Football Manager 2024 Official Feedback Thread

[makavali]

Regarding overturned pens, here's one I just got : https://imgur.com/a/GTt8Mxg

It's interesting that I see them quite often while nobody else does 

[stopazricky]

Il 28/1/2024 in 19:20 , stopazricky ha scritto:

Is the 4-4-2 bug still in the game, where the midfield will push up in an extremely unrealistic way, making the formation line up as a literal 4-0-6? It was prominent in the early days of FM24 and before starting a save where I plan to make massive use of 4-4-2 I'd love to know whether this bug is still present or not

can someone clarify this? Thanks

[Domoboy23]

How are people finding the balance of ''wonderkids''?

7/8 years in and I seem to be seeing a lot (too many for my liking), however I am managing at a higher level than I did for FM23.

[Dotsworthy]

13 minutes ago, Domoboy23 said:

How are people finding the balance of ''wonderkids''?

7/8 years in and I seem to be seeing a lot (too many for my liking), however I am managing at a higher level than I did for FM23.

In what way? High CA/PA?

From my own experience and doing some long term simming the balance seems fine, with a few quirks if you are willing to dig deeper. As you venture further into the game there is some inflation in high PA players but not all of those players will max out.

[alian62]

15 hours ago, XaW said:

There is nothing technically stopping SI from adding identical stadiums to real life, however some lawyers would probably jump that like wolves and demand horribly big amounts of money for it. Because this is how licensing works, unfortunately. (There is a reason why some teams have the wrong names in the game, and it's not because SI don't know the real name)

Things like this always astounds me . The bigger picture and rewards would be seeing your brand out there in the gaming world . As long as your name brand isn't abused I would think it would be a smart way to go . But alas , as you said,  it's all about lawyers and money . Man United for example..  I would say yes thats fine.  Here are our logos and kits graphics you can use and our player stats and more . The brand then is out there in the FM world being used and respected . By saying no you can't use our brand just makes them seem like self entitled ##### . 

[XaW]

7 hours ago, alian62 said:

Things like this always astounds me . The bigger picture and rewards would be seeing your brand out there in the gaming world . As long as your name brand isn't abused I would think it would be a smart way to go . But alas , as you said,  it's all about lawyers and money . Man United for example..  I would say yes thats fine.  Here are our logos and kits graphics you can use and our player stats and more . The brand then is out there in the FM world being used and respected . By saying no you can't use our brand just makes them seem like self entitled ##### . 

I agree, I would think exposing the brand would be a net positive, but lawyers gotta lawyer I suppose.

[forameuss]

9 hours ago, alian62 said:

Things like this always astounds me . The bigger picture and rewards would be seeing your brand out there in the gaming world . As long as your name brand isn't abused I would think it would be a smart way to go . But alas , as you said,  it's all about lawyers and money . Man United for example..  I would say yes thats fine.  Here are our logos and kits graphics you can use and our player stats and more . The brand then is out there in the FM world being used and respected . By saying no you can't use our brand just makes them seem like self entitled ##### . 

Why give something away for free when you can charge for it, ultimately.  The ordering of the fixtures for the Premier League requires a license to use, which is about the bleakest example of "modern football" you can get.

[andu1]

11 hours ago, stopazricky said:

can someone clarify this? Thanks

4-4-2 is still leaking goals. At least he AI teams that play it.

[kiwityke1983]

10 hours ago, alian62 said:

Things like this always astounds me . The bigger picture and rewards would be seeing your brand out there in the gaming world . As long as your name brand isn't abused I would think it would be a smart way to go . But alas , as you said,  it's all about lawyers and money . Man United for example..  I would say yes thats fine.  Here are our logos and kits graphics you can use and our player stats and more . The brand then is out there in the FM world being used and respected . By saying no you can't use our brand just makes them seem like self entitled ##### . 

Blame capitalism, companies have a responsibility to try and make as much money as possible so if there's a potential revenue stream then they are going to try and tap it.

Even if that means they end up making less money than they would have if they did absolutely nothing but kept the status quo.

