Something needs to be done regarding youngsters

[ilkork]

My intention with this topic is to show an obvious flaw regarding youngsters and their attributes. The ones who have 0 in the pre-game editor in particular.


Part A-Youngsters and their "Decisions" attribute.

I manage Olympiacos in Greece (FM17) and while comparing my U20s Team with other teams from my league, I noticed this:

"Worst in Greek U20s Group 1"...


"Why is the Decisions attribute so low" I asked myself. Ah, yes! It's because I edited all my players who had 0 in their attributes in the pre-game editor and gave them more reasonable stats.
This is how they look now (which gave me the "Worst" result) and how they looked before any editing:

Spoiler

Image to the left=After Editing,   Image to the right=Before Editing

And this is the mental comparison before any editing:

Spoiler

But wait a minute. Does this mean that now I have to compete with a bunch of smart Einstein's?
Let's have a look at the other teams and the "Decisions" attribute from their players (without any editing):

Spoiler

In every FM version the same thing happens. The game gives unreasonable values for youth players with 0, and it especially gives a very high Decisions attribute for some reason.


Part B-The not so reasonable distribution of attributes in youngsters.

Let's compare some youngsters from my team who had 0 in all their attributes and my editing afterwards:
(Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)

Spoiler

GK-D.Skafidas, 16y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


DR-K.Panagou, 17y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


DC-T.Tsiboukas, 17y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


DC-P.Papadopoulos, 16y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


DL-C.Markoulakis, 16y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


MC-G.Angelopoulos, 17y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


AMC-G.Neofytidis, 15y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


AMR-T.Kostanasios, 17y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


AML-A.Kabetsis, 17y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


ST-T.Tsirigotis, 15y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)


ST-F.Tsilikis, 18y old   (Image to the left=Before any editing,   Image to the right=After editing)

(Besides the editing in all their attributes, I increased the CA of some youngsters by 5 points (for example, CA60 became CA65)

Now, a question for anyone who read this topic: If you had to choose between the "before" and "after" youngsters, who would you buy?


Conclusion

Why do you(people at SI) make me edit all those players every year? Why? Can't you add some attributes on your own?
Yes, I know that there is no way you can know the current ability of those young players. Fine! Just create templates, I don't care. I don't care if you create "samey" saves.
Besides, the vast majority of real life players at those ages (15y-18y) are the same. Only a 5% is what stands out and become great footballers.

There is also this very good topic, which shows some very bad results regarding the "Important Matches" attribute for youngsters who have 0 in it.



Please, do something.

[craigd84]

I have noticed this also.

[herne79]

Nobody is "making" you edit all of those players.  You are choosing to do that all by yourself simply because you have a different point of view.  If that's how you choose to play the game, fair enough.

Players with a zero assigned to an attribute will get a random actual number between 1 and 20 once the game starts, but also bearing mind other calculations made for current ability.  You can see that for yourself from your loaded screen shots of young players before you make changes - a wide variety of numbers, evenly distributed, ranging between 6 and 14.  You've edited that range to now be between 7 and 10.  Again, if that's how you want to choose to play the game, absolutely fine.  Personally I prefer seeing a wider range of attributes, but again just my opinion.

You could always open a thread in the suggestions forum if you believe your method would be an improvement.

[ilkork]

2 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Nobody is "making" you edit all of those players.  You are choosing to do that all by yourself simply because you have a different point of view.  If that's how you choose to play the game, fair enough.

You are wrong here, sir.
The people at SI who are responsible for the attribute distribution make me edit all those players. If they had set a standard value, I wouldn't have edited anything.
But they don't. They set it to "0", and the result of this is the weird distribution we all experience.

5 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Players with a zero assigned to an attribute will get a random actual number between 1 and 20 once the game starts.

So, do you like the Anticipation-3, Balance-2 and Crossing-1 when you see it in your players?
I don't.

7 minutes ago, herne79 said:

a wide variety of numbers, evenly distributed, ranging between 6 and 14.  You've edited that range to now be between 7 and 10.

Yes, but now you have an "all around" player. The tall guy is strong at most times, the short guy is fast at most times. Even if they don't become great footballers eventually.
Isn't that what's happening irl?


Why do they all have very good Decisions? They are 17y old! And in the Greek league, no EPL!

11 minutes ago, herne79 said:

You could always open a thread in the suggestions forum if you believe your method would be an improvement.

I might do that. But first, I have to wait for more replies from forum members, because most SI staff will never admit something is wrong when people point it out...

[herne79]

I was quite happy having a discussion with you until that rather silly final sentence.  There's no need to be rude simply because someone has a different opinion which you don't like.

fyi, mods are not SI staff nor do we never admit something is wrong, as you so kindly put it.

Now, back on topic, you have an opinion and you have a way of playing the game.  As I originally said, that's fair enough.  It clearly differs from how the game is designed at present, so if you want to put the idea forward for consideration you need to raise it in the suggestions forum.

[lemeuresnew]

20 minutes ago, ilkork said:

I might do that. But first, I have to wait for more replies from forum members, because most SI staff will never admit something is wrong when people point it out...

i dont work for SI, obviously

not sure i would agree with you. sure there are things that annoy me - too many regens either cant jump or have too low aggression on my saves. i think changes to tutoring could improve a lot of these problems. i dont think i want my players to be as rigidly set as you do. for me, you are making the regens worse. you cant get greatness out of kids if they are that balanced, at least not as easily. and it isnt as fun to try and get the best out of a player that is just balanced

[santy001]

30 minutes ago, ilkork said:

You are wrong here, sir.
The people at SI who are responsible for the attribute distribution make me edit all those players. If they had set a standard value, I wouldn't have edited anything.
But they don't. They set it to "0", and the result of this is the weird distribution we all experience.

As far as I am aware, the members of SI's staff aren't directly responsible for real player attribute distribution. 

However, as bad as that initially sounds... it's actually a wonderful thing.

There are data forums in which you can make your considered contributions, do it well enough and display enough knowledge and you may well find yourself being asked to join the relevant research team. 

[ilkork]

1 minute ago, herne79 said:

I was quite happy having a discussion with you until that rather silly final sentence.  There's no need to be rude simply because someone has a different opinion which you don't like.

I didn't mean to be rude, especially to you. I am sorry for being rude.

3 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Now, back on topic, you have an opinion and you have a way of playing the game.  As I originally said, that's fair enough.  It clearly differs from how the game is designed at present, so if you want to put the idea forward for consideration you need to raise it in the suggestions forum.

I just don't like it when I see so high Decisions for 17y olds. Especially in the Greek league.
I don't like it when a DL has Crossing-4, Dribbling-2, Marking-3.
I don't like it when an AML has Anticipation-3, Long Shots-4.
And so on...

I want a more balanced attribute distribution for youngsters who have 0 pre-game.
-
-
-

6 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

i think changes to tutoring could improve a lot of these problems.

Not really.
Jumping Reach is one of the hardest atts to improve and Aggression doesn't improve that much.

7 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

i dont think i want my players to be as rigidly set as you do.

I never said "do what I say with all the youngsters". Of course there will be youngsters with horrible atts. Just, not in the rate it is happening now with the ones who have 0 pre-game.

8 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

you cant get greatness out of kids if they are that balanced, at least not as easily.

Well, a youngster in the Greek league is not the same with one from the EPL, right? Different CA, different PA.
-
-
-
I want SI to find another system that deals with youngsters who have 0 pre-game, that's it.
What is happening atm is not that good. And the situation is worse with newgens.
 

[lemeuresnew]

2 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Not really.
Jumping Reach is one of the hardest atts to improve and Aggression doesn't improve that much.

but if you changed what tutoring effects, it could make a huge difference. having an aggressive tutor for instance SHOULD increase the kids aggression a bit as well. always a fine line between aggression and determination lol

 

[ilkork]

4 minutes ago, santy001 said:

As far as I am aware, the members of SI's staff aren't directly responsible for real player attribute distribution. 

However, as bad as that initially sounds... it's actually a wonderful thing.

There are data forums in which you can make your considered contributions, do it well enough and display enough knowledge and you may well find yourself being asked to join the relevant research team. 

Well, what's being said, can't be unsaid. I didn't mean to sound that rude, forgive my lack of English (I am Greek).

So, who is responsible for the zeros we find in youngsters? The Greek researcher for the Greek league?
And who decides the "If player X has 0 in his attributes, his Decisions attribute will receive more"?

[ilkork]

9 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

but if you changed what tutoring effects, it could make a huge difference. having an aggressive tutor for instance SHOULD increase the kids aggression a bit as well. always a fine line between aggression and determination lol

Why do I believe that the only way of decreasing Aggression is via fines and that there is no way to see it increased via tutoring?

