ta2199 said: Hi @Zippo, I think when player only play but didn't do any training his attributes or his development will be very small. Anyway It's too late for this version, can we test this on next FM version ? Expand
Hey,
Honestly, I don't think there's any point in testing such extreme scenario as "no training" at all because obviously, in this case there'll be a significant blow to the development rate and also "Match Sharpness" will be declining rapidly between matches without any training so we even might see declining of the CA and attributes.
Other words, "no training" is such terrible scenario for a player that no one would even should consider do that. I'm sure that "Recovery" training schedule is always more beneficial than "Resting" in case you want to give a player some rest to recover his Conditions as fast as possible.
Sane said: Hello Zippo. There are similar tests, but about how to keep the physical attributes of an older player for as long as possible.
I mean how to slow down the fall of pace and acceleration attributes as much as possible. What player parameters affect this? Expand
Hi,
I think "aging" is the main factor that causes the fall of pace and acceleration attributes so not much you can do about that. Also, I think "Natural Fitness" attribute might have some role in that but I'm not sure about that.
ta2199 said: HI @Zippo , is it true that there is a hidden development rate for each player base on each save ? Because there is a Cheat Engine table that can change the development rate. Thanks Expand
Hi,
No, I don't believe there's a hidden attribute "development rate" because if there were such thing then we'd have it for editing in the official pre-game editor or in the official in-game editor.
The player development rate depends on many various factors, it can't be just one thing that determines everything.
Middleweight165 said: You compared a Bournemouth against higher average CA teams, Man City, Liverpool. I'm curious to know what you think would happen if you compared teams with the same CA but one of those teams eg Bournemouth like your test had a higher scores in the important attributes.
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams Expand
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important.
Middleweight165 said: @Zippo How do you think teams would compare with a same average CA but one with more points distributed in the key attributes and the other with a more even distribution and less points in the key attributes and both using the same tactics? Expand
Unforutanlty, without knowing the fractional part of the score number it's hard to say for sure because it could be like this:
After 1,200 matches the score might be 51.5111 points, which will be rounded to 52 points
and after 4,000 matches the score might be 49.4999 which will be rounded to 49 points
So without knowing the fractional part you see that there's 3 points difference ( 52 - 49 = 3 ) between the 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches tests, when actually, there's only 2.01 points difference ( 51.5111 - 49.4999 = 2.01 )
In general, at this point we've simulated 1,088,000 matches under our new testing database and we've got the following RNG statistic:
There's 45% probability of changing the result more than "1 point" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
There's 12,5% probability of changing the result more than "2 points" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
There's 1,4% probability of changing the result more than "3 points" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
So in theory there could be 3 points difference between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches but the probably of it is about 1.4%. Btw, I've checked the result of this tactic and this tactic hit it.
Also, I want to add that there might be 1 - 1.5 points RNG even between two 4,000 matches tests of the same tactic. For example, if we take the current top tactic(424 Bombyte Tweak), which has a score of 57.4465 points, and we test it one more time for 4,000 matches then its score might vary +/- 1-1.5 points around 57.4465.
So you always should consider that there might be at least 1 point RNG even after 4,000 matches. In terms of FM, 1 point RNG is nothing because when you play FM in normal way and the length of your season is 38 matches then your RNG might be as high as 20-25 points and such RNG is a normal thing for underdogs and mid table teams, of course, for the strongest teams in the league the RNG is much smaller but still it's much higher than the 1 point that we have after 4,000 matches on our test.
dzek said: @Zippo In this tactic I have used wingers with opposite foot, so please when the tactic is tested choose players with opposite foot on each side. I think it produces better results because wider advanced players tend to cut to their stronger foot when they get into attacking positions and the difference between the winger role and the inverted winger role is that the winger role holds the width throughout the attack but the inverted winger only holds the width during the buildup phase and then cuts inside. Expand
Hi,
I can't influence on picking the starting elven for a test because the testing is automated so if you want having players with their preferred foot to be opposite to the flank they play then use "Inverted Winger" or "Inside Forward" roles and if you want having players with their preferred to be the same as the flank they play then use "Winger" role.
Btw, we've tested different preferred foot for Winger/Inside Forward roles and I can say that the difference was a quite insignificant so it isn't worth bothering.