For a fine example of this look at streaming. Everyone was making money when you had just Netflix, Hulu and Amazon.

The studios from licensing IP out for obscene amounts of money and the streaming sites by being relatively cheap and accessable plus having lots of content new and legacy.

But then some execs got the brainwave they were only making 20 cents for every dollar Netflix were so demanded they got their own streaming service...which are expensive to setup and even more so to maintain.

Fast forward a few years and everyone is losing billions on streaming sites nobody wants just to watch Friends or that one original series every so often and former customers are now increasingly wearing eye patches and sailing the seas again!

It's exactly the same with football club licensing imo, someone at the clubs got it into their heads someone else was making money and they wanted a slice of that.

[KamyKaze]

How things like this don't get fixed for at least 3 years is beyond me...

 

 

[whatsupdoc]

How are you all finding "play out from the back" in 24.2?

[Wong77]

I have been thoroughly disappointed with this game and its team. We are still playing four months after paying for a game where player attributes are displayed in the wrong order in the personal training screen. The same problems abound, such as rain being invisible in the 3d match screen on rainy days. Honestly, I don't believe these issues are that hard to fix since they didn't even exist before last December's update and now more than two months later, they still exist. You guys can say you're short on manpower or time, but that's your problem not mine. The bottom line is that I paid for this game, which means that you guys are obligated to provide a bug-free game to consumers as soon as it is officially released. I know that this is very much a very ideal state of affairs and hard to actually achieve, but I don't see any sincerity on your part to fix the problem - no statement of apology, no urgent fixes, just a lot of stalling.

[Oliver Roland]

Schedule

Man, this hurts...first season, no reason to postpone the game between Farul Constanta games in august and now i play league game on thursday right after tuesday tough game at Bayern. No reason to reports this, how long we see this in FM? Common...

[El Payaso]

Has anyone found a workaround for the scouting issues? I have delegated all the scouting assignments for my chief scout and they have found 'nada' so far. Quite odd when you scout for example La Liga and after more than a month there are 'zero' players found. 

I think these kind of massive issues at this point of the year are unforgivable for the developers. 

[KlaaZ]

Assuming this is a bug and if so, where do I log it?

[XaW]

22 minutes ago, KlaaZ said:

Assuming this is a bug and if so, where do I log it?

https://community.sigames.com/bugtracker/football-manager-2024-early-access-bugs-tracker/all-other-issues/

[KlaaZ]

25 minutes ago, XaW said:

https://community.sigames.com/bugtracker/football-manager-2024-early-access-bugs-tracker/all-other-issues/

Done, thanks!

[TheVerySpecialOne]

Have you guys seen this? Apparently, players with 9 'Meta' attributes all at 20/20 and almost every other attribute at 1/20 (This gives each player approximately 80-90 CA, which is about Vanarama National League level) perform great, while on the other hand players with 9 'Meta' attributes all at 10/20, with every other attribute at 20/20 (This gives each player approximately 180-190 CA, which should be enough to walk the Premier League) perform very poorly and is being relegated

[Mobius]

14 minutes ago, TheVerySpecialOne said:

Have you guys seen this? Apparently, players with 9 'Meta' attributes all at 20/20 and almost every other attribute at 1/20 (This gives each player approximately 80-90 CA, which is about Vanarama National League level) perform great, while on the other hand players with 9 'Meta' attributes all at 10/20, with every other attribute at 20/20 (This gives each player approximately 180-190 CA, which should be enough to walk the Premier League) perform very poorly and is being relegated

This needs its own thread. Bloody hell. 

[Rodrigogc]

It seems to me that attributes have become obsolete in FM. Not that they don't matter, but they have become just one of the variables that influence the quality of the player. FM has become too complex, they kept adding new features and now morale, interactions, dynamics, training, happiness, fitness, all of these influence too much on players performance. Morale may be the most influentional, if a player is happy he will perform (which is realistic actually), but attributes have been lost in all of these. 

Somebody mentioned making variable attributes, where 17 pace in croatian league wouldn't mean 17 pace in Premier league, and I think it sounds like a good approach. Or even hide attributes and put them in a pack where they will be shown within some range that you will have to figure out as you train the player. 