[lemeuresnew]

1 minute ago, ilkork said:

Why do I believe that the only way of decreasing Aggression is via fines and that there is no way to see it increased via tutoring?

that is how it works at the moment. what i am saying is that a proper tutoring system could change that, and keep the randomness of players that i prefer and still let them become more balanced as you like if you wanted (to an extent either way)

[ilkork]

Just now, lemeuresnew said:

that is how it works at the moment. what i am saying is that a proper tutoring system could change that, and keep the randomness of players that i prefer and still let them become more balanced as you like if you wanted (to an extent either way)

Ahh yes. Sorry, Now I get it.
You are right about that. Of course the tutor should have been able to alter a player's Aggression and there needs to be a change in that system as well.

[craigd84]

I dont have a problem with ZERO's what i have a problem with is ZERO's becoming a random stat when the database is loaded but a stat that generally has no help to his position.

 

Like for an example, an attacking midfielder getting say 13 tackling and 4 vision... 

REGENS are odd too... like MOST fullbacks have 6 and under crossing, 10 and over tackling meaning that largely they are DEFENSIVE fullbacks, some are very good setpieces and headers but poor at everything else and then you get the attacking fullbacks but they only have decent attacking attributes provided they have a second role of midfield.

I do think some of the calculations regarding attributes need a looking at but on the whole i love the game and think its great. (apart from Half Backs, Registas and Sweeper Keepers)

[ilkork]

@craigd84 You explained my problem in 5 sentences...

That's it! That's my problem and way this system works atm is pretty bad. I would rate it 2/10.

[craigd84]

No problem ilork!! I would give you rep if i knew how lol.

[ilkork]

2 minutes ago, craigd84 said:

I would give you rep if i knew how lol.

It's ok, no need for that.
But fyi, it's the green arrow to the right.

[craigd84]

ah i wondered that but it went red so i was worried i was doing something bad lol

[michaeltmurrayuk]

5 hours ago, ilkork said:

Well, what's being said, can't be unsaid. I didn't mean to sound that rude, forgive my lack of English (I am Greek).

So, who is responsible for the zeros we find in youngsters? The Greek researcher for the Greek league?
And who decides the "If player X has 0 in his attributes, his Decisions attribute will receive more"?

Attributes are set by the Researchers, if you disagree with the attributes then it is best to raise the issue in the Data Issues forum (with evidence of why you feel the attributes are wrong if possible).

Also as far as I am aware if an attribute is zero, then it isn't just given a random value on creation of the game, instead the value is based upon the players position and remaining CA, though some attributes will be random but these are the more natural attributes that aren't really influenced by how good you are (think injury proneness for example).

Having a quick look in the editor it seems most of the players are full of zeros, so you'll get mainly random attributes each time, how many times have you loaded up a fresh unedited game as you may find a different game gets a different spread of attributes.

[ilkork]

43 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

Attributes are set by the Researchers, if you disagree with the attributes then it is best to raise the issue in the Data Issues forum (with evidence of why you feel the attributes are wrong if possible).

So, you are saying to me "if you disagree with the zero's, say why. Otherwise, it's better to have zero's than templates for youngsters".
Is that right?

43 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

though some attributes will be random but these are the more natural attributes that aren't really influenced by how good you are (think injury proneness for example)

Yes, attributes like Consistency, Important Matches, Ambition, Professionalism and Injury Proneness.
The "not so important attributes".......

43 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

Having a quick look in the editor it seems most of the players are full of zeros, so you'll get mainly random attributes each time

That's why I created the following for every youngster who has 0 in Consistency, Important Matches, Decisions, Ambition and Professionalism in the Greek leagues:


As for the Injury Proneness attribute, I am going to edit it for anyone who has 0, based on their position (for example, GK=very low, DC=low, DRL+DMC=medium, AMRLC=high, ST=high). Very Low=2, High=10.
Of course I am going to do further editing, because most youngsters have 0 in most attributes.

As for the templates, in case someone thinks "that's going to create same players", I have to say "no, if you create at least 10 templates for each position". That gives us a total of 150 templates, which is not that hard to do and is definitely better than having zeros.

EDIT: Of course, players who have a standard value are left untouched. I only edit the zeros.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

3 minutes ago, ilkork said:

So, you are saying to me "if you disagree with the zero's, say why. Otherwise, it's better to have zero's than templates for youngsters".
Is that right?

Yes, attributes like Consistency, Important Matches, Ambition, Professionalism and Injury Proneness.
The "not so important attributes".......

The game already uses templates to generate the random attributes, if you want to change the system used then you need to show why your system is better or more realistic, why is the game wrong to give Greek Youngsters a Decision rating of 14? At the moment you haven't given any reasons as to why your system is correct and the game is wrong. (That's not the say the game is perfect the regen template system has had issues over the years).

With the other attributes there is nothing wrong with them not being linked to a players CA/PA (well apart from being annoying when a prospect has a bad attribute) - there are plenty of players with potential who are injury prone, inconsistent, unambitious or unprofessional whilst there are plenty of sunday league footballers who are professional, ambitious, never injured or consistent, these are natural attributes like you height that have no link how good a footballer you could be.

[ilkork]

26 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

The game already uses templates to generate the random attributes,

Yes, I noticed the introduction of the "Role Used To fill Empty Attributes" feature in the editor (I don't remember that feature in FM16). And I am not sure if that's the only system with templates.

Spoiler

Anyway, shall we have a look at some results?
I gave my Olympiacos U20s youngsters the same CA and PA as when I edited them myself. I left all 0 attributes untouched and I just chose a "Role to fill empty attributes", based on position (for example, GK=Goalkeeper, DR=Wing Back, DMC=Ball-Winning Midfielder, AMR=Wigner, etc.). Let's have a look at this system's distribution of attributes:

Spoiler

GK: Goalkeeper. Amazing distribution of attributes! Aerial Ability=7, Composure-5, Concentration-5, Agility-7, Jumping Reach-7


DR-Wing Back. Again, amazing distribution of attributes! Dribbling-5, Acceleration-5


DC-Central Defender. Yes! Marking-8, Positioning-7 and overall a bad distribution.


DC-Central Defender. Here we have Nesta at a young age. Forget about Positioning, Bravery, Teamwork, Workrate for a second or the Corners-9 for a DC...


DL-Wing Back. Crossing-5, WorkRate-9, Concentration-5, Off The Ball-5, Agility-6 and overall a bad distribution.


MC-Ball-Winning Midfielder. Anticipation-5, Strength-6, Positioning-7...


AMC-Advanced Playmaker. Next Kaka is here with Dribbling-8, Anticipation-3, Off The Ball-7 and the rest...


AMR-Winger. Not thaaaat bad, but my distribution for this guy is better.


AML-Winger. Bravery-2, Composure-4, Off The Ball-7 and the rest...


ST-Complete Forward. Bravery-5, Composure-7, Concentration-4, Off The Ball-8...


ST-Target Man. Not thaaat bad, but I did a better job for this guy.

As I said in an earlier post, I rated that system 2/10. In the previous images, I said "not thaat bad" only for 2 images out of 11...
 

34 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

if you want to change the system used then you need to show why your system is better or more realistic, why is the game wrong to give Greek Youngsters a Decision rating of 14?

What else do you need in showing "why my system is better than the game's"?
And there's nothing wrong with having Greek youngsters with Decisions-14. Just not at the rate the game does now. After all, they are 15-18 years old.
 

36 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

(well apart from being annoying when a prospect has a bad attribute)

I find that thought in my head very often. Especially with the newgens. Can't be a coincidence.

 

37 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

there are plenty of players with potential who are injury prone, inconsistent, unambitious or unprofessional whilst there are plenty of sunday league footballers who are professional, ambitious, never injured or consistent

Of course. I never said otherwise. But the ones you are talking about are not the majority.
 

[wearesporting]

The heavy majority of players in a youth setup don't make it. Why? Because they are not good enough or are one dimensional. If you don't like your defender wannabe's ability to mark anyone try him in a different position or tell him where to go because he won't make it at your club he can go play lower down the leagues where his marking doesn't need to be so high. Vast majority of teenagers do not make it at their clubs. 

[ilkork]

16 minutes ago, wearesporting said:

The heavy majority of players in a youth setup don't make it. Why? Because they are not good enough or are one dimensional. If you don't like your defender wannabe's ability to mark anyone try him in a different position or tell him where to go because he won't make it at your club he can go play lower down the leagues where his marking doesn't need to be so high. Vast majority of teenagers do not make it at their clubs. 

