless by the time it reaches 10 if your theory is correct. How come the drop off is so insanely huge ?
dzek said: Do you generally put randomness into the equation? Expand
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!
CBP87 said: Where do I claim that a threshold exists? My point simply is that all the tests done thus far have the same starting attribute default (I don't know the value) but the value is increased or decreased from the starting value. The tests are there to show us what attributes the game relies on, if its been increased to 15 and there is again of +21 then we know that pace is OP and the higher the value the more OP the player is. If you were to compare two players who had similar attributes value but 1 had 10 pace and the other had 15 then the player with 15 would perform better.
The other tests are proving that a increase/decrease in a particularly attribute value isn't as impactful as Pace and Acceleration.
I get and understand where you're coming from. I personally don't see a huge difference in an attribute swing of 1 or 2 points in Acceleration or Pace. I always try and sign players above the league average. Expand
I feel like you are not quite reading what I am writing. Please answer this question; how come adding +5 in passing doesn't improve results at all, but removing 5 passing suddenly makes a difference? The tests are done by making every stat 10 and then increasing/decreasing a certain attribute on all players. This means that any increase in passing above 10 doesn't do a single thing for performance, but if you remove 5 passing, so that the player now is left with 5 passing, it does impact performance negatively. WE are saying that a threshold exists based on these tests. +5 pace did less for performance than -5 pace did. Idk how else to explain this
CBP87 said: The results indicate that by adding +5 that the result increased by 21 points, how is that diminishing results? Diminishing results is making large changes for little gain however I would say the result of 81 points, increase of 21 points is a big gain in comparison to say work rate which only gained 1 point Expand
Well yea I get your point however, removing 5 points of pace clearly had more of an impact than adding 5 points to 10, the difference is like 10 points. This idea of a "threshold" is backed up by the other tests, such as passing and decision, who both showed that removing 5 from 10 had observable impact on the results, compared to adding 5, which did nothing. You claim that such a threshold does not exist, even though all the tests are saying otherwise!
CBP87 said: I don't know if I've read your question right but there isn't a diminishing return when increasing the value of an attribute. This test proved that pace is OP and the higher the value the better Expand
If you look at the result of -5 decisions test which was also run today, you will see that there is an effect going from 10 to 5 , however going from 10 to 15 doesn't do a single thing, that means there is in fact a point in which attributes start to give diminishing returns, the results are right in front of you
Hello , I have made a filter for positional ratings based on the tests done on attributes (so far). It doesn't include GK rating for obvious reasons. I thought I would post it here and maybe people can give feedback on potential changes that could be made. I have made an estimation on the stats not yet tested based on importance in previous years. The weighings are quite "harsh" but I also didnt want to give points to attributes that have no proven positive effect!
Thank you for the answer @dzek ! I just wanted to clarify what I mean exactly. I understand there is RNG involved both here on FM arena as well as any testing you might do on your own through holidaying. However, there are alot of tactics that quite simply would never achieve a high score regardless of how many times you run it. I have had tactics that got 80+ points with bournemouth on holiday mode, that barely cracked 50 points and a positive GD on here, I don't think it matters if it would be tested another 6,000 games. Similarly, I have tested high scoring tactics from this website who struggle to even keep teams like Luton,Bournemouth etc. in the prem. I understand that me testing for 1 season on my own in holiday mode does not give an accurate picture of a tactic, however there are still general guidelines on how good the tactic is. If I finish 16th with bournemouth using a certain tactic, I can almost be 100% sure that it is not a good one. Likewise if i get 80+ points with a team predicted to get relegated, its probably a good one. Its some good information though and I understand it a bit better so thank you!
Hello everyone, I have recently been thinking about something that I can't really wrap my head around, what are the patterns of a successful fm arena tactic? I have had many good tactic results on my own using weak teams like bournemouth , luton etc (in holiday mode), but once they get put on fm arena, only some of them get a good score. As far as I understand all teams are equally good in the testing database, meaning logically, if you make a tactic work with a "worse" team on your own using holiday, it should equate to almost a guaranteed good score, but that is rarely the case. I have tried plenty of top tactics from this site with a lower league pl team (once again in holiday mode), and sometimes ended towards the bottom, and sometimes you challenge for the league , no pattern at all. Is there even an optimal team to test with if you want to achieve high score on this site? I hope you understand what I mean!
4231 with aggressive DMs , still keeps its defensive structure with inverted wingbacks (in PIs), which I prefer much more to iwb role. Holiday test with Bournemouth.
Hello! I am writing because I have been using the FM arena forum a lot, both looking at other peoples tactics and making my own. One thing I have noticed, is that there are no "guidelines" for testing a tactic on your own, if that makes sense. We don't want to upload every single tactic we make without conducting our own test first , to see if it holds up. The problem is, there are many different ways to test a tactic, for example : putting no training on players that aren't full condition, playing games vs holiday , buying players , set pieces, doing man-management outside of games like praising training etc. these are very big factors for the end result. When we want to compare what a "good season" is by comparing it with other tactics on the site , before deciding to upload , there is no reliablity in these comparisons. I hope you get my point, and maybe we can create some testing conditions that are universal so that we can use each others posts as a source of information before asking for a tactic test!