[whatsupdoc]

2 hours ago, TheVerySpecialOne said:

Have you guys seen this? Apparently, players with 9 'Meta' attributes all at 20/20 and almost every other attribute at 1/20 (This gives each player approximately 80-90 CA, which is about Vanarama National League level) perform great, while on the other hand players with 9 'Meta' attributes all at 10/20, with every other attribute at 20/20 (This gives each player approximately 180-190 CA, which should be enough to walk the Premier League) perform very poorly and is being relegated

Wow.

[Daveincid]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb whatsupdoc:

Wow.

Indeed 

[forameuss]

1 hour ago, Mobius said:

This needs its own thread. Bloody hell. 

Sorry, but this is absolutely rubbish, and the sort of stuff that really needs to get toned down.  That "experiment" - and that's being generous - isn't worth the bytes it took to store and display it, as there is absolutely no way to lock down enough variables to make a test like that actually mean anything.  To come out and do that, and then proclaim something as ridiculous as "only 9 attributes matter" is a far bigger problem with the game than the ones that SI themselves are responsible for.

Oh, and of course, I'm sure whoever devised that will be writing to SI immediately to clue them in on their methodology and effect change, won't they?

Edited February 9 by forameuss

[xOGxTerror]

5 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Sorry, but this is absolutely rubbish, and the sort of stuff that really needs to get toned down.  That "experiment" - and that's being generous - isn't worth the bytes it took to store and display it, as there is absolutely no way to lock down enough variables to make a test like that actually mean anything.  To come out and do that, and then proclaim something as ridiculous as "only 9 attributes matter" is a far bigger problem with the game than the ones that SI themselves are responsible for.

Oh, and of course, I'm sure whoever devised that will be writing to SI immediately to clue them in on their methodology and effect change, won't they?

There is a bug post on the forum already for it by me... so yes looks like SI has been made aware. So hopefully SI do enact some change! 

 

[forameuss]

8 minutes ago, xOGxTerror said:

There is a bug post on the forum already for it by me... so yes looks like SI has been made aware. So hopefully SI do enact some change! 

 

It's more a comment generally on these experiments.  If there's something wrong in the game, SI will want to know about it, and if someone has put in a lot of work into testing something in great detail, they will definitely want to know about it.  But the usual path of these things is largely a refusal to share that, probably because they'll be quickly told that the methodology is flawed.  Like this one is.

EDIT: And just for clarity, the experiment itself might be saying something, but it's not something that can be immediately clear with how it was performed.  What it definitely can't say is the sort of (probably deliberately) inflammatory conclusion that was drawn there.  It's like doing an experiment into water quality by drinking some, getting sick weeks later, and then loudly proclaiming that it means the water is obviously contaminated.  Sure, it could be, but the chances are that some other variable was responsible. Similarly in that hypothetical situation, the water company would love to be made aware of that so they can check themselves and confirm there's no issue, but shouting the headline loud is easier, and stirs people up more I guess.

Edited February 9 by forameuss

[NineCloudNine]

I’m still not quite clear from the Reddit thread whether the OP’s test used the sim engine or the match engine.

[whatsupdoc]

21 hours ago, forameuss said:

Sorry, but this is absolutely rubbish, and the sort of stuff that really needs to get toned down.  That "experiment" - and that's being generous - isn't worth the bytes it took to store and display it, as there is absolutely no way to lock down enough variables to make a test like that actually mean anything.  To come out and do that, and then proclaim something as ridiculous as "only 9 attributes matter" is a far bigger problem with the game than the ones that SI themselves are responsible for.

Oh, and of course, I'm sure whoever devised that will be writing to SI immediately to clue them in on their methodology and effect change, won't they?

 

It's a bad experiment but it's not totally uninteresting. 

Bad mainly because having 20 for an attribute like acceleration may make having 1 for an attribute like finishing less relevant.

Whereas having 20 for finishing may not make having 10 for acceleration less relevant. 

