ZaZ said: Just as a side note, Blue 3.2 has only attacking throw ins changed (all the rest is like Blue DM), while Blue 3.1 has most routines tweaked. I didn't put all tweaks to 3.2 because I don't know yet what actually improves performance, all I know is that they are better in goals conceded and scored from set pieces, but there is more to it like counter attacks and so on. Expand
Ok, I will move back to 3.1. It isn't scheduled for the first set of tests. Thanks for letting me know.
I have had to start again as I realised the old tests were under the old match engine. I have picked out 4 set piece routines from original type tactics and will test each against 4 tactics. So 16 tests using 2 teams in each test. I may use further test runs if it doesn't show much. I think one of the set piece routines may be based on an older version of the ZaZ ones but that is how it plays. The routines are from ZaZ 3.2, cptdoggo, Snoop and Super Korean. The tactics will be ZaZ 3.2, Positive Tiki Taka, only my railgun and an update of my Winx v4 (I am always using this now and want to see the best set pieces to use on it. So most are easy to switch between but different enough to make it interesting. I have done the mapping across to one lot of set pieces and started to run tests. I will be away for a week from next Wednesday so hoping to finish before then. Should only be a few days but depends on trip planning and other life commitments.
ZaZ said: Sent you via PM. Sorry for the extra work and feel free to use any methodology you prefer to compare it to other options! Expand
Thanks, I have the Set Piece routine now. I will do what I did last time and compare against the previous results. I take your tactic and change it to the shape of the tactic being tested, then copy a picture of what it should look like in that structure and load the new saved routine into the new tactic. I then compare the test tactic set piece with the one from yours and map the changes. I then change all the set pieces as per the mapping.
ZaZ said: @Mark, if you have time and interest, wanna test my new set pieces to see how they compare to old? I did hundreds of tests myself, but it's always good to try other methodologies to avoid bias. Expand
Using average, AF will be 100/1 = 100 pts and F9 will be 90+80+70+60/4 = 75 pts. Using total, AF will be 100 pts and F9 will be 300 pts which indicated F9 were used more frequently in the top tactics. Expand
I am commenting to try and help and my comments should not be taken as criticism. Thought I would start with that to make sure I didn't get you offside. For me, you are trying to measure two separate things with one score and rather than giving a clear picture is confuses both measurements.
I would have two scores for each role, average score in top 20 and number of times used in top 20. Just by way of example, and it is a hypothetical scenario, if the top 8 tactics all used BPD and the next 12 used CD, your calculation would have CD with a higher score. BPD would have a higher average and most people would think it would be a better option in the scenario I have suggested as it is used nearly as many times and would be apparent from having the two scores.
fmgamers said: We added a ranking of player roles based on our testing. Might give you some ideas on which roles are more effective to create a top tactic
I have based this tactic on Dragons Breathe with the wingers moving forward. There have been substantial changes to team instructions. I tested it in the League of Nations test league using the top 8 tactics from FM Arena. This is the best result of any tactic I have tested in this league. The test side is always Argentina which is rated lowest in this League. Very good tactics have struggled to finish above 9th. 5th is very impressive.
ZaZ said: Yeah, I understand that. But that only makes a difference if we reach the top of PA, else it's not very important. Gaining 1 in pace and 1 in acceleration is better for performance than gaining 1 in stamina and 1 in anticipation. The difference is that you will reach PA faster, meaning you stop to grow, while gaining stamina and anticipation will still leave space for growth. Expand
I will test it against using Quickness for all at some point.
Poacher said: I would not agree with that because fm-arena attributes testing and Chinese tested proved that Acceleration and Pace are the most valuable attribute for every position, probably, except GK and only "Quickness" improves Acceleration and Pace attributes so obviously, "Quickness" is the best individual training schedule but it must be taken into consideration that "Quickness" training schedule add a lot of pressure on players, it increases the probability of getting injured, heavily drains the conditions and can make a player to be "unhappy" because not all players like a lot physicals training but "Quickness" is the best choice because only this schedule improves Acceleration and Pace which are the important attributes for any position by far. Expand
I have followed the advice provided in their final few paragraphs on training
"For guidance on training, the attributes take up CA, so in order to train the players with the highest tactical true CA, we can train the attributes with the highest cost effectiveness The cost effectiveness of each attribute for each position can be measured by the attribute Tactical True CA Weight / Attribute CA Weight, the higher the value, the higher the attribute will make the player's attribute Tactical True CA higher if it increases the same CA."