Agree to an extent. Most youngsters don't make it.
But the following is exactly my problem:

On 9/6/2017 at 18:53, craigd84 said:

I dont have a problem with ZERO's what i have a problem with is ZERO's becoming a random stat when the database is loaded but a stat that generally has no help to his position.

Like for an example, an attacking midfielder getting say 13 tackling and 4 vision... 

REGENS are odd too... like MOST fullbacks have 6 and under crossing, 10 and over tackling meaning that largely they are DEFENSIVE fullbacks, some are very good setpieces and headers but poor at everything else and then you get the attacking fullbacks but they only have decent attacking attributes provided they have a second role of midfield.

I do think some of the calculations regarding attributes need a looking at but on the whole i love the game and think its great. (apart from Half Backs, Registas and Sweeper Keepers)

And it is a problem. The current system of attribute distribution, in youngsters who have zeros and newgens, is very annoying.

@herne79 said that attributes are distributed in a wide range from 6-14 and my editing caused that range to become 7-10.
I would say my editing made it 8-11, which is a lot closer to rl. My opinion.
And you (@wearesporting) said that the vast majority of youngsters don't make it. So, what have I done? I made them more balanced. Maybe I slightly decreased (or not) their overall ability. But they are more balanced.
And if you compare the youngsters who have a standard value (in all their attributes) with my editing, you'll see that I did exactly what researchers do. A balanced distribution, most of the times.
No annoying Crossing-4 for a wing back, no annoying Aerial Ability-4 for a goalkeeper, no annoying Anticipation-3 for a midfielder and no annoying Off The Ball-6 for a striker...

The current database is an amazing work, hats off to the researchers.
But the youngsters with zeros and the newgen system are horrible.

[gfx]

On 6/9/2017 at 17:28, ilkork said:

That's why I created the following for every youngster who has 0 in Consistency, Important Matches, Decisions, Ambition and Professionalism in the Greek leagues:

That setup is very linear, if that were real life every good player should be a good professional and a good player for important matches. Take the examples of Balotelli, he seemed to have a great potential, but his professionalism ruined his career. Or Higuain, who is a superb number 9 but he is very inconsistent in important matches (he missed an impossible to miss goal in a World Cup final, 2 Copa America finals without goals, Copa Italia, CL Final, etc.). And then you have other lesser gifted players who are great for important matches and very professionals. I just doesn't make sense to bond those attributes to the PA.

Also as you are "balancing" the players attributes, you are touching some key attributes that will change the players CA, (as I've read from other post that attributes have some kind of weight depending on the players position) are you taking that into account? I didn't analyse all the screens but I'm pretty sure that Papadopoulos CA after the change has a pretty higher CA.

As I can see you are changing your defender technical attributes to around 11 in Marking - Tackling - Heading. Like you did with Tsiboukas, you lowered Heading and Tackling from 14 to 11 and raised marking from 9 to 11, I think this is the "balance" you are talking about. IRL there's plenty of defenders who are great at one or another function but they are not so good at others. Balancing players will give you a lot of similar players, making this a dull game, I don't intend to be rude, this is just my humble opinion.

[ilkork]

1 hour ago, gfx said:

That setup is very linear

It is. And I agree with your examples. Of course there are many players with high PA but unprofessional, unambitious, inconsistent, etc.
But, but. The big but.
Do you prefer the zeros and while creating a save you see Consistency-6 and Important Matches-4, or the linear thing I do (if there is no alternative)?
I wouldn't care much about Ambition and Professionalism because tutoring can help in altering them, but, Consistency, Important Matches and Injury Proneness can't change. They stay in the same value from the beginning. 99,9% of times. Check this.

Now, do me a favour. Compare every youngster with standard attributes and the ones who have 0 and the game generates random attributes for them. You will see a huge difference in the attribute distribution.
Why is that? It's because the current system is not good. And that's what I don't like.
I see an amazing database, but when it comes to players with zero's pre-game, I see a horrible distribution of attributes 9/10 times.

And even if my balance creates a lot of similar players, do you think a 160CA "balanced" defender is the same as an 150CA "balanced" defender?
 

1 hour ago, gfx said:

(as I've read from other post that attributes have some kind of weight depending on the players position) are you taking that into account? I didn't analyse all the screens but I'm pretty sure that Papadopoulos CA after the change has a pretty higher CA.

Let's take Papadopoulos' example. He is a CB and naturally, Tackling will count a lot more in the CA count. That's why I lowered it from 13->11.
Also, Decisions is an attribute that counts a lot towards CA for all positions. That's why I lowered it from 13->9.
Acceleration and Pace count a lot towards CA for all positions. That's why I lowered them from 13->8 and from 12->8, respectively.
Aggression and Bravery don't count a lot.
That allowed me to have more CA points to distribute to the other attributes. I only added 10CA points to his original 55CA. Not a big deal:

Spoiler

Besides, Olympiacos U20s is among the 3 best U20s teams in Greece and the Greek Researchers do the following every year because they support a rival club:

Spoiler

Yes, I like the 50s, 55s and 60s..... But that's another issue, off-topic.

Back on topic. Most youngsters had a maximum of +5 CA points towards their original CA, not more. Check the other youngsters I edited. They are not as good as Papadopoulos.
But that's not my big issue (the low CA in most youngsters), cause I edit them every year.

1 hour ago, gfx said:

I don't intend to be rude, this is just my humble opinion.

I understand and I respect that.
That's why I gave my best to convince you otherwise. I may not have done a good job.

Still, I want SI to change that attribute distribution system towards youngsters with 0 in their attributes. Of course not with my linear way, but something else than the current system, I don't care what. But I want something else.

[lemeuresnew]

56 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Besides, Olympiacos U20s is among the 3 best U20s teams in Greece and the Greek Researchers do the following every year because they support a rival club:

if you are suggesting the game is biased because of team rivalries, you are more than likely going to lose that argument. less i have read that wrong?

[herne79]

51 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Do you prefer the zeros and while creating a save you see Consistency-6 and Important Matches-4, or the linear thing I do (if there is no alternative)?

I prefer the former.  Actually, I prefer reading my scout / coach reports to help identify areas for improvement rather than trying to look at hidden numbers.

53 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Consistency, Important Matches and Injury Proneness can't change. They stay in the same value from the beginning. 99,9% of times. Check this.

They can and do change.  How?  By consistently playing well in matches, by playing in big games, by avoiding bad injuries (or getting them).

 

Anyway, everyone plays the game how they want to play it and have loads of different ideas (sometimes conflicting ideas) about what could be improved.  For example, personally I'd like to see all hidden attributes and CA/PA numbers permanently hidden so they weren't even viewable in editors because in my opinion 1) it's not actually how the game is designed to be used and 2) people can spend far too long worrying too much about these numbers and how to get the "most" out of them, rather than just playing the game and reading reports.

But by the same token I appreciate others want access because that's how they enjoy playing, so who am I to try to dictate their enjoyment.

One final point:

1 hour ago, ilkork said:

Besides, Olympiacos U20s is among the 3 best U20s teams in Greece and the Greek Researchers do the following every year because they support a rival club

Don't start accusing researchers of bias.  That will make you very unpopular very quickly.

[ilkork]

Just now, lemeuresnew said:

if you are suggesting the game is biased because of team rivalries, you are more than likely going to lose that argument. less i have read that wrong?

Come on mate. For what I've written, that's the only thing you have to say?
Allow me to have a better opinion in this area, since I am living in Greece and I know the players better than most people in this forum.

But that's not my issue. I don't care about that, since I play with an edited database every year.
I only said that as an explanation to @gfx, because he noticed the increase in Papadopoulos CA than his original CA.
That's not an issue. The "if I add 10 or 20 or 50 CA points to the existing players". The issue here is the attribute distribution.

If I had to force a 55CA on Papadopoulos, here's what it would look like:


Now, compare my attribute distribution with the game's...

[ilkork]

8 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I prefer the former.  Actually, I prefer reading my scout / coach reports to help identify areas for improvement rather than trying to look at hidden numbers.

Come on @herne79! And you are a veteran! Even I know which attributes need improvement for the different types of roles.
Are you telling me that the hidden atts don't matter to you and that a difference in 4-6 points in consistency doesn't matter to you?
Doesn't it make a difference for a player?

10 minutes ago, herne79 said:

They can and do change.  How?  By consistently playing well in matches, by playing in big games, by avoiding bad injuries (or getting them).

If that's true, what do you have to say about this experiment here?
 