@Gracolas no doubts, that "Match Sharpness" deserves to be tested and it's really a shame that we haven't tested it this year but unfortunately, at this point it's too late for testing it because all other attributes were tested under an outdated M.E. and our old testing database but at this point we can only test under the latest M.E and our new testing database so the results would not make sense compared to the previous result. Of course, we could retest all attributes under the current environment but we I don't think it's worth the efforts at this point.
Yes, I've checked it and the last 5 tactics were bugged due to an error on the testing server. They will be re-tested.
Chriswin4 said: I thought this, my latest tactic got a low score that doesn't make sense based on results Expand
Don't worry, we log and keep gave saves of every test result and they are being monitored so if there's something wrong then it'll be known soon or later. Also, we can provide game saves of every test if it's needed(as I said we keep them).
EDIT: This tactic has been re-tested and the current result is valid.
dzek said: Actually in terms of GD "Attacking" was the best result.
Expand
I'd suggested not to take the result of our "Tactical Instruction Testing" too seriously because at this point it's become obvious to us that there's some "flawed" results in it.
Please note, that it was our first attempt to do something like that and if you ask me then I find that our regular tactic testing is much more accurate and informative than the tactical instruction testing.
Also, the M.E. changes regularly but we can't update the result of tactical instructions testing accordingly so it becomes outdated quickly. So overall, I find it the tactical instruction testing isn't a good thing and I don't think we'll going to do something like that again in the future. The regular tactic testing is much better.
I also want to remind you that for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles Pace isn't highlighted attribute but Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique are highlighted attributes so the game tells us that Pace attribute isn't important for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles and can be ignored but Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique are one of the key attributes for the roles and should look at.
In the previous test we reduced the Pace attribute of the central midfielders from "13" to "5" and then we relocated the freed CA into Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique attributes increasing them from "14" to "17". Please note, the CA didn't change and it stayed the same 147CA and as we know reducing Pace and increasing Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique drastically decreased the result, the score dropped from "51" points to "36" points and G.D. dropped from "+3" to "-16", which is quite significant drop I'd say.
Now, let's try a bit different thing what if reduce the Decisions, which according to the game is one the most important attribute for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles, to some crazy low level like "5" and relocate the freed CA to Pace, Strength and Agility attributes, which according the game mean nothing for Mezzala.
So we're making the central midfielders to be "dumb" having only "5" Decisions when before they had "14"... obviously, this should have some tragic consequences for the result... right?
Default attributes ( 147CA )
Relocated Decision attribute ( 147CA )
Ouchh... another surprising result.
As you can see, reducing the Decisions attribute of the central midfielders to "5" from "14" didn't have any tragic consequences for the result, instead relocating Decisions into Pace, Agility and Strength actually greatly improved the result, the score has increased from 51 to 61 points and the G.D. has increased from +3 to +16.
So when you make your central midfielders to be "dumber" in exchange for speed and strength then it actually significantly improves the result even the game tells us that the opposite should happen...
As you can see Central Midfielders can play just fine even having "5" Decisions instead of "14" but if you reduced their Pace to "5" from "13" then the result drops drastically but the game tells us that Decisions is one of the key attribute almost for any Central Midfielder role but Pace can be ignored.
We've implemented a new algorithm for determining the number of matches to test tactics.
We find the new algorithm has an excellent balance between "testing speed" and "result accuracy".
I want to explain you in details how it works.
Every tactic should get 2 runs(800 matches) by default.
If after 2 runs a tactic hits 49 points or above, then it'll be given 1 additional run for total 3 runs(1,200 matches)
If after 3 runs(1,200 matches) a tactic hits 51 points or above and also manages to get in the Hall Of Fame or get a score that is no more than 1 point less than the score of its competitor in the Hall of Fame then it'll be given 7 additional runs for total 10 runs(10,000 matches). Please note, it might not happen instantly but don't worry, it'll happen at some point.
Here's a small example how it works. Let's imagine there's 4-2-3-1 with 53 pts in the Hall of Fame and after 3 runs(1,200 matches) your 4-2-3-1 got 52 pts, it means that your 4-2-3-1 is qualified to get 7 additional runs. As I already said, the 7 additional runs might not happen instantly but don't worry, it'll happen at some point.
Also, I want to add that some additional improvements that we made to our new tactic testing league greatly helped to reduce the RNG( almost by half) so the RNG of 3 runs(1,200 matches) on our new tactic testing league is no higher than -/+ 2 points from the avg. of 10 runs(10,000 matches), which means if after 3 runs (1,200 matches) a tactic hits 2 points less than its competitor in the Hall of Fame then it already won't be able to improve the score of its competitor even if it gets 10 runs, so not running it for additional runs in this case, help us not to waste the computing power of the testing server for noting.