If you look at the attribute values by position and attributes covered by each Individual Focus training item you come up with my table above.
I have now looked at the values for all the Individual Focus training based on our Chinese colleagues analysis and the following are the best for each position in Blue DM:
Han106 said: Do the tests work with FM 21 as well? Expand
They should work ok on previous versions. If you look up Passion 4FM he probably had schedules for previous versions.
ZaZ said: My schedule was designed to bring the best performance for the current season, so if it was losing to other training schedules focused on player development there would be no point using it at all. It makes me kinda happy to know it's at least serving its purpose, because I used it without having ever tested to see if it actually makes any difference.
Anyway, Passion 4 FM schedule seems pretty close in points and development, so it's probably superior and I should check later if anything from there can be used to improve my schedule.
Going a bit off topic, I'm currently testing set pieces and found some good improvement so far. I still have a lot to do specially on defending IFK. Expand
I was thinking about set pieces but really wanted to play a bit after all this testing. I look forward to your analysis.
Well we have the results in for the Training Schedule performance tests. I had to change from the original plan as the League of Nations testing environment doesn't allow for training. I went back to the ZaZ EPL environment and once again healed all players at the start of each run. I ran 7 tests with each schedule cycling through each of the 7 teams. As each only has one run with each schedule it is open to impact by injury or send offs so there is a fair margin of error in this test.
The winner this time, but in a photo finish, was ZaZ. Just finishing on top from Passion 4 FM and the other 2 top ones from the development testing. Given the previous testing was a bit more thorough I think I would be weighting preferences towards the previous winners, however as ZaZ has pointed out, his training is targeted towards winning games not player development.
For me, overall I think I will run with Passion 4 FM as it appears to be very close to the top on both counts, and as I said before I will try and improve on it. More to come.
does this work for any tactic or just the ZAZ one? as i didn't find anything in the chinese table mentioning positions like MC, AML/AMR, WBR/WBL
there is a piece of software named FMLineupTool that can be used to prioritise the atributes needed and i would like to modify the ratings there to suit my needs
Please reply guys Expand
I have derived the other positions and balanced the files above. Which filter are you interested in?
A recap, I am doing this to determine which schedule provides the most improvement in the players. All players are under 21, not in the current Main Squad and are listed as having the most improvement ie difference between CA and PA.
I ended up excluding Man City players as their results were the only ones jumping around a bit.
So 154 players, 5 tests for each of the 7 schedules plus the default AM selected one all over 5 tests. The equivalent of around 6000 player seasons. I put the individual training on the 7 schedules to playing position and role. On the default/base schedule I left it to the AM who went with their preferred position.
I looked at the results in 2 ways, firstly against overall CA improvement and the second against the improvement in the position played and trained against. I decided the latter was more reflective of what I would be looking for. If there is a lot of interest I will share the other version, but to be honest there isn't a lot between them.
Observations
The 2 things impacting the most appear to be the number of games and the higher the level the games the better. For example, where players had no or very limited game time their improvement averaged going from 56.1% CA to 57.8% CA or 1.7% CA in a season.
Those in the U18 team playing a full season improved slightly better, the increase being 3% for the season.
The big gains were for those who played the full season in the Main Team averaging a 5.2% gain in CA over the season. And those that were active in both squads and playing upward of 50 games, did even better averaging 6.1% increase in CA.
So there is a lot to be said for playing your potential stars in the main side for as long as possible during the season.
In terms of the schedules tested, the results seemed to run pretty consistently across the tests. The best 2 schedules were pretty much the best across all categories, with a gap back to 3rd and then a bigger gap to the rest.
Passion4FM appears to be our winner, from RDF and then MDW. All the 7 I was interested in beat leaving the training to your AM, so I think there is benefit in picking one of these schedules and using it or even mixing it up a bit.
I am going to relook at the best 3 and try and improve on these results. I will share any improved training schedule when I am confident I can beat the current front runner. I am also going to look at the impact of different Individual Focus training on these top 3 schedules.