Also... Nobody has 20 for acceleration, pace, strength etc. It's not worth the effort to create an engine which will model that accurately. 

Conceptually though it's an interesting experiment which would probably benefit from setting the attributes closer together and at more "normal" levels. 

Edited February 10 by whatsupdoc

[forameuss]

2 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said:

I’m still not quite clear from the Reddit thread whether the OP’s test used the sim engine or the match engine.

Think further down it seems it was the match engine given it was a loaded league (could be wrong on that).  But still, you're talking hundreds of variables and a healthy degree of randomness thrown into each individual game, and only a handful of those are maybe constant.  You can't draw anything from that.

[xOGxTerror]

28 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Sorry, but this is absolutely rubbish, and the sort of stuff that really needs to get toned down.  That "experiment" - and that's being generous - isn't worth the bytes it took to store and display it, as there is absolutely no way to lock down enough variables to make a test like that actually mean anything.  To come out and do that, and then proclaim something as ridiculous as "only 9 attributes matter" is a far bigger problem with the game than the ones that SI themselves are responsible for.

Oh, and of course, I'm sure whoever devised that will be writing to SI immediately to clue them in on their methodology and effect change, won't they?

You do understand that no amount of "variables" should make a team that has 1's in 80% of their attributes... (ones you think that would be important for football like passing and composure and first touch) be able to finish 2nd in the EPL while having the CA ratings for a Vanarama National League team yeah?

You don't think that alone is worth SI to take a look..?

"But the usual path of these things is largely a refusal to share that, probably because they'll be quickly told that the methodology is flawed.  Like this one is.."

In which part of that post did they refuse to share any information...?? Do you care to elaborate on exactly how this is flawed...?

Edited February 9 by xOGxTerror

[xOGxTerror]

9 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Think further down it seems it was the match engine given it was a loaded league (could be wrong on that).  But still, you're talking hundreds of variables and a healthy degree of randomness thrown into each individual game, and only a handful of those are maybe constant.  You can't draw anything from that.

Do you understand how testing even works? You cannot control EVERY variable. So you control the ones you can change (attributes) and test that against a control group. If you run a test 1000's of times like they do on Arena-FM, you can limit how much the variables change things as you have an average of how things turn out over a large number of tests... And I would bet if you run this same test 100 times, most results will be very similar... Honestly even without testing a lot of people who have played FM for many years could have told you which attributes you need to focus on and which ones you can ignore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Give this a read perhaps...

Edited February 9 by xOGxTerror

[forameuss]

2 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

It's a bad experiment but it's not totally uninteresting. 

Bad mainly because having 20 for an attribute like acceleration may make having 1 for an attribute like finishing less relevant.

Whereas having 20 for finishing may not make having 1 for acceleration less relevant. 

What would be more interesting is an experiment with attributes st more normal ranges. 

As a general experiment more as a "let's see what this means", I could see it potentially has value.  I still think the lack of being able to make anything else constant pollutes any message you could draw, but it's something.  But it's not really an attempt at that, it's a flawed methodology that tries to fit an already held opinion, with a wild conclusion.  If that develops more, and if they take it 

Just now, xOGxTerror said:

You do understand that no amount of "variables" should make a team that has 1's in 80% of their attributes... (ones you think that would be important for football like passing and composure and first touch) be able to finish 2nd in the EPL while having the CA ratings for a Vanarama National League team yeah?

You don't think that alone is worth SI to take a look..?

Well that would depend what variables they are, what they represent and what weighting they have in game.  And that's something we have zero window into. That's the point.

And I've already said it's worth SI taking a look, but if you're responsible for presenting an experiment, that should mean you're willing to go to SI and share your findings.  Do they think that's worth it?

3 minutes ago, xOGxTerror said:

But the usual path of these things is largely a refusal to share that, probably because they'll be quickly told that the methodology is flawed.  Like this one is..

In which part of that post did they refuse to share any information...?? Do you care to elaborate on exactly how this is flawed...?

Like I said, I was speaking generally, and that's how a lot of these go.  One that was brought up here the person outright refused to share anything.