I'm sure that everybody is aware that each role has highlighted attributes.
Almost every FM player zealously follow the highlighted attributes of the roles and that seems quite logical because why wouldn't you follow it? The game tells you what attributes are important for the roles... of course, you trust the game.
As you can see it uses 2 x Mezzalas and 1 x Defensive Midfielder:
Now, let's check which attributes the game highlights for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles
Mezzala
Defensive Midfielder
As it can be seen on the screenshots "Pace" attribute isn't highlighted for both roles.
So the game tells us "Pace" is nothing for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles and other attributes such as Decisions, Off The Ball, Technique and other are much more important and they are key attributes for the roles.
Ok, let's trust to the game and do what it suggests us to do, we reduce the Pace attribute to "5" and relocate the freed CA to other attributers Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique which according to the game, are the key attributes for the roles and much more important than the Pace attributes.
Please note, it's very important that after the relocation the CA hasn't changed it's stayed the same(147CA), we just relocated it from "Pace" attribute to Decisions, Off The Ball amd Technique attributes which according the game, are more important for the roles than "Pace" attribute.
Now, the attributes of our midfielders look like this:
Ok, let's test the tactic with the adjusted attributes of the MCs and DM and see how it'll affect the result.
Ouchh... what an unpleasant surprise. The points dropped from 51 to 36 points and the G.D. from "+3" to "-16".
But how that's possible? We just followed to what the game was telling us, it clearly said that "Pace" attribute isn't important for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles(it wasn't highlighted) but in reality reducing Pace attribute greatly worsen the result.
I guess, now it should be clear that the star ratings of the roles and the highlighted attributes are not just useless but can be misleading.
We can only question why SI decided to design the game this way.
Zeyad said: Not sure I understand how can you know if for example "aggression" does not have a sufficient impact on the M.E without the attribute test itself? unless I am misunderstanding and it was tested and just not listed because its insignificant? Expand
I understand what you're saying and I agree with, probably some of the untested attributes is worth testing and we might consider to test them at some point in future.
But I want to add that for example, such attributes as "Aggression" and "Flair" are "free" attributes, which means they don't cost any CA and it's highly unlucky that "free" attributes make any game-changing difference in the M.E.
Probably, at some point later when I got time.
Falbravv said: Hey all, is it planed to have Atributes testing ?
Yes, of course it's in plans but I can say it won't happen during the beta that's for sure.
Look at this, please. - https://fm-arena.com/thread/2733-how-to-get-your-tactic-tested/
Cheers.
Darrylweezy said: With the option of transferring your FM23 Save to 24/Beta, is it possible to already start some tactics testing?
Yes, that's true. We're waiting for FMRTE to start testing.
Hey,
Honestly, I don't think there's any point in testing such extreme scenario as "no training" at all because obviously, in this case there'll be a significant blow to the development rate and also "Match Sharpness" will be declining rapidly between matches without any training so we even might see declining of the CA and attributes.
Other words, "no training" is such terrible scenario for a player that no one would even should consider do that. I'm sure that "Recovery" training schedule is always more beneficial than "Resting" in case you want to give a player some rest to recover his Conditions as fast as possible.
I mean how to slow down the fall of pace and acceleration attributes as much as possible. What player parameters affect this?
Hi,
I think "aging" is the main factor that causes the fall of pace and acceleration attributes so not much you can do about that. Also, I think "Natural Fitness" attribute might have some role in that but I'm not sure about that.
Hi,
No, I don't believe there's a hidden attribute "development rate" because if there were such thing then we'd have it for editing in the official pre-game editor or in the official in-game editor.
The player development rate depends on many various factors, it can't be just one thing that determines everything.
Here's some of the factors that affect the player development rate - https://fm-arena.com/thread/2671-player-development-and-training/
I've moved it to FM23 tactic sharing section
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams
If I correctly understand what you're talking about then I suggest you to check this test - https://fm-arena.com/thread/5351-should-you-follow-the-highlighted-attributes-of-the-roles/
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important.
Hi. Sorry, I don't get what you mean.
I just want to let you know that our tactic testing server is undergoing maintenance and it'll up only on Sunday(evening) or Monday(morning).