My next testing will be to go back to the League of Nations test League and look at the performance side of using the schedules. Once again using the ZaZ Blue DM tactic on sides that are all basically 160 CA across the board. This time I can tackle the 7 tactics in a single test and compare. I will run 5 tests again after setting the baseline. Let me know your thoughts
Given there seems to be a bit of interest I thought I owed it to you all to give an update. I have finished the 5 runs of the base testing and I will finish the 5 runs of Passion4FM training schedule tonight. I have downloaded all the data I am interested in from the base testing, and there is an awful lot of it. I have build the structure for the analysis tool and have put the original, pre test, data in. It is more time consuming than I had hoped but I think the worst of it is behind me.
After running the base testing a couple of things were thrown up. Firstly, I think I can use Man City as they did keep the selections, they just changed tactics and selected their best players for games. The U18s were the ones I nominated. Also, they are using whatever training I put in.
The second thing is more of a problem. Chelsea and Spurs seem to be reverting back to when I first did the squads so they are not using the players I want in the correct squads. It is consistent though so will be the same scenario for each tactic. It just means we have less players in the grouping of EPL players and a new group who play both EPL and U18s right through the season.
Another minor hiccup has been the nomenclature between the Genie Scout downloads the the ones directly out of the game. But I am only using the ones out of the game now to ensure nothing much changes between each run and have stopped trying to read it into the analysis.
These oddities mean we have a few more groupings now. Overall we have 176 players we are looking at. Each test will cover around 40 games for EPL/cups and for U18s. So players will be playing 30-40 games a test, with 5 tests per training schedule or 150-200 games to analyze each schedule. We will have them all training for 10 months per test run or around 43 weeks each test, 215 weeks each training schedule.
Of the 176 players, 11 will be playing both U18 and EPL games, so mostly over 50 games per season, 16 will be playing the full EPL season of around 40 games, 66 will be playing the full U18 season with a bit of bench time and the odd run in the EPL, and 61 will be doing all the training in the main squad and only get the odd bench spot and maybe replace an injured player once or twice a season. The remaining 22 are the Man City players who are using a different tactic, and are split equally into the last two groups and will probably be included in those groups unless their data is dramatically different.
I should have the first bit of analysis done in the next day or so and the tests will just keep running regardless.
I have hit a few problems so changing tack slightly. Most of the clubs seem to override my selections, with only Chelsea, Spurs and Newcastle adhering to the players preferred. Manchester City throw everything out so I will not waste my time with them.
The approach now is to reduce the main squad to 22 players with the most potential to improve. Select the first eleven and make the second eleven available for the U18 team. I will still control the training of all these players. All other players will be in the U23 squad. I am hoping the second eleven will at least get game time albeit at a much lower level. For the 3 sides that seem to abide by the rules I will have a comparison between levels of playing experience on development. For the other 4 sides I would expect to have the second eleven still playing at U18 level, so a full 7 teams with comparable experience. With the first eleven for non complying 4 sides I doubt they will get much playing time so any improvement will be all down to training.
So we will have 3 interesting groupings to analyze. I will start running the control 5 runs now, leaving all the training to the AM. I will just recheck all the selections etc prior to the first full run.
Out of interest the player with the most potential in the Newcastle squad played all the games in the trial and improved from a current ability of 55.2% (potential ability 77.4%) to current ability of 64.4% in one season. The whole first eleven made pretty impressive amounts of improvement.
Nikolas said: Hello Mark and ZaZ! Congrats on the great work. You are providing invaluble analysis and insight to the game.
Regarding this whole conversation about important attributes, i've been using excel to mimic the work of genie scout, because i dont want to see the players CA, PA and hidden stats. I just want to compare my own players and find the best of them for each position and the best position for each one of them. Of course, feel free to suggest me a different way, with hidden CA and PA.
For now I export player attributes from fm print screen option, and then paste them in an specificly made excel file, and then i have the positional ratings for each on of them nice and fast. Few seconds for the whole team for every postion.
The question I have is regarding weight for each position. How do you actually calulate that?
In my mind my assumption is that a player with, lets say 10 in each attribute, should have an equal score in every position. And then, with the purpose to have numbers in the range of 0-100, i make the appropiate divisons to balance the numbers.
