How does morale affect the game?

[ChaosReiter]

 

I watched some videos, and interestingly, the conclusions drawn from videos with more rigorous experiments are that morale neither affects the team's performance nor the player's growth. This conclusion surprised me because it contradicts my common sense in real life and also contradicts the information SI tells me on the game's loading screen. With this question in mind, I've been paying more attention to morale in the game over the past half month, and now I gradually agree that the role of morale is indeed limited (based only on subjective feelings from a small sample). However, I did have found a positive effect of morale: it has a decisive role in improving Team Cohesion. I want to know how everyone views this issue. What do you think morale affects?

[Etebaer]

That morale has no effect on results is in my experience not the case!

With a low morale you have a hard time winning games, you will concede ridiculous goals and your strikers will miss the best chances and the team really does not play well together.

Ofc morale is only one variable and it may in certain circumstances not have enough influence to overcome other succes producing variables whatever they may be thus making it look like morale does not matter.

 

If the test was made by AI vs AI teams simulating results it would call it entirely worthless and i would need to watch such a video to get a grip how and what was tested.

Based on my own experience to this time and my not existing knowledge about these tests i do not see their endresult materialize in my saves.

 

Thats my thought about that until i would get convincing counterfacts.

Edited February 13 by Etebaer

[Daveincid]

Moral affects so many area's of the game.

- Results (Good luck trying to win a title when the whole dressing room is against you)

- Training ratings and as a result, player development (A unhappy player often gets lower training ratings which results in slower development or even regression.) 

My advice is that before calling something an "issue" based on some (personal opinion: hillarious tests without even watched them), make your own experiences and take those "tests" with a pinch (or a whole bag) of salt.

Usually, the own gut feeling is a better indicator anyway.

 

Those are my 2 cents

 

[Domoboy23]

If anything I think the morale perhaps effects results too much, so suggestions that morale doesn't effect anything to me blows my mind 

When you hover over morale it tells you a variety of info, such as happiness with playing time etc.

I remember when morale used to be very heavily linked in with a players form, however, (and I don't agree with this and think it needs re-working) you can have a player in poor form or a striker on a goalless streak... and still be ''very happy or delighted'' under morale as long as they are in a team that is doing ok/winning.

Edited February 13 by Domoboy23

[JimmysTheBestCop]

Morale seems to be overrated and have minimal effect on the bottom line. Especially for the amount of time it takes up

https://fm-arena.com/table/20-condition-morale-testing/

In over 10k matches, each morale tested in 2880 matches the difference from best to worst morale was 5 points a season. 

So until anyone else comes here and shows results over 10k matches I'm gonna have to go with FM arena morale findings. 

Does it effect things? Yes. Is it a major impact? No.

Anyone who says it's a major impact bring out the tests, data, and evidence. 

 

Edit

Personal experience I haven't paid attention to morale or team dynamics and ive skipped ever player interaction in both fm23 and fm24. 

Fm23 played build a nation in Hungary to 2060

Fm24 in Andorra in 2040. 

It has never stopped me from dominating ucl. 

Edited February 13 by JimmysTheBestCop

[Etebaer]

Well, i had for example a morale break down after i lost a cup match and then lost the following 4 matches as well until i managed to recover, that alone makes the FM Arena test already uconvincing and to many variables about the test are unknown too.

The Season was already around 2/3 played i think and i had 1 or 2 lossses b4 that happened - i have already more points lost in that 4 matches than the mentioned simulation over a season.

And honestly i dont trust simulations do getting the best out of a team - thus i stil am very unconcvinced about that!

Edited February 14 by Etebaer

[JimmysTheBestCop]

34 minutes ago, Etebaer said:

Well, i had for example a morale break down after i lost a cup match and then lost the following 4 matches as well until i managed to recover, that alone makes the FM Arena test already uconvincing and to many variables about the test are unknown too.

The Season was already around 2/3 played i think and i had 1 or 2 lossses b4 that happened - i have already more points lost in that 4 matches than the mentioned simulation over a season.

And honestly i dont trust simulations do getting the best out of a team - thus i stil am very unconcvinced about that!

Because you example is convincing? I've literally never have lost 5 matches in a row in any version of FM ever. 

Blaming morale is a good way to avoid responsibility and admitting it was your fault. 