We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Cheers.
Unforutanlty, without knowing the fractional part of the score number it's hard to say for sure because it could be like this:
After 1,200 matches the score might be 51.5111 points, which will be rounded to 52 points
and after 4,000 matches the score might be 49.4999 which will be rounded to 49 points
So without knowing the fractional part you see that there's 3 points difference ( 52 - 49 = 3 ) between the 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches tests, when actually, there's only 2.01 points difference ( 51.5111 - 49.4999 = 2.01 )
In general, at this point we've simulated 1,088,000 matches under our new testing database and we've got the following RNG statistic:
There's 45% probability of changing the result more than "1 point" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
There's 12,5% probability of changing the result more than "2 points" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
There's 1,4% probability of changing the result more than "3 points" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
So in theory there could be 3 points difference between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches but the probably of it is about 1.4%. Btw, I've checked the result of this tactic and this tactic hit it.
Also, I want to add that there might be 1 - 1.5 points RNG even between two 4,000 matches tests of the same tactic. For example, if we take the current top tactic(424 Bombyte Tweak), which has a score of 57.4465 points, and we test it one more time for 4,000 matches then its score might vary +/- 1-1.5 points around 57.4465.
So you always should consider that there might be at least 1 point RNG even after 4,000 matches. In terms of FM, 1 point RNG is nothing because when you play FM in normal way and the length of your season is 38 matches then your RNG might be as high as 20-25 points and such RNG is a normal thing for underdogs and mid table teams, of course, for the strongest teams in the league the RNG is much smaller but still it's much higher than the 1 point that we have after 4,000 matches on our test.
Hi,
I can't influence on picking the starting elven for a test because the testing is automated so if you want having players with their preferred foot to be opposite to the flank they play then use "Inverted Winger" or "Inside Forward" roles and if you want having players with their preferred to be the same as the flank they play then use "Winger" role.
Btw, we've tested different preferred foot for Winger/Inside Forward roles and I can say that the difference was a quite insignificant so it isn't worth bothering.
Cheers.
Yes, I've checked it and the last 5 tactics were bugged due to an error on the testing server. They will be re-tested.
Chriswin4 said: I thought this, my latest tactic got a low score that doesn't make sense based on results
Don't worry, we log and keep gave saves of every test result and they are being monitored so if there's something wrong then it'll be known soon or later. Also, we can provide game saves of every test if it's needed(as I said we keep them).
EDIT: This tactic has been re-tested and the current result is valid.
I'd suggested not to take the result of our "Tactical Instruction Testing" too seriously because at this point it's become obvious to us that there's some "flawed" results in it.
Please note, that it was our first attempt to do something like that and if you ask me then I find that our regular tactic testing is much more accurate and informative than the tactical instruction testing.
Also, the M.E. changes regularly but we can't update the result of tactical instructions testing accordingly so it becomes outdated quickly. So overall, I find it the tactical instruction testing isn't a good thing and I don't think we'll going to do something like that again in the future. The regular tactic testing is much better.
We find that all valuable tactics from 23.4.0 haven been tested already.
I'll remind you that in the previous test we took 2 x Mezzalas and Defensive Midfielder from this tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/5015-433-toast-rack/
I also want to remind you that for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles Pace isn't highlighted attribute but Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique are highlighted attributes so the game tells us that Pace attribute isn't important for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles and can be ignored but Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique are one of the key attributes for the roles and should look at.
In the previous test we reduced the Pace attribute of the central midfielders from "13" to "5" and then we relocated the freed CA into Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique attributes increasing them from "14" to "17". Please note, the CA didn't change and it stayed the same 147CA and as we know reducing Pace and increasing Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique drastically decreased the result, the score dropped from "51" points to "36" points and G.D. dropped from "+3" to "-16", which is quite significant drop I'd say.
Now, let's try a bit different thing what if reduce the Decisions, which according to the game is one the most important attribute for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles, to some crazy low level like "5" and relocate the freed CA to Pace, Strength and Agility attributes, which according the game mean nothing for Mezzala.
So we're making the central midfielders to be "dumb" having only "5" Decisions when before they had "14"... obviously, this should have some tragic consequences for the result... right?
Default attributes ( 147CA )
Relocated Decision attribute ( 147CA )
Ouchh... another surprising result.