I.e. lets take DC position with Chinese version and zaz -25 for under 50 modifications. The total sum of the weights is 995. To make it 100 in need to devide by 9.95. So 9.95 is the balance number for this position. For FST is 7.85 etc.
Then I take players attributes and multiply them with the approriate weights for each position. Then take the sum of the result and divide it with the weight number for the position. In case of DC, i divide by 9.95 and so on. Then i divide by 20, so i can have a range of 0-100 in the result.
And this way i get the positional rating.
As a result a player with 10 in each attribute, would get 50% for all positions. A player with 20 in every attribute would get 100% for all positions.
Is this the correct way to do this? Expand
That is an interesting question. I think our Chinese colleagues gave us the answer to this very question. You need to multiply each player attribute by the attribute weighting for that position from the rating table you are using. Then total of all these calculations and divide by the total value of all the weightings for that position to give you the weighted average value of attributes. Multiply the weighted average value of attributes by 20 and subtract 121. This will give you the Tactical True Current Ability for that position for that player and allow you to compare them with other players of the same position.
You do need to remember the analysis done by FM Arena on position ability though. If a player is less than accomplished at the position you shouldn't be using them in that position.
I have downloaded the Genie Scout data from the base save and selected all the squads. Each team will have 28 players, all from their U18 and U23 squads. All squad players were selected by their Ability Difference, that is the difference between Potential Ability and Current Ability, with the player having the highest gap getting the first position in the squad. I take the best side I can get as the run on eleven and then pick a reserve for each position but only a single DC and STC. This makes up 9 reserves. I am not sure how the AM will select players outside my first 11 but I have added 3 reserves, selecting a further GK, DC and STC. And then there are 5 additional players. I am also hoping to include Man City this time.
My theory is that the AM will choose from the reserves next but time will tell if this works. I have set all the managers up as unsackable. I am now importing all training schedules that I will be testing. I have added RDF and Hook on top of Passion4FM, FC Cadoni and ZaZ, plus of course mine. It should take about a day per 5 tests for each of the training schedules which will make it a week roughly. Probably do it quicker but that's what I am allowing.
If anyone has thoughts on this let me know. I am hoping to finish the set up this evening and start the testing tomorrow afternoon.
Ok, I will move back to 3.1. It isn't scheduled for the first set of tests. Thanks for letting me know.
Thanks, I have the Set Piece routine now. I will do what I did last time and compare against the previous results. I take your tactic and change it to the shape of the tactic being tested, then copy a picture of what it should look like in that structure and load the new saved routine into the new tactic. I then compare the test tactic set piece with the one from yours and map the changes. I then change all the set pieces as per the mapping.
Then run the tests and compare
Happy to assist. Where can I get a copy from
Tactic No.1 AF 100 pts
Tactic No.2 F9 90 pts
Tactic No.3 F9 80 pts
Tactic No.4 F9 70 pts
Tactic No.5 F9 60 pts
Using average, AF will be 100/1 = 100 pts and F9 will be 90+80+70+60/4 = 75 pts.
Using total, AF will be 100 pts and F9 will be 300 pts which indicated F9 were used more frequently in the top tactics.
I am commenting to try and help and my comments should not be taken as criticism. Thought I would start with that to make sure I didn't get you offside. For me, you are trying to measure two separate things with one score and rather than giving a clear picture is confuses both measurements.
I would have two scores for each role, average score in top 20 and number of times used in top 20. Just by way of example, and it is a hypothetical scenario, if the top 8 tactics all used BPD and the next 12 used CD, your calculation would have CD with a higher score. BPD would have a higher average and most people would think it would be a better option in the scenario I have suggested as it is used nearly as many times and would be apparent from having the two scores.
https://fm-gamers.com/en/football-manager-2022-player-roles-ranking
Surely it should be average not total points
I will test it against using Quickness for all at some point.
I have followed the advice provided in their final few paragraphs on training
"For guidance on training, the attributes take up CA, so in order to train the players with the highest tactical true CA, we can train the attributes with the highest cost effectiveness
The cost effectiveness of each attribute for each position can be measured by the attribute Tactical True CA Weight / Attribute CA Weight, the higher the value, the higher the attribute will make the player's attribute Tactical True CA higher if it increases the same CA."
If you look at the attribute values by position and attributes covered by each Individual Focus training item you come up with my table above.