Holiday with Bournemouth , no transfers etc. attacking mentality conceded too many goals. Some PIs on my fullbacks and attacking midfield but generally quite basic.
Simmed with City and only 6th with Everton but a decent goal difference nontheless. Feeling like balanced is better for plug n play (better for away games)
A narrow 4231, aimed to be defensively solid. Trades some firepower for clean sheets. Did holiday test with Man city + Everton, finished 1st and 2nd. (They also played each other in both cup finals).
160 league goals with city, did one earlier with sheffield united, they scored 105 goals and conceded 80! (only 7th place tho) when this tactic is used, both you and your opponent forget how to defend
I have been looking for some more defensively solid tactics because as we all know, the meta is to outscore your opponents. I watched many games and made small tweaks to make them play as I wanted to. I found the most success on balanced mentality, as it decreased stupid decisons by my DMs.
Once I was happy with the way we were playing, I did a holiday test with Luton. While 7th place is maybe not incredible, I was happy to only concede 39 goals in 38 games. I should add that we underperformed our xG by 15 (worst in the league), while our xgc was pretty on the money.
I choose Luton because they always finish bottom first season in my saves. I have tried to make defensively solid 1 DM tactics, but so far it seems impossible, you just get caught on the counter way too often and leave too big spaces between defense and midfield. We use double volante to make up for our extremely defensive shape, and get penetration that we are lacking. I like this also because this is actually a lower possession tactic (45% average for this season).
Lately I have been wondering what finishing trait on your strikers are most effective. I went through some known 'broken' players for FM 22, like vlahovic , haaland , lukaku , immobile etc. but also some lesser 'known' ones like solanke. My conclusion is definetly that players with high strength and 'shoots with power' trait is very strong. But other than that I can't quite figure it out. For example the game tells you that rounding the keeper is not a good idea if the player has high finishing, which is clearly a lie. How good is tries first time shots? this one feels the strongest out of the rest if I had to guess from my own saves this year. What do you guys think?
And here is the FM Scout Definitive Guide to CA. This does seem to indicate some tapering off for over 16 and under 5.
Hoping this helps inform some of your views.
Yea I saw it myself just before , thank you. I do wonder what the attribute baseline could be though, as that only makes it more complicated. 14->19 passing doesn't do anything, I wonder if 10 or 11 passing would be the same as 14 then..
It was a user on here that made a test on their own. I'll link it. The increase from 1 to 5 was crazy big. I'll say that in some way you are saying the same as me. The state of a team being 'bad' or 'good' or 'excellent', could be seen as thresholds, the only problem is that it's not a slow decrease in effectivness , but rather a sudden one.
Link : https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/28005/
And anyone reading into anything within 2 points ... just don't.
I don't think that is the answer tho. From 1 -> 5, basically every single attribute has big impact on the result. Once you surpass 5-10, suddenly only like 7 attributes have any effect at all. The effectivness of attributes do not happen incrementally, but rather all of the effectivness lie in the first 5-10 points. They go from being astronomically important, to being disregarded completely. Surely if for example passing is hugely important from 1 to 5, it wouldn't be completely useless by the time it reaches 10 if your theory is correct. How come the drop off is so insanely huge ?
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!
The other tests are proving that a increase/decrease in a particularly attribute value isn't as impactful as Pace and Acceleration.
I get and understand where you're coming from. I personally don't see a huge difference in an attribute swing of 1 or 2 points in Acceleration or Pace. I always try and sign players above the league average.
I feel like you are not quite reading what I am writing. Please answer this question; how come adding +5 in passing doesn't improve results at all, but removing 5 passing suddenly makes a difference? The tests are done by making every stat 10 and then increasing/decreasing a certain attribute on all players. This means that any increase in passing above 10 doesn't do a single thing for performance, but if you remove 5 passing, so that the player now is left with 5 passing, it does impact performance negatively. WE are saying that a threshold exists based on these tests. +5 pace did less for performance than -5 pace did. Idk how else to explain this
Well yea I get your point however, removing 5 points of pace clearly had more of an impact than adding 5 points to 10, the difference is like 10 points. This idea of a "threshold" is backed up by the other tests, such as passing and decision, who both showed that removing 5 from 10 had observable impact on the results, compared to adding 5, which did nothing. You claim that such a threshold does not exist, even though all the tests are saying otherwise!
If you look at the result of -5 decisions test which was also run today, you will see that there is an effect going from 10 to 5 , however going from 10 to 15 doesn't do a single thing, that means there is in fact a point in which attributes start to give diminishing returns, the results are right in front of you
Link to ratings : https://mega.nz/file/KLhl1DiZ#goT2Kvmd_H6UC7YIxV4akOyKZfWe8Cm46k7E8-1GdEE
Once I was happy with the way we were playing, I did a holiday test with Luton. While 7th place is maybe not incredible, I was happy to only concede 39 goals in 38 games. I should add that we underperformed our xG by 15 (worst in the league), while our xgc was pretty on the money.
I choose Luton because they always finish bottom first season in my saves. I have tried to make defensively solid 1 DM tactics, but so far it seems impossible, you just get caught on the counter way too often and leave too big spaces between defense and midfield. We use double volante to make up for our extremely defensive shape, and get penetration that we are lacking. I like this also because this is actually a lower possession tactic (45% average for this season).