Jump to content

what does impact players performances ? (official answer appreciated)


Recommended Posts

Hello,

When I’m picking my XI for the next game, I’m not sure what information I should take into account. So I wanted to know what you think and hopefully we could also have an official answer as some of those questions remain mysteries (while it shouldn’t).

So, imagine two identical players with only one of the thing below different (by a lot), what impact do you think that this difference would have on his performance on the pitch (in the next game) ?

From “0” (has no impact) to “10” (has a huge impact), what would you consider:

1) Attributes (let’s begin with the obvious one):

2) Morale:

3) Consistency:

4) Form (last 5 games):

5) Last Match Rating:

6)  Training Rating:

7) First Half Rating (on second half):

8) Training Familiarity:

9) Place in the Team’s Hierarchy:

10) Condition:

11) Sharpness:

12) Match Load:

13) Fatigue:

14) Reaction to the latest chat:

I understand that SI doesn’t want to communicate on the calculations made in the match engine but I think we should be able to have a rough idea on what are the impacts of those aspects of the game, no ?

Thanks…

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say morale is one of the biggest factors (as it is in real life), but I'm glad SI don't make this information available in binary numerical form, as it would be even easier to game the system than it is already. As a manager there should always be elements of doubt in any team selection, SI mirrors this the best they can within the confines of what is essentially a giant spreadsheet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral, think so too.

If you have a player who's unhappy all of a sudden (because he wants to move on or whatever), you can see immediately his drop of Performance. Also during the game. Finding the right player chat gives you an immediate change of his game.

It also seems, that with the right answers in a pre match Press conference have a huge impact (as well as team talks).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

By assigning things a scale it would still likely give too much away. However, it simply isn't possible to actually put them on a scale.

Most of these things have a varying impact. Condition may well vary in a couple of ways. The difference between 100% and 90% may be far less than say 85% and 75%. Furthermore, depending upon the role in the team and support structures offered a DM on 90% condition could be of no consequence in one tactic and of substantial consequence in another. 

Team talks and press conferences can have a negligible impact, positively or negatively. However, if you hype your team up too much with too many positive answers or go too far in demanding more from your players you might end up causing considerable damages to your chances. 

You ultimately have to find your own path and better understand your own team. If you have a player who primarily needs to be a physical runner, the consistency matters much less and can be further offset with other mental attributes. If a player needs to be unlocking tight defences against sides sitting back then consistency is probably going to skew heavily on their role. 

You're also missing an awful lot of other things you ought to consider, your opposition, the tactic they're likely to play, their available players. If the opposition have a 20 acceleration, 20 pace winger but on that side your full back and central defender are pretty slow - odds are that's by far the biggest potential impact on your team in the next game. A 35+ year old CB may be great in a lot of games, but if I'm setting him up to face against someone lightning fast he's probably going to have a bad time no matter what else I do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When starting this discussion, I didn't want SI to give me the exact numbers on how each of these things impact the players performances. A rough idea would be great... even a confirmation if some have an impact or not could be sufficient. I understand that giving too much information is "not good" but not at all is not better.

We should, at minimum, be able to know what we have to consider when picking our XI for the next game or who to sub during a game.

For now, we can't say, for sure, if "Form (last 5 games)", "Last Match Rating", "Training Rating", "First Half Rating (on second half)", "Training Familiarity", "Place in the Team’s Hierarchy" & "Match Load" have an impact on performances !

Don't we "deserve" to know this ? How could we guess ?

Also, I was interested to know how other users pick their XI...

Thanks...

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, dieguitoch said:

We should, at minimum, be able to know what we have to consider when picking our XI for the next game or who to sub during a game.

For now, we can't say, for sure, if "Form (last 5 games)", "Last Match Rating", "Training Rating", "First Half Rating (on second half)", "Training Familiarity", "Place in the Team’s Hierarchy" & "Match Load" have an impact on performances !

Don't we "deserve" to know this ? How could we guess ?

How does it work IRL? Why does Sterling play great one game and then like a donkey's ass the next game? I'm sure Pep would love for that to be quantified.. 

 

The truth is, just like in real life, everything matters and you can't really quantify it. Form and last match ratings have an effect on morale, which has an effect on training rating, which has an effect on familiarity, which has an effect on... It's not just set-in-stone 1-10 in importance, in some situations condition will matter more than morale. Playing all team leaders may help you gain the support of the squad quicker, which again can have all sorts of effects. 

Personally I place far the biggest importance on attributes and how they fit into my tactics system. I will play a young, fast AMR winger over a slow, but otherwise much better AP AMC that happens to also be able to play AMR. Others will always go for the perceived best player. It should never be 100% clear what the right choice is. 

It's important for a game like FM that there aren't straightforward right or wrong choices, and that trying to play in an optimized/META way doesn't become prevalent or indeed a prerequisite for success like it can be in other games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I waited a few days before answering because I was sure this topic will be full of opinions from those who win countless competitions and trophies. Certainly these people have a very clear answer regarding these issues. However, it seems they are very busy with winning these trophies and have not yet found time to provide the long-awaited answers.