19 minutes ago, herne79 said:

personally I'd like to see all hidden attributes and CA/PA numbers permanently hidden so they weren't even viewable in editors because in my opinion 1) it's not actually how the game is designed to be used and 2) people can spend far too long worrying too much about these numbers and how to get the "most" out of them, rather than just playing the game and reading reports.

Although I don't like it, I have to say it's 100% fair to do that, because I've thought of it too.
It's 100% fair and it should have been that way from day 1. But since it isn't and people like me can view the horrific attribute distribution, it creates topics like this.
You are right about no2 though, because I've fallen into this trap years now. But could I stop when I see Important Matches-4?
 

15 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Don't start accusing researchers of bias.  That will make you very unpopular very quickly.

Please read my previous post replying to @lemeuresnew.
Besides, this is my rating about FM17 (taken from this topic):
 

On 10/6/2017 at 20:57, ilkork said:

Match Engine: 6/10
Tactics System: 7/10
Training System: 7/10
Financial System: 8/10
Interactions System: 5/10
Negotiations System: 6/10
Scouting System: 6/10
Staff Help: 3/10
Database: 9/10
Newgen System: 4/10
Bugs: 5/10
Help System: 2/10

EDIT: Just to clarify.
For "Staff Help", I mean how much your staff help you in-game and for "Help System" I mean how much is explained in-game for the various aspects.

Database 9/10.
I said it in an earlier post and I am going to say it again: The database is an amazing work, hats off to the researchers. But when it comes to youngsters with 0 attributes....
That's why 9/10 and not 10/10.

[lemeuresnew]

1 hour ago, ilkork said:

Come on mate. For what I've written, that's the only thing you have to say?
Allow me to have a better opinion in this area, since I am living in Greece and I know the players better than most people in this forum.

yeah, i answered what else you had written, and that is why i was keeping track of this post. but the more you go on, the less i think you understand. and to be honest when you start making statements like that i lose interest in listening to anything else you have to say. enjoy your save

[ilkork]

Now the whole topic is going to have replies in the context of "ilkork thinks the Greek researchers are lowering Olympiacos players because they support a rival club" and they will totally miss the point regarding attribute distribution...

[Mons]

@ilkorkIf you didn't want those kind of replies, perhaps you shouldn't have put forward that kind of statement. It detracts massively from the validity of any other point you are making.

 

To address your initial point, I think the system is definitely not perfect, and the distribution of particular attributes (bravery and jumping, for example) is mostly erratic and should be improved, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of having random attributes. For a start, speaking from a researcher's perspective, it is impossible to know all the attributes of all the players under your wing. I would expect the senior and most prominent players to have mostly realistic attributes, but it is quite hard to assess youths unless you are a regular attendee of their games. If you are, I've found that most researchers are happy to be given assistance, as it's just impossible to know everything about all the players.

 

Leaving attributes as 0 will ensure the game generates realistic attributes when a new game is started, based in part on their CA, in part on their position(s) and in part on the weighting assigned for each attribute for their main position. If you undertake a comparison exercise between 2 new games with unedited data, there will invariably be some differences in the attribute spread of even the same player, precisely because his attribute profile is random. Additionally, there a number of other factors. For each position, as you are well aware, there are a number of roles. Unless otherwise specified, the game also randomises the best role for the player, which impacts on the spread, distribution and generation of attributes. When selecting a role for a random player, some may not know that the game also takes into consideration national player characteristics. For example, the game recognises that real-life Brazilian football hardly ever produces typical touchline-dust-on-your-boots wingers while, on the other hand, British clubs will often have a technically-limited but lion-hearted centre-half rather than a silky ball-playing defender. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, since real-life is also not as rigid as this, but it is noticeable. As you can see, what you simply see as an exercise in assigning numbers to attributes is a much more nuanced and thought-through process, based on a whole host of factors.

 

For example the below is reasoning that I find quite limiting and frankly one I disagree with completely. You are of course free to edit the data in your game whichever way you want, but assuming that the below reflects real life in any way is quite detached from reality, I'm sorry to say. CA and PA are not, and in my opinion absolutely should not, be tied to individual attributes or even positions as you seem to be doing.

 

Quote

That's why I created the following for every youngster who has 0 in Consistency, Important Matches, Decisions, Ambition and Professionalism in the Greek leagues:


As for the Injury Proneness attribute, I am going to edit it for anyone who has 0, based on their position (for example, GK=very low, DC=low, DRL+DMC=medium, AMRLC=high, ST=high). Very Low=2, High=10.
Of course I am going to do further editing, because most youngsters have 0 in most attributes.

 

I'm afraid I also disagree with your apparent concept of having players' attributes being consistently high in the most important attributes for their positions. If a player has a CA of 55, it does not necessarily mean that he is an inferior copy of a better player (i.e. 10 instead of 15, 8 instead of 13 etc.). Life, and football, isn't that easy and straight-forward. For me, a CA of 55 means that he presently has some significant defects in his game. Maybe, he's a short DC whose positioning is poor, maybe he's a slow target man whose touch lets him down very often, maybe he's a very lazy and slow playmaker who prefers to dribble rather than look for the pass etc. etc. I've played irl with players like this who still forged a decent career by either changing position to minimize their defects or by improving their strengths to the extent that weaknesses could be glossed over or by being used in formations where both these aspects are addressed, and I absolutely think that players like this should be generated by the game, both from players in the starting database with random attributes and also in newgens. The variety and range of players irl is part of the beauty of the game, and proposing some kind of standardising in FM to somehow reflect real-life is detached from reality and somewhat indicative of a dearth of knowledge, I'm sorry to say again.

 

For example, I may be completely wrong, but for me the below is not a CA55 player, at all:

The above is also not taking into account his hidden attributes, his height and weight, and also his age, which reflects how a player should be assessed. Apart from below average anticipation, determination and speed (none of which are disastrous, mind you), that there is a decent limited defender and one who I would be delighted to get as a youth candidate at anywhere other than top clubs. I'm at work, so I can't check right now, but I'd bet that inputting those attributes into the pre-game editor would give you a player who the game would estimate at 70-80 CA, give and take. With a good PA, some good tutoring and judicious match practice, I think a youngster like that could easily develop into an established top-flight player in Greece, maybe even an international. To me, a player like that is very much the exception, and absolutely not an average run-of-the-mill youngster.

 

The starting point of this thread was your evaluation of the apparent non-randomness of attribute spread for players with no attributes input into the default database. In this case, your knowledge of Greek players is completely irrelevant to be honest. A player with the above attributes could be Greek, could be Italian, could be French or could be Maltese.

 

However, if you think that, based on your knowledge of the above player, that his profile in the database should look like that, I am obviously not in a position to argue. If you believe that you can help with Greek research in general or for a specific club, then by all means do contact your Greek head researcher to offer your assistance. Given the research guidelines, however, I do suspect, that any assessment you may make similar to the above, based on non-factual arguments, will be shot down quite quickly, and quite rightly too.

 

To conclude, I think the way the game randomises players right now is quite acceptable, if open to a bit more tweaking. You get the rare good player, some average ones and a lot of poor players or ones with glaring defects. I don't know an exact percentage, but the overwhelming majority of youth players at all but the top clubs end up being out of the game a few years after being given their first professional contract, and this is something that FM does quite well I think. Again, I'm not saying there isn't margin for improvement. Too often in the game, I see released youngsters demanding high wages and not being willing to compromise downwards once some time passes and they still remain unattached, to the extent that some end up retiring. I'm not saying this doesn't happen irl, I just think that irl at some point they'd adjust their asking wages downwards in order to find a club.

[phnompenhandy]

That's a great, highly-informed response by Mons.

 

I will confess that I go into the pre-editor and doctor the attributes myself, not because I think SI have done wrong, but because I like to create my own narrative.

I create my own fictitious lowest-league club and scour the database for 15-16 year-old kids to populate the squad with. My intention is to create a long-term project to develop the kids over their careers. Thus, without changing the CAs, I do fiddle with 0 attributes that are pertinent to development such as professionalism and injury-proneness. The game compensates for my increases in those attributes by ensuring other attributes such as physical and technical ones (and usually decisions) are far lower than their peers in the competing league. That seems fair to me and we invariably struggle in the first season until their attribute increases start to have an impact.

Because I tamper with the editor to create the fictitious game-world that suits me personally, I would never come on here and complain that SI have got it wrong. My attitude is that it is our game, we paid for it, we play it against the AI and we're free to play it how we like. SI very helpfully supply an editor to give us the flexibility to change it as we like. However, that is not acceptable is that we should come on here and complain that SI don't make the game that we individually want it to be. Just use the editor, do your own thing, and leave the rest of us and SI in peace.