And I've already said the reasons why I believe it's flawed.  You simply can't perform the most basic means of making an experiment valid on a system you have no control over, and it's clearly started out not from a position of finding something out, but confirming a bias.  If it actually presents the data to SI from a more open standpoint to see if there's anything wrong, fair enough.  I doubt that'll happen though.

2 minutes ago, xOGxTerror said:

Do you understand how testing even works? You cannot control EVERY variable. So you control the ones you can change (attributes) and test that against a control group. If you run a test 1000's of times like they do on Arena-FM, you can limit how much the variables change things as you have an average of how things turn out over a large number of tests... And I would bet if you run this same test 100 times, most results will be very similar... Honestly even without testing a lot of people who have played FM for many years could have told you which attributes you need to focus on and which ones you can ignore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling Give this a read perhaps...

You have zero control over most variables that feed into the match engine.  And even then, there's going to be a hefty dose of RNG into each game.  Go save right before a match begins and play it with nothing else changed, and see how many times you get a completely different result.  There's something valid you could draw on that given you've locked down as much as you possibly could, but in the test outlined, the attributes have been savaged into unrealistic states, and then the game went on holiday.  No other effort made to account for any other differences, just hysterical shrieking about how it proves it's broken.

[Jonthedon26]

4 hours ago, Litmanen 10 said:

Has anyone found a workaround for the scouting issues? I have delegated all the scouting assignments for my chief scout and they have found 'nada' so far. Quite odd when you scout for example La Liga and after more than a month there are 'zero' players found. 

I think these kind of massive issues at this point of the year are unforgivable for the developers. 

The scouting issue is outrageously bad this year!

[DP]

We’ve all suspected something isn’t right with attributes for years now. Just isolate the penalty taking attribute and it’s an easier experiment. Some will say ‘oh but there’s lots of other attributes at play’ and whilst true it’s still a bit of an excuse. ‘Penalty taking’ should tell you everything you need to know and I don’t think the difference is big enough for someone with 1 and someone with 20. 

Edited February 9 by DP

[NineCloudNine]

A test using different team setups emphasising physical, mental or technical attributes would be interesting. Within that, specific attributes. I do think it likely that physicals are overpowered and that SI don’t know what to do about it other than give those attributes very high CA multipliers to extract a cost for being fast & strong.

But I’m not sure testing 20s vs 1s is useful because it creates an extreme far outside the normal boundaries of the game. Any computer simulation will break when pushed to such extremes.

Edited February 9 by NineCloudNine

[xOGxTerror]

4 minutes ago, forameuss said:

As a general experiment more as a "let's see what this means", I could see it potentially has value.  I still think the lack of being able to make anything else constant pollutes any message you could draw, but it's something.  But it's not really an attempt at that, it's a flawed methodology that tries to fit an already held opinion, with a wild conclusion.  If that develops more, and if they take it 

Well that would depend what variables they are, what they represent and what weighting they have in game.  And that's something we have zero window into. That's the point.

And I've already said it's worth SI taking a look, but if you're responsible for presenting an experiment, that should mean you're willing to go to SI and share your findings.  Do they think that's worth it?

Like I said, I was speaking generally, and that's how a lot of these go.  One that was brought up here the person outright refused to share anything.

And I've already said the reasons why I believe it's flawed.  You simply can't perform the most basic means of making an experiment valid on a system you have no control over, and it's clearly started out not from a position of finding something out, but confirming a bias.  If it actually presents the data to SI from a more open standpoint to see if there's anything wrong, fair enough.  I doubt that'll happen though.

You have zero control over most variables that feed into the match engine.  And even then, there's going to be a hefty dose of RNG into each game.  Go save right before a match begins and play it with nothing else changed, and see how many times you get a completely different result.  There's something valid you could draw on that given you've locked down as much as you possibly could, but in the test outlined, the attributes have been savaged into unrealistic states, and then the game went on holiday.  No other effort made to account for any other differences, just hysterical shrieking about how it proves it's broken.