On the other hand, any game (FM included) is all the more spectacular and appreciated as it offers more unexpected aspects. That's why some multiplayer games have so many followers : you can never fully know what your opponents know (or don't know) to do. Not even the best players can be sure that one day they will not meet other much better players. So ... what would the initiator of this topic do if he'll enter on a MP server? Would he ask each player for a list of their skills and abilities, possibly rated on a scale from 1 to 10?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dieguitoch said:

Don't we "deserve" to know this ? How could we guess ?

No, not by any measure. 

Nothing works in isolation, and arbitrary stats like ratings don't show much because you'd be ignoring the single biggest factor by looking at any of these - the opposition. 

You can't quantify how performing well in training does in any way because in the game your team might create an overload somewhere else that leaves one player completely in the open time after time giving more,  higher quality chances. Equally you might be playing a system in which the overload doesn't work and this player is marked out of the game and plays horrifically as a result.

You're never going to get SI to provide even loose parameters because the aim of FM isn't like Dark Souls or Assassin's Creed or WoW where the game is supposed to lose in a rewarding, and yet convincing manner. Games like FM, like Crusader Kings, they aren't designed to be beaten because there is no end game or winning condition besides what you envisage for yourself. For games that fall into this category they only hurt the game by providing too much information to work with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I have no insight into the inner workings of the ME, I imagine that multiple of those factors affect your players' performance and before each game you "roll a dice" for each of those aspects (that matter) how much of an affect it will have. However, there are some factors that usually matter more or less.

Out of those you listed, I'd say Sharpness, Match load, and Fatigue (along with Condition) don't have an immediate effect on the performance, but rather how likely the player is to pick up an injury. Condition and fatigue will also definitely have an impact on performance late in the game or in extra time when tired players may not be able to catch up with opposition's impact sub (allowing the opposition to create a chance), rush forward to support a counter attack, or (I assume) in a penalty shootout - while there is a rather small chance a player will miss a penalty in training when fresh, after 120+ minutes of gameplay it should be much more likely. 

Morale/confidence are a huge factor in how your team performs. If you're on a great run, your players will become over-confident (as the ass-man pre-match warning says) and they will perform badly - selfishly, rashly, without any desire to work hard. That's where your press conferences and pre-match talks can have a huge impact. Asking the players asserively for a performance and reminding them not to be complacent after a match can, however, works only so far, and you need to balance it or they will be annoyed that they keep winning and you never praise them. For example, last season, I ended up 2nd in the EPL with 99 points - I had a great run, lost only 1 game, but occasionally it was impossible for me to motivate my players to win in Brighton or Watford (or wherever) because they were too confident. Somehow, the AI (that won the league ahead of me) was able to motivate their players to a better work ethic. I imagine it must be possible for you to be able to motivate your side better than I did (as the AI can do it), but you have to get every press conference/team build-up right. At that point, morale/motivation mattered more than ability.

Another thing that you should watch for, there will be patches when your players perform badly for no obvious reason (or you will see indications they are about to) - three matches in a row with 6.3-6.5 rating or something like that is not unexpected. Usually they will improve eventually (instead of letting them play badly you better drop them for a while if you have a decent backup for their role), or will be about to. Look for a trend: e.g. your key player (after performing badly for a few games) has a rating of 6.4 till the 60th minute, but ends up with 6.7 without scoring/assisting? He is about to perform much better in the next game(s). However, if you then drop him, he might lose the momentum to get back in form. This works also the other way around. If your team does well and your winger is getting goals/assists, but only low 7s for ratings, he is on a downward trend (his passing/tackling/positioning/... is not good enough and the rating is high only due to lucky goals/assist, or even the others performing very well). He is about to do badly in the next (few) match(es). Unfortunately, I'm not aware that there is an obvious/unambiguous indicator for imminent bad form, you either have to watch all your players really carefully (weighing all their morale, performances, and trends in performances) or be surprised in the following match (where you sub such a player).

For consistency, there was a thread where it was explained by one of the devs (can't find the thread now): consistency has a scale of 1-20, a player with consistency 1 will play scarcely to his full ability (utilizing his attributes) while player with consistency 20 will play to his full ability much more often. However, it doesn't mean that he will play always to his full ability. The explanation went that the actual scale is probably 1-25 (25 meaning plays always to his full ability), but a player can only have a 20 at best. The reduction in his (it think mostly technical, not mental) ability varies game from game - I assume you (again) roll a dice whether his attributes are impacted by 5 % or 20 % (I don't know whether these values are accurate or possible, it's just an example).