[ilkork]

@Mons Thank you for taking the time to respond. Well, here we go:

9 hours ago, Mons said:

I think the system is definitely not perfect, and the distribution of particular attributes (bravery and jumping, for example) is mostly erratic and should be improved

At least we agree on that. But, may I add, is it only Bravery and Jumping? What about Consistency, Important Matches and Injury Proneness?

9 hours ago, Mons said:

but I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of having random attributes

Why? Why should we have random attributes? The Database is one at at he start.
What's better? Having zero's or something more standardised? Why should I get a different player every time I start a new save?

9 hours ago, Mons said:

For a start, speaking from a researcher's perspective, it is impossible to know all the attributes of all the players under your wing.

I said it in an earlier post, I understand that. That's why, you have create templates. It's the same as having zero's, only now it's a standard thing.

9 hours ago, Mons said:

Leaving attributes as 0 will ensure the game generates realistic attributes when a new game is started

Realistic? I suggest you go to my earlier posts and check how much realistic the profiles are. After that, compare them with some youngsters that have a standard attribute pre-game.

9 hours ago, Mons said:

As you can see, what you simply see as an exercise in assigning numbers to attributes is a much more nuanced and thought-through process, based on a whole host of factors.

Fine.
I never said for example, "Do the same thing for every defender with zeros", did I ever say that? I said "Create templates. Create 10 templates for every ball-playing defender, 10 for every limited defender based on factors like height, I don't know". Is that so hard to do? At least, if you do that, it ensures that DC's like Papadopoulos with 55CA and -6PA won't have Positioning-4.

And I never said that SI should replace the game's system for attribute distribution with the following:

This is just something I created after 5' of thought. Of course you shouldn't do it that way. It's unrealistic. I only did that because there are about 5,000 players with zeros I have to edit and I don't have the time to think of something better and more realistic.
Ok?

9 hours ago, Mons said:

I'm afraid I also disagree with your apparent concept of having players' attributes being consistently high in the most important attributes for their positions.

I get that. That's why you can create at least 10 templates for every role.

9 hours ago, Mons said:

For example, I may be completely wrong, but for me the below is not a CA55 player, at all:

Well, you are completely wrong:

I didn't even make it Recommended Current Ability-56. It's 55. Not 70-80 CA. 55!
And I encourage you to open your editor, copy the attributes and see for yourself.
(As for the height, in case someone says "Hey, different profile", know that no matter what height you assign pre-editor, the games gives a different one in-game, don't know why. And it doesn't even matter)

9 hours ago, Mons said:

However, if you think that, based on your knowledge of the above player, that his profile in the database should look like that, I am obviously not in a position to argue. If you believe that you can help with Greek research in general or for a specific club, then by all means do contact your Greek head researcher to offer your assistance. Given the research guidelines, however, I do suspect, that any assessment you may make similar to the above, based on non-factual arguments, will be shot down quite quickly, and quite rightly too.

No, I don't know how Papadopoulos performs IRL and I don't know how most zeros perform IRL.
But I am saying it again. I prefer standard templates for players with zero attributes pre-game.

9 hours ago, Mons said:

To conclude, I think the way the game randomises players right now is quite acceptable, if open to a bit more tweaking. Again, I'm not saying there isn't margin for improvement. Too often in the game, I see released youngsters demanding high wages and not being willing to compromise downwards once some time passes and they still remain unattached, to the extent that some end up retiring. I'm not saying this doesn't happen irl, I just think that irl at some point they'd adjust their asking wages downwards in order to find a club.

You said that this system could be improved. And I made a suggestion.
What's your suggestion? Regarding youngsters with zeros? Leave it as it is?

@michaeltmurrayuk you also said "that's not say the game is perfect". What do you suggest sir?

What do both of you have to say regarding newgens and their Important Matches attribute comparing them to the RL youngsters?
And the game's stupidity in assigning the Important Matches attribute to newgens happens with other attributes as well. Check this please.
-
-
-

7 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

I would never come on here and complain that SI have got it wrong.

Yes mate. Having zeros pregame isn't wrong...

[michaeltmurrayuk]

You seem to misunderstand how the game systems work (it's not just you similar things come up in most of these discussions where people confuse CA, PA and development) despite posts from experienced members in both this thread and your linked thread.

- Players are not identical clones, every player is different the template system is just a rough guide for the game and is not designed to produce a conveyor belt of perfect players because for the most part they don't exist IRL.

- Certain attributes are independent of Potential because they are not limited to players with potential - anyone can be injury like any one can be tall - your value in this attribute has no bearing on your potential, what it does affect is your ability to reach your Potential.

- We also don't have 100% random attributes the game allocates attributes depending on certain factors which can result in different players when creating a new save. Complaining about players being different in different games is silly because once you have pressed continue your save has diverged from everyone else's unless you want everyone's games to play out exactly the same?

- I haven't noticed anything off with important matches but then I haven't looked at, if you have evidence that they are down for every regen then open a thread in the bugs forum like you were asked to do - but again just because you have a high potential shouldn't mean you automatically have a high rating there or in any of the other areas you are complaining about as again the game isn't designed to produce perfect players because they don't exist (find me a dozen real life players who are perfect players?).

- Also comparing real players with game generated ones isn't a fair comparison - the attributes for the real players are only best guesses from the researchers because they are not god and don't have access to a players actual values so comparing them to regens isn't a one-to-one comparison, you also have the issue of most real players above 25 having there CA=PA which skewers comparison between regens and real players unless you grab the stats from a previous version when they were younger.

And as you were advised in the other thread you'd be better off playing the game using only the in-game tools not third-party tools which give you the hidden values - if you use only the in-game tools then you won't fixate on players having 190PA not being full of 20's because you'd only be able to go off what your staff says.

Finally I wouldn't pay much attention to the Wonderkid tag in recent versions as it is more linked to a players reputation and CA than PA so its no longer an indication of how good they could be (same with the Promising tag - which in earlier versions was given to any youngster with CA50 PA150 so you could tell straight away who the high potential regens were, but in more recent versions it now includes reputation so is more fuzzy).

[Mons]

@ilkork, I'm afraid we fundamentally disagree with how random attributes are and should be decided and assigned. You seem to believe that the higher a player's CA and/or PA, the higher attributes related to his natural position should be. If 0 is random, why should there be 10 templates for each position or role? Why not let the game generate attributes randomly based on position and CA? Surely this mimics real-life much more. You'll have balanced players, and less balanced players. Unless you show me that your system is closer to real-life than the one currently in place, then I'm afraid I will continue to disagree. What you are saying is that when the game comes upon a player with random attributes, it automatically assigns them to be (for the sake of the argument) a Baresi, a Maldini, a Beckenbauer, a Thiago Silva, a Terry, a Carragher, a Desailly, a Ferdinand, a Puyol or a Lucio. Surely you can see how limiting an approach that is.

I mentioned bravery and jumping specifically because those are the 2 attributes I personally find somewhat unbalanced. I don't like using editors to find out the level of hidden attributes, although of course it may well be there is a case to be made for the important matches attribute being as unbalanced as you indicate. Overhauling the whole system just because a handful of attributes are not spread as well as others is imo overkill. Besides, if the issue is as across the board as you seem to be implying, then all players will suffer from it and therefore it's not as critical as it would be if some players were unfairly advantaged.

I had a closer look at some of your edited players compared to the random ones. Mostly, it looks like you made them have the right (for you) attributes in the right places, rather than any kind of genuine attempt at randomisation. If that works for you, then more power to you - but for one thing, it'd get boring seeing only the 10 kind of template players in the game (albeit of varying quality), plus irl is not as easily packaged as that.

I concede that is exactly a CA55 player cos I went to the bother of inputting his data in the editor. Still looks a good DC to me, but that's just me being old-school and using my eyes and FM scouting ability, rather than relying on a 3rd-party program to take my decisions for me. As in real-life, I prefer an average player who does the job steadily, rather than a star player who doesn't necessarily deliver as often - but again, perhaps that's just old-fashioned me.

To round up, like I already said, I believe the system is perfectly fine as it is right now, as long as anomalies with individual attributes becoming relatively unbalanced are addressed appropriately. Having been on here as long as I have, it's always instructive and interesting to read threads such as this (when I have the time), which display how much most of us love this game. However, it's also prudent and wise to put forward arguments based on a factual knowledge of how the game operates and its conceptual basis on real-life, especially when people involved in the game like @michaeltmurrayuk are patiently and politely explaining to you some of your flaws in logic.