I am sorry but if you think a team can finish 2nd in the EPL without ANY players on their team with a passing/composure/first touch rating higher than 1... I don't know what to tell you. There is an issue here. People are trying to show SI. Stop trying to throw out all testing on this game by saying there's too many variables to ever know. 

[forameuss]

12 minutes ago, xOGxTerror said:

I am sorry but if you think a team can finish 2nd in the EPL without ANY players on their team with a passing/composure/first touch rating higher than 1... I don't know what to tell you. There is an issue here. People are trying to show SI. Stop trying to throw out all testing on this game by saying there's too many variables to ever know. 

Way to completely miss most of the point I was trying to make.  

Like I said, if the people responsible for that test post all their findings to SI and have a conversation about it, then there's no issue.  I expect I know what SI's answer will be, but that's the whole process of bug finding.  But given how the whole thing was presented ("Exposing" is pretty telling word choice) I have my doubts that will happen.  

[xOGxTerror]

2 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Way to completely miss most of the point I was trying to make.  

Like I said, if the people responsible for that test post all their findings to SI and have a conversation about it, then there's no issue.  I expect I know what SI's answer will be, but that's the whole process of bug finding.  But given how the whole thing was presented ("Exposing" is pretty telling word choice) I have my doubts that will happen.  

So you're going to throw out all the relevant information in the post because you don't like a word they put in the headline? Dear me.... 

Anyways I made a bug report without the sensationalization of the headline so lets see what happens..

[Wolf_pd]

1 minute ago, xOGxTerror said:

So you're going to throw out all the relevant information in the post because you don't like a word they put in the headline? Dear me.... 

Anyways I made a bug report without the sensationalization of the headline so lets see what happens..

Would be nice if there is a save game included in your bug report. Yes, I know you logged and are probably not the person who made the Reddit post.

And if you want to discuss testing software, let me know.
I don’t work for SI, but testing software is my day job.

[Rodrigogc]

19 minutos atrás, NineCloudNine disse:

A test using different team setups emphasising physical, mental or technical attributes would be interesting. Within that, specific attributes. I do think it likely that physicals are overpowered and that SI don’t know what to do about it other than give those attributes very high CA multipliers to extract a cost for being fast & strong.

But I’m not sure testing 20s vs 1s is useful because it creates an extreme far outside the normal boundaries of the game. Any computer simulation will break when pushed to such extremes.

Yes, the testing is a bit of a scam, but the interesting thing is that the conclusion is true. Physical attributes have a lot of CA attached to it, but the distance between them and the other attributes is to big. Teamwork receives something like 0.3CA and Acceleration 3.0. I play Fulham and Adama traore simply can sweep out the pitch without any effort even though he is playing against Premier league elite defenders, and it seems in the calculation that 3 players who've got 16 teamwork, 16 tackling, 16 anticipation, 16 positioning, 16 agression/bravery, will not be able to stop a 10 first touch, 7 decision, 19 acceleration player. 

You see, Dembele has got physical attributes but mentals of a child like someone said, but he overpower many defenders because what makes him unstoppable is that physicals matter to much and mentals too little on the ball, while for defenders, even though they have great mentals, they can't close space and stop dembele.

The imbalance that makes Dembele's poor mentals not matter much, also is what makes defenders great mentals not enough to stop him.

[NineCloudNine]

3 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

You see, Dembele has got physical attributes but mentals of a child like someone said, but he overpower many defenders because what makes him unstoppable is that physicals matter to much and mentals too little on the ball, while for defenders, even though they have great mentals, they can't close space and stop dembele.

The imbalance that makes Dembele's poor mentals not matter much, also is what makes defenders great mentals not enough to stop him.

That was me! I agree with your analysis. I suspect that SI know it too, but haven’t been able to solve the problem. As described by another poster in that Reddit thread, the interaction between attributes and 999 other factors is so complex that “dial down the impact of physical attributes” is a billion times easier to write than to do, which is why SI reach for the lever of extreme CA multipliers.