As you can see, reducing the Decisions attribute of the central midfielders to "5" from "14" didn't have any tragic consequences for the result, instead relocating Decisions into Pace, Agility and Strength actually greatly improved the result, the score has increased from 51 to 61 points and the G.D. has increased from +3 to +16.
So when you make your central midfielders to be "dumber" in exchange for speed and strength then it actually significantly improves the result even the game tells us that the opposite should happen...
As you can see Central Midfielders can play just fine even having "5" Decisions instead of "14" but if you reduced their Pace to "5" from "13" then the result drops drastically but the game tells us that Decisions is one of the key attribute almost for any Central Midfielder role but Pace can be ignored.
That's crazy right?
We've implemented a new algorithm for determining the number of matches to test tactics.
We find the new algorithm has an excellent balance between "testing speed" and "result accuracy".
I want to explain you in details how it works.
Every tactic should get 2 runs(800 matches) by default.
If after 2 runs a tactic hits 49 points or above, then it'll be given 1 additional run for total 3 runs(1,200 matches)
If after 3 runs(1,200 matches) a tactic hits 51 points or above and also manages to get in the Hall Of Fame or get a score that is no more than 1 point less than the score of its competitor in the Hall of Fame then it'll be given 7 additional runs for total 10 runs(10,000 matches). Please note, it might not happen instantly but don't worry, it'll happen at some point.
Here's a small example how it works. Let's imagine there's 4-2-3-1 with 53 pts in the Hall of Fame and after 3 runs(1,200 matches) your 4-2-3-1 got 52 pts, it means that your 4-2-3-1 is qualified to get 7 additional runs. As I already said, the 7 additional runs might not happen instantly but don't worry, it'll happen at some point.
Also, I want to add that some additional improvements that we made to our new tactic testing league greatly helped to reduce the RNG( almost by half) so the RNG of 3 runs(1,200 matches) on our new tactic testing league is no higher than -/+ 2 points from the avg. of 10 runs(10,000 matches), which means if after 3 runs (1,200 matches) a tactic hits 2 points less than its competitor in the Hall of Fame then it already won't be able to improve the score of its competitor even if it gets 10 runs, so not running it for additional runs in this case, help us not to waste the computing power of the testing server for noting.
Cheers.
I'm sure that everybody is aware that each role has highlighted attributes.
Almost every FM player zealously follow the highlighted attributes of the roles and that seems quite logical because why wouldn't you follow it? The game tells you what attributes are important for the roles... of course, you trust the game.
But let's test it.
For our test we take this tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/5015-433-toast-rack/
As you can see it uses 2 x Mezzalas and 1 x Defensive Midfielder:
Now, let's check which attributes the game highlights for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles
Mezzala
Defensive Midfielder
As it can be seen on the screenshots "Pace" attribute isn't highlighted for both roles.
So the game tells us "Pace" is nothing for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles and other attributes such as Decisions, Off The Ball, Technique and other are much more important and they are key attributes for the roles.
Ok, let's trust to the game and do what it suggests us to do, we reduce the Pace attribute to "5" and relocate the freed CA to other attributers Decisions, Off The Ball and Technique which according to the game, are the key attributes for the roles and much more important than the Pace attributes.
Please note, it's very important that after the relocation the CA hasn't changed it's stayed the same(147CA), we just relocated it from "Pace" attribute to Decisions, Off The Ball amd Technique attributes which according the game, are more important for the roles than "Pace" attribute.
Now, the attributes of our midfielders look like this:
Ok, let's test the tactic with the adjusted attributes of the MCs and DM and see how it'll affect the result.
Ouchh... what an unpleasant surprise. The points dropped from 51 to 36 points and the G.D. from "+3" to "-16".
But how that's possible? We just followed to what the game was telling us, it clearly said that "Pace" attribute isn't important for Mezzala and Defensive Midfielder roles(it wasn't highlighted) but in reality reducing Pace attribute greatly worsen the result.
I guess, now it should be clear that the star ratings of the roles and the highlighted attributes are not just useless but can be misleading.
We can only question why SI decided to design the game this way.
>>> Alos, look at the "Part 2" of the test <<<
I understand what you're saying and I agree with, probably some of the untested attributes is worth testing and we might consider to test them at some point in future.
But I want to add that for example, such attributes as "Aggression" and "Flair" are "free" attributes, which means they don't cost any CA and it's highly unlucky that "free" attributes make any game-changing difference in the M.E.