[ilkork]

2 hours ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

- Players are not identical clones, every player is different the template system is just a rough guide for the game and is not designed to produce a conveyor belt of perfect players because for the most part they don't exist IRL.

Agree.
But, even if, for example, you create "only 10 templates for a ball-playing defender" it doesn't mean that all ball-playing defenders will be the same. There's CA, PA, the hidden atts and other factors which will make a difference for sure.

2 hours ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

Complaining about players being different in different games is silly because once you have pressed continue your save has diverged from everyone else's unless you want everyone's games to play out exactly the same?

By the same logic, we should all have different Messi's and different C.Ronaldo's...
Why does Messi or Ronaldo (and every other player with standard attributes) matter more than any other player with zeros?

2 hours ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

- I haven't noticed anything off with important matches but then I haven't looked at, if you have evidence that they are down for every regen then open a thread in the bugs forum like you were asked to do - but again just because you have a high potential shouldn't mean you automatically have a high rating there or in any of the other areas you are complaining about

Sir, you are gonna love this.
I did a checking with the pre-game editor. What I did was to compare the "Important Matches" attributes from players who had at least=1 in three different potential categories: A) PA=0-99, B) PA=100-139, C) PA=140-200. Age=18y old at most
Here are the results:

Spoiler

Filter:
Age-Is At Most: 18
And Person Type-Is: Player
And Job-Is: Player
And Important Matches-Is at least: 1
And Potential Ability-Is Between: 1-99
Or Potential Ability-Is: -45
Or Potential Ability-Is: -4
Or Potential Ability-Is: -35
Or Potential Ability-Is: -3
Or Potential Ability-Is: -25
Or Potential Ability-Is: -2
Or Potential Ability-Is: -15
Or Potential Ability-Is: -1

Total: 688 People

Important Matches 1-3: 29 people (4.21%)
Important Matches 4-7: 226 people (32.84%)
Important Matches 8-11: 340 people (49.41%)
Important Matches 12-15: 89 people (12.93%)
Important Matches 16-20: 4 people (0.58%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filters:
Age-Is At Most: 18
And Person Type-Is: Player
And Job-Is: Player
And Important Matches-Is at least: 1
And Potential Ability-Is Between: 100-139
Or Potential Ability-Is: -65
Or Potential Ability-Is: -6
Or Potential Ability-Is: -55
Or Potential Ability-Is: -5

Total: 1003 People

Important Matches 1-3: 8 people (0.79%)
Important Matches 4-7: 156 people (15.55%)
Important Matches 8-11: 571 people (56.92%)
Important Matches 12-15: 260 people (25.92%)
Important Matches 16-20: 8 people (0.79%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filters:
Age-Is At Most: 18
And Person Type-Is: Player
And Job-Is: Player
And Important Matches-Is at least: 1
And Potential Ability-Is Between: 140-200
Or Potential Ability-Is: -10
Or Potential Ability-Is: -95
Or Potential Ability-Is: -9
Or Potential Ability-Is: -85
Or Potential Ability-Is: -8
Or Potential Ability-Is: -75
Or Potential Ability-Is: -7

Total: 485 People

Important Matches 1-3: 3 people (0.61%)
Important Matches 4-7: 40 people (8.24%)
Important Matches 8-11: 211 people (43.5%)
Important Matches 12-15: 228 people (47.01%)
Important Matches 16-20: 3 people (0.61%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it just me or do you also see that the higher the PA, the better the "Important Matches" attribute is?"
And what you say to me is that "high PA doesn't automatically give better Important Matches attributes or any other attributes", yet what researchers do is to give better values for the "Important Matches" the higher the PA....
And I am 100% that the same thing happens with Consistency.
What do you have to say about that sir?

Now, it would have been nice if there was a tool to compare the previous test with, what "Important Matches" do the zeros get in-game, but Genie Scout doesn't allow that kind of search...

2 hours ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

- Also comparing real players with game generated ones isn't a fair comparison

Why not?
To me, the existing database is an amazing work. I would really like to see newgens having more of the same attribute distribution.

2 hours ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

Finally I wouldn't pay much attention to the Wonderkid tag in recent versions

Thanks for the advice, but I always check the attributes for particular roles.
-
-
-

52 minutes ago, Mons said:

Why not let the game generate attributes randomly based on position and CA?

Because it's very clear to me that the current system isn't doing a good job in distributing attributes. It needs some changes.

54 minutes ago, Mons said:

although of course it may well be there is a case to be made for the important matches attribute being as unbalanced as you indicate. Overhauling the whole system just because a handful of attributes are not spread as well as others is imo overkill.

Well, it is actually. I encourage you check some previous lines in this post, my "Important Matches" attribute test.
It turns out that you (the researchers) do something similar to what I have in my head, but when it comes to the game assigning that attribute to zeros, it's very different.
As for overhauling the system, I would say it doesn't need an overhaul. What it needs is better variables when distributing attributes. Something along the lines of "give so much % when assigning Positioning to a Central Defender", "give so much % when assigning Acceleration to a Winger", based on X, Y, Z etc.

1 hour ago, Mons said:

Mostly, it looks like you made them have the right (for you) attributes in the right places, rather than any kind of genuine attempt at randomisation.

Yes. And I am not saying "the game should do the same with zeros", but something similar.
For me, lowering other attributes, (for example, Acceleration, Agility, Pace for a Central Defender) is not so bad because I will still have to improve them once I start the game.
I get the "standard" attributes and then I have to improve the rest.

1 hour ago, Mons said:

To round up, like I already said, I believe the system is perfectly fine as it is right now, as long as anomalies with individual attributes becoming relatively unbalanced are addressed appropriately. Having been on here as long as I have, it's always instructive and interesting to read threads such as this (when I have the time), which display how much most of us love this game. However, it's also prudent and wise to put forward arguments based on a factual knowledge of how the game operates and its conceptual basis on real-life, especially when people involved in the game like @michaeltmurrayuk are patiently and politely explaining to you some of your flaws in logic.

If it's fine, it's fine. I can't seem to be able to convince you otherwise.
Although I would appreciate one more reply after my "Important Matches" attribute test with the pre-game editor.

Well, I guess that's it. That system isn't going to change...
It was nice talking to you and I'm sorry for being so time-wasting and "peculiar" in my manners.

[Mons]

8 hours ago, ilkork said:

Sir, you are gonna love this.
I did a checking with the pre-game editor. What I did was to compare the "Important Matches" attributes from players who had at least=1 in three different potential categories: A) PA=0-99, B) PA=100-139, C) PA=140-200. Age=18y old at most
Here are the results:

  Hide contents

Filter:
Age-Is At Most: 18
And Person Type-Is: Player
And Job-Is: Player
And Important Matches-Is at least: 1
And Potential Ability-Is Between: 1-99
Or Potential Ability-Is: -45
Or Potential Ability-Is: -4
Or Potential Ability-Is: -35
Or Potential Ability-Is: -3
Or Potential Ability-Is: -25
Or Potential Ability-Is: -2
Or Potential Ability-Is: -15
Or Potential Ability-Is: -1

Total: 688 People

Important Matches 1-3: 29 people (4.21%)
Important Matches 4-7: 226 people (32.84%)
Important Matches 8-11: 340 people (49.41%)
Important Matches 12-15: 89 people (12.93%)
Important Matches 16-20: 4 people (0.58%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filters:
Age-Is At Most: 18
And Person Type-Is: Player
And Job-Is: Player
And Important Matches-Is at least: 1
And Potential Ability-Is Between: 100-139
Or Potential Ability-Is: -65
Or Potential Ability-Is: -6
Or Potential Ability-Is: -55
Or Potential Ability-Is: -5

Total: 1003 People

Important Matches 1-3: 8 people (0.79%)
Important Matches 4-7: 156 people (15.55%)
Important Matches 8-11: 571 people (56.92%)
Important Matches 12-15: 260 people (25.92%)
Important Matches 16-20: 8 people (0.79%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filters:
Age-Is At Most: 18
And Person Type-Is: Player
And Job-Is: Player
And Important Matches-Is at least: 1
And Potential Ability-Is Between: 140-200
Or Potential Ability-Is: -10
Or Potential Ability-Is: -95
Or Potential Ability-Is: -9
Or Potential Ability-Is: -85
Or Potential Ability-Is: -8
Or Potential Ability-Is: -75
Or Potential Ability-Is: -7

Total: 485 People

Important Matches 1-3: 3 people (0.61%)
Important Matches 4-7: 40 people (8.24%)
Important Matches 8-11: 211 people (43.5%)
Important Matches 12-15: 228 people (47.01%)
Important Matches 16-20: 3 people (0.61%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it just me or do you also see that the higher the PA, the better the "Important Matches" attribute is?"
And what you say to me is that "high PA doesn't automatically give better Important Matches attributes or any other attributes", yet what researchers do is to give better values for the "Important Matches" the higher the PA....
And I am 100% that the same thing happens with Consistency.
What do you have to say about that sir?