They should work ok on previous versions. If you look up Passion 4FM he probably had schedules for previous versions.
ZaZ said: My schedule was designed to bring the best performance for the current season, so if it was losing to other training schedules focused on player development there would be no point using it at all. It makes me kinda happy to know it's at least serving its purpose, because I used it without having ever tested to see if it actually makes any difference.
Anyway, Passion 4 FM schedule seems pretty close in points and development, so it's probably superior and I should check later if anything from there can be used to improve my schedule.
Going a bit off topic, I'm currently testing set pieces and found some good improvement so far. I still have a lot to do specially on defending IFK.
I was thinking about set pieces but really wanted to play a bit after all this testing. I look forward to your analysis.
The winner this time, but in a photo finish, was ZaZ. Just finishing on top from Passion 4 FM and the other 2 top ones from the development testing. Given the previous testing was a bit more thorough I think I would be weighting preferences towards the previous winners, however as ZaZ has pointed out, his training is targeted towards winning games not player development.
For me, overall I think I will run with Passion 4 FM as it appears to be very close to the top on both counts, and as I said before I will try and improve on it. More to come.
does this work for any tactic or just the ZAZ one?
as i didn't find anything in the chinese table mentioning positions like MC, AML/AMR, WBR/WBL
there is a piece of software named FMLineupTool that can be used to prioritise the atributes needed and i would like to modify the ratings there to suit my needs
Please reply guys
I have derived the other positions and balanced the files above. Which filter are you interested in?
I ended up excluding Man City players as their results were the only ones jumping around a bit.
So 154 players, 5 tests for each of the 7 schedules plus the default AM selected one all over 5 tests. The equivalent of around 6000 player seasons. I put the individual training on the 7 schedules to playing position and role. On the default/base schedule I left it to the AM who went with their preferred position.
I looked at the results in 2 ways, firstly against overall CA improvement and the second against the improvement in the position played and trained against. I decided the latter was more reflective of what I would be looking for. If there is a lot of interest I will share the other version, but to be honest there isn't a lot between them.
Observations
The 2 things impacting the most appear to be the number of games and the higher the level the games the better. For example, where players had no or very limited game time their improvement averaged going from 56.1% CA to 57.8% CA or 1.7% CA in a season.
Those in the U18 team playing a full season improved slightly better, the increase being 3% for the season.
The big gains were for those who played the full season in the Main Team averaging a 5.2% gain in CA over the season. And those that were active in both squads and playing upward of 50 games, did even better averaging 6.1% increase in CA.
So there is a lot to be said for playing your potential stars in the main side for as long as possible during the season.
In terms of the schedules tested, the results seemed to run pretty consistently across the tests. The best 2 schedules were pretty much the best across all categories, with a gap back to 3rd and then a bigger gap to the rest.
Passion4FM appears to be our winner, from RDF and then MDW. All the 7 I was interested in beat leaving the training to your AM, so I think there is benefit in picking one of these schedules and using it or even mixing it up a bit.
I am going to relook at the best 3 and try and improve on these results. I will share any improved training schedule when I am confident I can beat the current front runner. I am also going to look at the impact of different Individual Focus training on these top 3 schedules.
My next testing will be to go back to the League of Nations test League and look at the performance side of using the schedules. Once again using the ZaZ Blue DM tactic on sides that are all basically 160 CA across the board. This time I can tackle the 7 tactics in a single test and compare. I will run 5 tests again after setting the baseline. Let me know your thoughts
After running the base testing a couple of things were thrown up. Firstly, I think I can use Man City as they did keep the selections, they just changed tactics and selected their best players for games. The U18s were the ones I nominated. Also, they are using whatever training I put in.
The second thing is more of a problem. Chelsea and Spurs seem to be reverting back to when I first did the squads so they are not using the players I want in the correct squads. It is consistent though so will be the same scenario for each tactic. It just means we have less players in the grouping of EPL players and a new group who play both EPL and U18s right through the season.
Another minor hiccup has been the nomenclature between the Genie Scout downloads the the ones directly out of the game. But I am only using the ones out of the game now to ensure nothing much changes between each run and have stopped trying to read it into the analysis.