I also gave a personal example of never paying attention to it 2 versions. 

But both our examples are anecdotal. While FM arena did 75 seasons per morale category. 

I love how evidence and data are always unconvincing to people lmao

Has anyone ever tested or experimented to show morale making a large impact? Or should we just go with your 5 match example. 

I mean 5 matches. Good enough for me. Case closed. You did it. Solved the mystery. 

[Etebaer]

Well, it is one of many anecdotal examples of mine  in ~30.000h of FM gaming several version of FM beginning with FM13 and then uninterrupted FM16 to FM24 usually trying with weaker sides to climb leagues to the top.

Several pattern occur every game version and morale is one hell of a variable to deal with especially if you have an underdog team.

Ofc it matters the less the better your team is, the better your cohesion is, the better whatever else variable there is that influences the outcome of a game.

Another thing is i use the realism mod and god knows who that changes the game dynamic regarding morale...but i use that only since FM23 and my "anecdotes" go back to FM13.

Then the Ai vs AI matches with generic tactics and staff that has who knows what stats and does who knows what things in these AI vs AI matches do not convince me that they replicate the experience of a Human vs AI match!

Edited February 14 by Etebaer

[JimmysTheBestCop]

If morale made that much of an impact players would never be able to holiday with terrific results. 

You holiday for an entire season you will mostly fail all of the morale checks by default. Your assistant will not do transfer or contracts or squad status or worry about keeping promises you made. 

YouTube is filled with creators holidaying entire seasons and still greatly overachieving with underdog clubs. If morale was so vital this wouldn't be possible as often as is happening out in the wild. 

And there is still no data proving morale is actually vital to our clubs seasons. If it's not vital then it's not making an impact. If it doesn't make an impact it's not worth doing. 

[Cal585]

Wow, of all the things to be told weren't important I sure wasn't expecting morale to be one. As someone who played a lot of FMT where you couldn't influence it through player conversations or team meetings and were largely stuck with bad morale until you won or else went on long winning streaks when it was high, I would have confidently declared that it was one of the most important factors. I'm not saying it categorically is the case or that it hasn't changed in recent years, just that I'm surprised by such claims and would love to see a lot more testing before I bought into its diminished impact.

[NineCloudNine]

The FM Arena test does look persuasive.

I think what other posters are describing here is a combination of morale, happiness, cohesion, dynamics and tactical familairity. I am very sure that a squad with good scores on all those will perform much better. Morale itself is only one component of those and likely not decisive on its own.

Edited February 14 by NineCloudNine

[NineCloudNine]

4 hours ago, Etebaer said:

Well, it is one of many anecdotal examples of mine  in ~30.000h of FM gaming several version of FM beginning with FM13 and then uninterrupted FM16 to FM24 usually trying with weaker sides to climb leagues to the top.

Several pattern occur every game version and morale is one hell of a variable to deal with especially if you have an underdog team.

Ofc it matters the less the better your team is, the better your cohesion is, the better whatever else variable there is that influences the outcome of a game.

Another thing is i use the realism mod and god knows who that changes the game dynamic regarding morale...but i use that only since FM23 and my "anecdotes" go back to FM13.

Then the Ai vs AI matches with generic tactics and staff that has who knows what stats and does who knows what things in these AI vs AI matches do not convince me that they replicate the experience of a Human vs AI match!

As someone much smarter than me once said: “the plural of anecdote is not data” 

[ChaosReiter]

Actually I'm waiting for EBFM to do some experiments about morale. That guy is who I totally trust.

[whatsupdoc]

Subjectively I'd say it's fairly strong. Previously I would've said too strong but in this FM what's strong is meta tactics and certain TI and shapes. 

[lied90]

6 hours ago, Etebaer said:

Well, it is one of many anecdotal examples of mine  in ~30.000h of FM gaming several version of FM beginning with FM13 and then uninterrupted FM16 to FM24 usually trying with weaker sides to climb leagues to the top.

Several pattern occur every game version and morale is one hell of a variable to deal with especially if you have an underdog team.

Ofc it matters the less the better your team is, the better your cohesion is, the better whatever else variable there is that influences the outcome of a game.

Another thing is i use the realism mod and god knows who that changes the game dynamic regarding morale...but i use that only since FM23 and my "anecdotes" go back to FM13.