Now, it would have been nice if there was a tool to compare the previous test with, what "Important Matches" do the zeros get in-game, but Genie Scout doesn't allow that kind of search...

I don't know why you are surprised that better players have, in general, better attributes. I'm sure undertaking the same exercise for a different attribute will give broadly the same result. I also don't understand why you want to change the whole mechanism for generating random attributes just because a handful of these attributes may possibly be assigned slightly lower numbers than justified.

 

8 hours ago, ilkork said:

Because it's very clear to me that the current system isn't doing a good job in distributing attributes. It needs some changes.

Nobody is saying it doesn't need changes. The process is continually changing behind the scenes. If you're really bored, perhaps you could do an exercise for an older FM version and see how many worse issues there were with attribute distribution.

Saying "the current system isn't doing a good job in distributing attributes" is completely untrue. I'm not aware there are issues with the absolute majority of the 53 (I think!) player attributes and the way they develop holistically both in terms of newgens and also starting players. Tweaking those attributes with which there are some teething issues is, I'm sure, on SI's agenda so that they are more realistically distributed, but having a completely new and more rigid system would be unnecessarily restrictive imo.

 

8 hours ago, ilkork said:

Well, it is actually. I encourage you check some previous lines in this post, my "Important Matches" attribute test.
It turns out that you (the researchers) do something similar to what I have in my head, but when it comes to the game assigning that attribute to zeros, it's very different.
As for overhauling the system, I would say it doesn't need an overhaul. What it needs is better variables when distributing attributes. Something along the lines of "give so much % when assigning Positioning to a Central Defender", "give so much % when assigning Acceleration to a Winger", based on X, Y, Z etc.

(My italics) As already said many times, this is in place already! Not only that, random attributes are also generated based on CA, age and a whole host of other factors. This means that players can have either high, average or low ratings for different important attributes in his position, and I think this is perfectly in line with real-life. Not all defenders have high positioning and not all wingers are quick off the mark, after all, no?

 

8 hours ago, ilkork said:

Yes. And I am not saying "the game should do the same with zeros", but something similar.
For me, lowering other attributes, (for example, Acceleration, Agility, Pace for a Central Defender) is not so bad because I will still have to improve them once I start the game.
I get the "standard" attributes and then I have to improve the rest.

But that's not the way it works in real-life, is it? Different players have different strengths and weaknesses. Real-life football coaching does not consist in only using players who fit a rigid perception of what the perfect player for that position should be, as you seem to imply, or at least it shouldn't be. For example, one of the most successful central defenders I played with irl was quite short (168cm or so) and not the quickest, but he was a dogged man-marker with great anticipation and positioning. He did have a tendency to go to ground, but his timing when doing so was impeccable. Having such a mish-mash of strengths and weaknesses may not necessarily be possible using a template system like you are proposing, but it's certainly possible using FM's current random attribute generation system.

 

8 hours ago, ilkork said:

If it's fine, it's fine. I can't seem to be able to convince you otherwise.
Although I would appreciate one more reply after my "Important Matches" attribute test with the pre-game editor.

Well, I guess that's it. That system isn't going to change...
It was nice talking to you and I'm sorry for being so time-wasting and "peculiar" in my manners.

You persistently refer to the other thread about the important matches attribute issue, but you would do well to read santy001's post here: 

If it were a waste of time, I don't think you'd have gotten so many replies on such a niche matter  And I don't think there's anything peculiar at all with your manners - you made your points politely and discussed them civilly even with people who completely disagreed with you. If that's peculiar, then I hope more people are peculiar

 

[ilkork]

9 hours ago, Mons said:

I don't know why you are surprised that better players have, in general, better attributes.

Yes. That's why I did that:

Spoiler

And I'm saying again that this is just after 5' of thinking. I am sure it's flawed and I am sure it can be improved upon and used for every player that has 0 pre-game.
Because you (the researchers) do something similar when assigning the Consistency and Important Matches attributes to players.

9 hours ago, Mons said:

I also don't understand why you want to change the whole mechanism for generating random attributes just because a handful of these attributes may possibly be assigned slightly lower numbers than justified.

Because, when it comes to newgens things get worse. Especially when it comes to Consistency, Important Matches and Injury Proneness.
And I am not sure @santy001's reply about offsetting attributes have me convinced. After all, if a newgen with 200PA has bad Consistency, Important Matches, Ambition and Professionalism, how much are his other visible mental atts going to offset the bad hidden ones? You know what I mean? Bad players.

And since I am in the newgens territory, please have a look at what I've thought regarding the Injury Proneness attribute:

Spoiler

(With the percentages I mean that, for example, 20% of all newgen GK's will have Injury Proneness between 1 and 3)

And my reasoning behind this:
-GK's tend to stay injury free because they are not involved in many phases of play.
-For DC's it's a little bit worse, but the majority of CD's are strong.
-For DRL's it's a little bit worse than DC's, since they play the whole side and generally, run a lot.
-For DMC's it's the same as DR'Ls because they do a lot of running every match.
-For AMRLC's it's a bit worse than the rest, because they are the ones who receive most tackles.
-For ST's it's the same as AMRLC's.

That's my suggestion for when the game assigns the Injury Proneness attribute to newgens. Isn't it logical?
And I am not saying it's the best solution, but something that can be also used and improved upon.

9 hours ago, Mons said:

Not all defenders have high positioning and not all wingers are quick off the mark, after all, no?

Yes.
But, I just think that the game doesn't create a lot of balanced players who have 0 attributes pre-game. It's doing it for 1/10 players only and I would like to see it for more players, let's say 5/10 times.
And what do I mean by balanced? For example, for a central defender 185cm, to have the standard (Heading-Marking-Tackling, Aggression-Bravery-Positioning, Balance-Jumping Reach-Strength) at a normal rate. If he's shorter, lower the Jumping Reach, Balance and Strength, and improve his Acceleration, Agillity and Pace.

9 hours ago, Mons said:

For example, one of the most successful central defenders I played with irl was quite short (168cm or so) and not the quickest, but he was a dogged man-marker with great anticipation and positioning. He did have a tendency to go to ground, but his timing when doing so was impeccable.

This happens 1 out of 10 times. Like for example Samuel Kuffour who played for Bayern Munchen (99/00) and was a 177cm Central Defender.
That's what you don't seem to understand. That I am talking about the majority, being the same. Because the majority is the same, average players. Yes, they have small differences, but that's what makes great players stand out of that majority.


I hope things get better for FM18.

[Mons]

13 hours ago, ilkork said:

Yes. That's why I did that:

  Reveal hidden contents

And I'm saying again that this is just after 5' of thinking. I am sure it's flawed and I am sure it can be improved upon and used for every player that has 0 pre-game.
Because you (the researchers) do something similar when assigning the Consistency and Important Matches attributes to players.

You've put forward a hard-and-fast rule (which even you admit is flawed and which you have not yet improved upon) where having a 0 in the starting database means the player's respective attributes has a small range of possible values, depending on a player's CA. On the other hand, the game assigns a value for 0 attributes based on many factors, which allows for a wider variety and which can generate good players with poor values in specific attributes, and also bad players with good values in the same attributes. Surely, this is more in line with real-life where these kind of players exist in abundance, as another poster said up there.

 

13 hours ago, ilkork said:

Because, when it comes to newgens things get worse. Especially when it comes to Consistency, Important Matches and Injury Proneness.
And I am not sure @santy001's reply about offsetting attributes have me convinced. After all, if a newgen with 200PA has bad Consistency, Important Matches, Ambition and Professionalism, how much are his other visible mental atts going to offset the bad hidden ones? You know what I mean? Bad players.

And since I am in the newgens territory, please have a look at what I've thought regarding the Injury Proneness attribute:

(With the percentages I mean that, for example, 20% of all newgen GK's will have Injury Proneness between 1 and 3)

And my reasoning behind this:
-GK's tend to stay injury free because they are not involved in many phases of play.
-For DC's it's a little bit worse, but the majority of CD's are strong.
-For DRL's it's a little bit worse than DC's, since they play the whole side and generally, run a lot.
-For DMC's it's the same as DR'Ls because they do a lot of running every match.
-For AMRLC's it's a bit worse than the rest, because they are the ones who receive most tackles.
-For ST's it's the same as AMRLC's.