Also, your and your opposition's tactic is fundamental to your success - at the end of the season, go to Schedules and view Opposition Formation, then you can sort it and see how your tactic did against the oppositions' tactics. That is, if you used (mostly) the same tactic over the whole season. Also, obviously, look at the teams you lost to - losing to the best teams in the world will likely not indicate that your tactic is bad, but losing/drawing to similar/weaker teams that use the same tactic might indicate that you need to approach these teams (their tactic) differently. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In short: a FM player will get, if he plays long enough, to "feel" what he has to do at a certain moment. He doesn't need lists and it doesn't take very long to get many of those reflexes. However, there is a problem: a person can usually manipulate up to 5 variables at the same time. No matter how many lists he makes, he still won't be able to focus on more. Is there a solution? Yes, selective focus on certain groups of variables , an ability that can only be achieved by playing. A good player will intentionally ignore certain variables because the acquired reflexes will "tell" him that for the moment those variables are not essential. All these reflexes will also tell him when to focus again on those variables that he ignored. The game is made in such a way as to allow a less experienced player to achieve reasonable successes even if he does not yet have some necessary reflexes (there are messages that draw this player's attention to some of the possible future issues). The essential condition: that player must not quickly set goals that are difficult to achieve. Or, if he wants such goals, he doesn't have to stress if he can't achieve them. There is no game in which an inexperienced player becomes an expert after only a few hours of play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Think @santy001 has summarised it well in his two posts. Realistically we're not in a position to say what aspect means more than another any much more than you would in real life. Would a manager pick a 'worse' player to start a game than a 'better' one just because they've had a better training session? Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. Sometimes it would pay off, sometimes it wouldn't. 

In football management it's about using the tools at your disposal to make the best choice based on your own beliefs. That's the difference between you and any other manager. 

But me personally? I'd definitely look to exploit my opponent's weaknesses. And generally I'll give a player with high attributes a longer run in the team playing badly than a weaker one - and sub them off if they're getting close to 60% condition or are having a low rating game after the 60th minute. But that's just me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re morale I don’t like how the levels presented are too complex. I think it should be simplified as a maximum of, say, 5 levels - even if there is a scale behind that. The morale system is overly complex in how it’s presented. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Le 03/08/2021 à 18:34, Neil Brock a dit :

Think @santy001 has summarised it well in his two posts. Realistically we're not in a position to say what aspect means more than another any much more than you would in real life. Would a manager pick a 'worse' player to start a game than a 'better' one just because they've had a better training session? Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. Sometimes it would pay off, sometimes it wouldn't. 

In football management it's about using the tools at your disposal to make the best choice based on your own beliefs. That's the difference between you and any other manager. 

But me personally? I'd definitely look to exploit my opponent's weaknesses. And generally I'll give a player with high attributes a longer run in the team playing badly than a weaker one - and sub them off if they're getting close to 60% condition or are having a low rating game after the 60th minute. But that's just me. 

Thanks for your answer. I understand that you won't say what aspect means more but I was only hoping to have a confirmation from SI if certain have a "direct" impact on performances or not... if we should consider them when we're picking our XI for the next match. From your answer, I can imagine that "form in last matchs" is a thing to consider as well as the "form of the day" (how well a player performed from the beginning of the match).

Concerning training, I understand that it's not a very important factor but it seems that many managers think that "you play the weekend as you trained during the week". The problem with training ratings in FM is that it's more an indicator of how a player progress (which is already shown by the arrows) than how hard he does it, how implicated he is. Younger player have a tendency to have better ratings than the oldest although, IRL, they're probably less "professional" and willing to work hard.

Thanks for this great game anyway...:applause:

N.B.: I also consider my opponents team and tactics !...

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/08/2021 at 20:59, dieguitoch said:

The problem with training ratings in FM is that it's more an indicator of how a player progress

I believe this is only part of the rating based on what SI have said. An example of this is an old player on the decline that is getting high training ratings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am 2.8.2021 um 10:57 schrieb dieguitoch:

1. Don't we "deserve" to know this ? How could we guess ?

2. Also, I was interested to know how other users pick their XI...

 

1. No we don't. This game is imo the most realistic football management you can get. As in real life, you don't know, why Player x is not playing well today. You need to study the personalities of the players. What is he good at, how does it fit the others around him. Plus Training, Ftness, Fatigue, Mood, Motivation. You need to use all the available tools provided, from individual training to messages in the media and Social media. You could discuss for hours and still wouldn't get all possibilities, And don't "guess", try instead.

2. Other managers play different football than you would like. So you need to pick your own team. Don't use tactics from the workshop. Only your own tactic you really understand. Again, use all the tools the game provides and pick your own team. And remember which changes have which effect. 
Last but not least: Never save and reload or you will never find out, where the bugs are hidden.

Another thing to conider is yourself, if you are a new unexperienced manager. It takes time for you to convince the players. The need to trust you, they need to believe in you. So everything you impement takes time.

I knw that is not the answer you expect, but look at the game like a Rollplaying game and not like an Excel sheet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...