[wazzaflow10]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

Sorry, but this is absolutely rubbish, and the sort of stuff that really needs to get toned down.  That "experiment" - and that's being generous - isn't worth the bytes it took to store and display it, as there is absolutely no way to lock down enough variables to make a test like that actually mean anything.  To come out and do that, and then proclaim something as ridiculous as "only 9 attributes matter" is a far bigger problem with the game than the ones that SI themselves are responsible for.

Oh, and of course, I'm sure whoever devised that will be writing to SI immediately to clue them in on their methodology and effect change, won't they?

I think the interesting thing is the "meta attributes" are based on using supposed tactical exploits of the engine. Ironically these attribute are critical to making a tactic like this work. I obviously don't know what tactic this "experiment" used but lets say it was spiritually similar to the one below. It would be kind of like throwing gasoline on a fire to then take the attributes that are critical to making this tactic work and pushing them to the extreme. Then the ironic part is to take all those critical attributes away and play the same system. If you had a team full of slow, plodding but technically gifted players and asked them to play an extreme uptempo style... would you still expect to win??

Really all we can say is that the engine is exploitable (like all video games) under certain conditions and you can push those conditions to extremes to make some incredible claims. I feel like in a different context if one of the supposed overpressing tactic's were used it'd be some evidence to say the engine will actually punish you if your tactic isn't suited to your players. It is, of course, contradictory to the previous statement but calling this an experiment is pretty generous. 

It can still be true that certain attributes have more weight in the engine but this reads more like an extreme exploit that would never occur naturally in the game than proof of anything.

 

[Mitja]

Actually I'm not surprised 

[santy001]

Some logically make sense because they're compensatory attributes, acceleration - if you can get off the mark quicker you can compensate for flaws in judgements elsewhere. Anticipation and acceleration is a tremendous pairing of attributes because its reading situations and getting a quick start. Pace providing a higher top speed means players can start later and still catch up or overtake. 

The biggest issue for me though is this only really stands out if you forget or don't know that the difference between 1 and 20 isn't that big for any given attribute. They're used to judge professional footballers, so a score of 1 is the lowest you'd expect a professional footballer to have but still a deployment of that particular skill on a football pitch at a much higher level than the average person. While the "test" completely ignores a handful of attributes I personally put a greater importance on has anyone created a filter for this and seen how many players have 20/20 in these attributes?

When you get the attributes down to 14 in each of these categories, a lone Erling Haaland appears. 

The game can never be expected to focus on balancing around people creating absolutely insane inputs that do not, and have never existed, in terms of team selection and player availability. It really isn't a big deal because if you vary the tactical set-up you will get different attributes that become more important. Ultimately for me the test just highlights that if you do something impossible with team selection, you get an impossible outcome. There are a handful of attributes in an actual playing of the game I would put a much higher emphasis on which players actually have. 

[RDF Tactics]

Wow I haven’t read this thread for a couple days, come back and a new thing is broke 

look, attributes have been a topic for a while. Clearly, people have felt a way about them or just feel a left out when it comes to information. We get told attributes absolutely matter. I know that. But can’t also turn a blind eye of players like Adama Traore being insane in the game because he’s fast and got dribbling.

testing methods may be flawed but the conclusion is a theory that’s been about for at least 3 years now. Fast, tall and dribbly players.

I’m a streamer and used to be involved in many community drafts and every draft was the same.

”pick meta players. Big, fast meaty men”…to a point where Tammy Abraham was a lot better than Harry Kane. You wouldn’t touch Kane over many strikers as long as they have pace, height and a little dribbling.

so maybe there is something to physical attribute having a major influence. But other attributes of course do matter

Edited February 9 by RDF Tactics

[RDF Tactics]

2 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

I think the interesting thing is the "meta attributes" are based on using supposed tactical exploits of the engine. Ironically these attribute are critical to making a tactic like this work. I obviously don't know what tactic this "experiment" used but lets say it was spiritually similar to the one below. It would be kind of like throwing gasoline on a fire to then take the attributes that are critical to making this tactic work and pushing them to the extreme. Then the ironic part is to take all those critical attributes away and play the same system. If you had a team full of slow, plodding but technically gifted players and asked them to play an extreme uptempo style... would you still expect to win??