That's my suggestion for when the game assigns the Injury Proneness attribute to newgens. Isn't it logical?
And I am not saying it's the best solution, but something that can be also used and improved upon.

That is absolutely and completely illogical, I'm afraid. Injury proneness is not a by-product of your position on the field of play. Are you saying that a player is more likely to be injured if they're a forward than if they're a defender? Absolute nonsense. You also seem to believe that you get more injured the more running you do, which is again frankly nonsense. Injuries can be muscular, impact injuries, infections etc. What about players who have multiple positions, for example a D/WB/M/AM R? Are you saying they're more likely to be injured in training when they're playing as a winger than when they're playing as a full-back? I could pick plenty more holes in your argument, but I'll stop here. Even irl, some people are more injury-prone than others, whether that is through bad luck, clumsiness or a number of other aspects. 

 

13 hours ago, ilkork said:

Yes.
But, I just think that the game doesn't create a lot of balanced players who have 0 attributes pre-game. It's doing it for 1/10 players only and I would like to see it for more players, let's say 5/10 times.
And what do I mean by balanced? For example, for a central defender 185cm, to have the standard (Heading-Marking-Tackling, Aggression-Bravery-Positioning, Balance-Jumping Reach-Strength) at a normal rate. If he's shorter, lower the Jumping Reach, Balance and Strength, and improve his Acceleration, Agillity and Pace.

Why should the game create a lot of balanced players? You're only thinking about the elite or top-level players. Most of them (and even then, not all) are generally balanced players, but the absolute majority of players in the game and irl are not balanced, which is probably why they are not top level players. I think the amount of balanced players in the game is about right. Keep also in mind that if a player in the db has all his attributes set as 0, he's probably not going to be a top player, since researchers are generally aware of the most prominent players and their approximate strengths and weaknesses.

 

13 hours ago, ilkork said:

This happens 1 out of 10 times. Like for example Samuel Kuffour who played for Bayern Munchen (99/00) and was a 177cm Central Defender.
That's what you don't seem to understand. That I am talking about the majority, being the same. Because the majority is the same, average players. Yes, they have small differences, but that's what makes great players stand out of that majority.

I think you're being too rigid in your conceptualising of players, both in-game and irl. Think of the range of players being a triangle with a large base, with the very best players at the top being very few, and the triangle widening the further you go down the ability level. For example, in most countries, lower leagues are divided regionally. This means there'll be thousands of similarly poor ability players at the lower levels, with the amount of players in the top divisions being much smaller. Translate this to FM in term of CA. There's a wide range of different type of players, 10 templates are nowhere near enough and the concept of templates imo is fundamentally flawed when you have 53 attributes to assign, all with varying degrees of importance to different positions. Actually, I'll have a look at the editor when I get home to see how many 190-200, 180-190, 170-180 etc. players there are in each range and see whether the pyramid is somewhat like what I'm envisaging.

Besides, you're on one hand arguing that FM players' 0 attributes have too illogical and wide a range being generated thus resulting in a bigger variety in the kind of players created, while at the same time saying that "the majority is the same, average players". It's either one or the other, can't be both at the same time.

All of what you're saying may be true to some extent or other at the top level, but the game doesn't, and imo mustn't, only reflect the top levels. Players must be generated by the game for some of them to be good enough to play for Barcelona, Real Madrid etc, but they must also be generated for some of them to be only good enough for a Slovakian third-tier youth team, for Peruvian mid-table top-tier teams or for Chinese moneybags teams etc. They should, and again imo must, have an adequately wide variety of positions, PPMs, strengths and weaknesses (both in visible and hidden attributes) to reflect this, because real-life is like that. The fact that to find an example of something which "happens 1 out of 10 times", you could only use the example of a player from 17 seasons ago, is testament to the incorrectness of your very claim.

To close, don't get me wrong, you make some very valid arguments (particularly the often awry distribution of some hidden attributes), but I simply cannot agree with your idea that the generation of players' attributes should be absolutely and inextricably linked to their positions. There's nothing wrong with having an otherwise top-notch DC generated with a low marking attribute or a lower-level ST generated with a high finishing attribute, and so on and so forth. These players exist irl and absolutely should exist in the game, and it's the way attributes combine and interlink which should matter. Paraphrasing what @michaeltmurrayuk said earlier, perhaps you should move away from assessing players on the basis of their hidden attributes and CA and instead use the large amount of information which the game already gives you to do so, without resorting to third-party tools to further muddy the waters.

[ilkork]

@Mons I admit I am probably wrong in most suggestions I've made, because I certainly don't know all the factors the game uses in assigning a value to players with 0 pre-game.
We have different opinions on many things, we agree in some, but hey, who am I to stand against the researchers?

The one thing though that I am very strong about, is when the game assigns attributes to newgens.
Is there a section in this forum where I can ask the guys who are responsible for the newgen system to run a few tests, because some attributes tend to be distributed in a weird fashion?
Just to run some tests to check if everything is fine. And if there's a section for that, do I also have to say what I feel is wrong?

I realised that, editing about 10,000-15,000 players who have 0 pre-game in some attributes is gonna take me a long time and I just want to play the game.
In fact, I am seriously thinking of letting go of the Genie Scout, don't know what happened to me.

[herne79]

20 minutes ago, ilkork said:

The one thing though that I am very strong about, is when the game assigns attributes to newgens.
Is there a section in this forum where I can ask the guys who are responsible for the newgen system to run a few tests, because some attributes tend to be distributed in a weird fashion?
Just to run some tests to check if everything is fine. And if there's a section for that, do I also have to say what I feel is wrong?

Rest assured, the guys responsible for the newgen system have already run lots of testing and continue to do so.

However, nothing is infallible so if you believe you have found something wrong through your own observations and testing, the Bugs Forum will be the place to raise it.  And yes you will please need to say what you feel is wrong and upload all of your supporting results.

Alternatively:

On ‎09‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 14:39, herne79 said:

You could always open a thread in the suggestions forum if you believe your method would be an improvement.

 

On ‎09‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 14:54, ilkork said:

I might do that. But first, I have to wait for more replies from forum members

 

[ilkork]

@herne79 Thank you.

[Cap'nRad]

Maybe its not the attribute distribution that's the real problem, but rather the inability of these attributes to change significantly. Especially consistency and important matches, but also including aggression, bravery, jumping reach, flair etc. If these were more malleable maybe we wouldn't be so hung up over their initial starting attributes.

[ilkork]

8 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

Maybe its not the attribute distribution that's the real problem, but rather the inability of these attributes to change significantly. Especially consistency and important matches, but also including aggression, bravery, jumping reach, flair etc. If these were more malleable maybe we wouldn't be so hung up over their initial starting attributes.

I agree. Especially Consistency and Important Matches.
@lemeuresnew said in an earlier post that tutoring should also affect Aggression. I also agree with that. Bravery too.
As for the Jumping Reach and Flair, I think the way they are now is about right. I mean, you either have it or not (regarding flair) and how much can you improve your Jumping Reach IRL? That's why Jumping Reach is one of the hardest at improving.

Regarding attribute distribution, it sure can be improved.

[Guest]

Consistency & Important Matches can change quite significantly based on a players actual match experiences & performance.

[ilkork]

26 minutes ago, Barside said:

Consistency & Important Matches can change quite significantly based on a players actual match experiences & performance.

Check this. 2 players saw an increase by one point and 2 players saw a decrease by one point. Out of about 250 players.
I wouldn't call that "quite significantly", unless something changed in FM17 as that experiment was on FM16.

EDIT: If the link doesn't redirect you to the exact comment, hit Ctrl+F and type "Another comparison".
 

[HUNT3R]

28 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Check this. 2 players saw an increase by one point and 2 players saw a decrease by one point. Out of about 250 players.

You aren't arguing the same thing though. You've shown in that experiment that it didn't increase, but that doesn't mean that it can't. How the AI managers use youngsters could be the cause.

[Mons]

29 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Check this. 2 players saw an increase by one point and 2 players saw a decrease by one point. Out of about 250 players.
I wouldn't call that "quite significantly", unless something changed in FM17 as that experiment was on FM16.

EDIT: If the link doesn't redirect you to the exact comment, hit Ctrl+F and type "Another comparison".
 

I would argue that 2 years are nowhere near enough to see a substantial increase for those particular attributes. If it's the same in 10 years' time, then there may well be an issue. I don't expect an 18 year-old to be much more consistent than when he was 16 tbh.