These oddities mean we have a few more groupings now. Overall we have 176 players we are looking at. Each test will cover around 40 games for EPL/cups and for U18s. So players will be playing 30-40 games a test, with 5 tests per training schedule or 150-200 games to analyze each schedule. We will have them all training for 10 months per test run or around 43 weeks each test, 215 weeks each training schedule.
Of the 176 players, 11 will be playing both U18 and EPL games, so mostly over 50 games per season, 16 will be playing the full EPL season of around 40 games, 66 will be playing the full U18 season with a bit of bench time and the odd run in the EPL, and 61 will be doing all the training in the main squad and only get the odd bench spot and maybe replace an injured player once or twice a season. The remaining 22 are the Man City players who are using a different tactic, and are split equally into the last two groups and will probably be included in those groups unless their data is dramatically different.
I should have the first bit of analysis done in the next day or so and the tests will just keep running regardless.
The approach now is to reduce the main squad to 22 players with the most potential to improve. Select the first eleven and make the second eleven available for the U18 team. I will still control the training of all these players. All other players will be in the U23 squad. I am hoping the second eleven will at least get game time albeit at a much lower level. For the 3 sides that seem to abide by the rules I will have a comparison between levels of playing experience on development. For the other 4 sides I would expect to have the second eleven still playing at U18 level, so a full 7 teams with comparable experience. With the first eleven for non complying 4 sides I doubt they will get much playing time so any improvement will be all down to training.
So we will have 3 interesting groupings to analyze. I will start running the control 5 runs now, leaving all the training to the AM. I will just recheck all the selections etc prior to the first full run.
Out of interest the player with the most potential in the Newcastle squad played all the games in the trial and improved from a current ability of 55.2% (potential ability 77.4%) to current ability of 64.4% in one season. The whole first eleven made pretty impressive amounts of improvement.
Here are the training schedules I will be using:
Passion4FM
FMS
Hoods
ZaZ
MDW
RDF
FC Cadoni
Regarding this whole conversation about important attributes, i've been using excel to mimic the work of genie scout, because i dont want to see the players CA, PA and hidden stats. I just want to compare my own players and find the best of them for each position and the best position for each one of them. Of course, feel free to suggest me a different way, with hidden CA and PA.
For now I export player attributes from fm print screen option, and then paste them in an specificly made excel file, and then i have the positional ratings for each on of them nice and fast. Few seconds for the whole team for every postion.
The question I have is regarding weight for each position. How do you actually calulate that?
In my mind my assumption is that a player with, lets say 10 in each attribute, should have an equal score in every position. And then, with the purpose to have numbers in the range of 0-100, i make the appropiate divisons to balance the numbers.
I.e. lets take DC position with Chinese version and zaz -25 for under 50 modifications. The total sum of the weights is 995. To make it 100 in need to devide by 9.95. So 9.95 is the balance number for this position. For FST is 7.85 etc.
Then I take players attributes and multiply them with the approriate weights for each position. Then take the sum of the result and divide it with the weight number for the position. In case of DC, i divide by 9.95 and so on. Then i divide by 20, so i can have a range of 0-100 in the result.
And this way i get the positional rating.
As a result a player with 10 in each attribute, would get 50% for all positions.
A player with 20 in every attribute would get 100% for all positions.
Is this the correct way to do this?
That is an interesting question. I think our Chinese colleagues gave us the answer to this very question. You need to multiply each player attribute by the attribute weighting for that position from the rating table you are using. Then total of all these calculations and divide by the total value of all the weightings for that position to give you the weighted average value of attributes. Multiply the weighted average value of attributes by 20 and subtract 121. This will give you the Tactical True Current Ability for that position for that player and allow you to compare them with other players of the same position.
You do need to remember the analysis done by FM Arena on position ability though. If a player is less than accomplished at the position you shouldn't be using them in that position.
Sure I will get to that in the next 24 hours.
My theory is that the AM will choose from the reserves next but time will tell if this works. I have set all the managers up as unsackable. I am now importing all training schedules that I will be testing. I have added RDF and Hook on top of Passion4FM, FC Cadoni and ZaZ, plus of course mine. It should take about a day per 5 tests for each of the training schedules which will make it a week roughly. Probably do it quicker but that's what I am allowing.
If anyone has thoughts on this let me know. I am hoping to finish the set up this evening and start the testing tomorrow afternoon.