Really all we can say is that the engine is exploitable (like all video games) under certain conditions and you can push those conditions to extremes to make some incredible claims. I feel like in a different context if one of the supposed overpressing tactic's were used it'd be some evidence to say the engine will actually punish you if your tactic isn't suited to your players. It is, of course, contradictory to the previous statement but calling this an experiment is pretty generous. 

It can still be true that certain attributes have more weight in the engine but this reads more like an extreme exploit that would never occur naturally in the game than proof of anything.

 

Both sides can have a point. Test may be flawed but there could be a point in their conclusion. Same way, other attributes that exist still play its part so not only 9 attributes matter. 
 

if you had a slow technical team then you can still get respectable results using aggressive tactic. That, I’m sure of.

its possible youre still better off playing aggressive than not.

thats just my opinion from experience 

Edited February 9 by RDF Tactics

[fc.cadoni]

I thought that was an experiment (the same one) few years ago (and each year) and some people react (the same reaction each year) that was discovered the holy grail.

If you are shorter than 1.80cm, not fast and less dribble and you are gonna face someone with 1.90cm, fast and dribble; let me know.

Joke aside, ME is heavily reward high physical, mentals and last technical. Isn't something new in FM. 

[RDF Tactics]

4 minutes ago, fc.cadoni said:

I thought that was an experiment (the same one) few years ago (and each year) and some people react (the same reaction each year) that was discovered the holy grail.

If you are shorter than 1.80cm, not fast and less dribble and you are gonna face someone with 1.90cm, fast and dribble; let me know.

Joke aside, ME is heavily reward high physical, mentals and last technical. Isn't something new in FM. 

Every year there’s one of these tests lol 

on your question though, there are many 1.80cm not fast defenders that are smart enough to deal with fast dribbling players.  Being fast and strong shouldn’t automatically mean you get the better. If you’re fast and strong but brain dead then being fast and strong almost not much 

[Bahnzo]

5 hours ago, xOGxTerror said:

I am sorry but if you think a team can finish 2nd in the EPL without ANY players on their team with a passing/composure/first touch rating higher than 1... I don't know what to tell you. There is an issue here. People are trying to show SI. Stop trying to throw out all testing on this game by saying there's too many variables to ever know. 

This pretty much sums it up for me too. I read the thread on Reddit before coming here, and the idea that a team of players with no passing or first touch etc can perform well is pretty telling. Everyone can debate about testing methods and whatnot, but I think it's pretty clear there's a problem here, and one which has been here for a long time. I last played in FM22 and this was debated back then I remember. And probably before as well. 

[El Payaso]

Football Manager's match engine has basically always been a lot about running with the ball and crossing so it doesn't really surprise me that these kind of things happen.

In real life players like Adama Traore etc are really ineffective even though they might make it to the highlight reels on YouTube. On FM this type of running machine without any real eye for the game have always been machines in the hands human players. 

[Rodrigogc]

30 minutos atrás, Litmanen 10 disse:

Football Manager's match engine has basically always been a lot about running with the ball and crossing so it doesn't really surprise me that these kind of things happen.

In real life players like Adama Traore etc are really ineffective even though they might make it to the highlight reels on YouTube. On FM this type of running machine without any real eye for the game have always been machines in the hands human players. 

I play Fulham and watch a lot of full matches. He makes lot of mistakes, it's not like his low attributes are useless. Running with the ball toward the sidelines, bad decisions, bad shooting, etc...

But...

At the end of the game he always scores with a header after a crossing or a final touch inside the box, or assist from crossing after running half the pitch. That's the problem, because in real life he is not effective. The ME can pretty much replicate his mistakes, which I often see, but in the end he's always there scoring or assisting from crossing... so basically his decision making doesn't make difference because he has physicals to "try too much". That coupled with the fact that this ME generates too many goals occasions, and you have a robot overperforming.

An effective player with no physicals can have 2 chances and score or assist in one of them. Adama, due to physicals (meaning he participates all the time), will have 20 chances and score 2 and assist 1.