Then the Ai vs AI matches with generic tactics and staff that has who knows what stats and does who knows what things in these AI vs AI matches do not convince me that they replicate the experience of a Human vs AI match!

You can have as many anecdotal examples as you want, they aren't worth much in these kind of topics, We human are biased, we are blind, we see what we want to see, we ignore things we don't want to see, we do things subconsciously. In short we can't be trusted to make conclusions based purely on our own experiences.

Anecdotal evidence and personal experiences can provide valuable insights and prompt further investigation, they are not a robust basis for drawing broad conclusions.

[Daveincid]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb lied90:

In short we can't be trusted to make conclusions based purely on our own experiences.

But we should trust tests of people who do not programmed the game more than the programmers themselves? 
We shouldn't questioning the methods of those tests or that you actually can't test those things with enough accuracy at all?
We shouldn't point out that SI are the only one's who know things for sure?

vor 12 Minuten schrieb lied90:

We human are biased, we are blind, we see what we want to see

 I totally agree with this point but probably in another way as you meant it.

[Rodrigogc]

1 hora atrás, ChaosReiter disse:

Actually I'm waiting for EBFM to do some experiments about morale. That guy is who I totally trust.

You shouldn't, most of his test and experiments are flawed and poorly conducted.

[lied90]

6 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

But we should trust tests of people who do not programmed the game more than the programmers themselves? 
We shouldn't questioning the methods of those tests or that you actually can't test those things with enough accuracy at all?
We shouldn't point out that SI are the only one's who know things for sure?

Of course you can. If you are referring to FM-Arena I have asked them questions several times about how and why they test things, I usually get a lengthy and reasonable response. Just make a forum post there and ask what you are skeptical of.

Si are indeed the only people who knows things for sure, but they are also a private game company so they can't be completely open about issues with the game.

[Daveincid]

vor 1 Minute schrieb lied90:

Of course you can. If you are referring to FM-Arena I have asked them questions several times about how and why they test things, I usually get a lengthy and reasonable response. Just make a forum post there and ask what you are skeptical of.

Might do later but I would like to discuss the testings also in here:
1. They are writing that they have tested it with 38 games to simulate a season.
But in the screenshots provided there are 80 games played within one season in a set-up league. So what's now true?
2. Did they took into account that in a 80 games season the player happiness may be completely different due to the high amount of games?
3. Did they took club reputations of other teams into account?
4. Did they took staff ratings or club ambitions into account?
5. Did they took international call-ups into account?
6. Did they took 100% realistic ratings for their set-up teams from A to Z?
7. How accurate is their set-up league? Clubs may behave differently depending how important a league and how high the reputation of this league is.
8. Did all the other teams used the exact same formation?
9. Why did they used exact that formation?
10. Did they added a transfer ban for the winter transfer window?
11. Do all players speak the same language?
12. What are their hidden attribute values?
13. Why they didn't test it within a real existing league to remove a lot of possible knock-on issues?
14. How do you come to the conclusion that tests for FM23 can be translated 1:1 to FM24?

There are dozens of other questions I could ask.

Again, my point is that people might need to accept that you won't be able to accurately "proof" anything, no matter how shiny your excel will be or how eloquent you speak trying to back up your findings. 
I would be very careful using words like "evidence" or "proof" in that context anyway. All I could say is "I assume" or "I guess" but nothing more. 

I'm doing a lot of editing myself and I test my stuff all the time and there is a lot of things I changed that I don't even mention in my posts because I'm not 100% certain that the effect is how I think it is. 

So I would argue that I do have a little bit more experience as the "casual" FM user. Just with all my experience in the back I can say with confidence that those tests about moral aren't accurate at all to draw conclusions.

[ChaosReiter]

I agreed that a conclusion is a difficult thing to reach and requires extreme rigor. Fact is, in this matter, it's clear that we cannot meet these conditions to get the 'proof'. While no experiment can ever yield universally rigorous conclusions, confidence in our findings can be enhanced if the conditions are properly set.

@Daveincid, what's your opinion on this video? Sorry can't directly post it, it will take hours to get approved. And what's your opinion on EBFM's experiments if you have watched them?

 

[Daveincid]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb ChaosReiter:

Fact is, in this matter, it's clear that we cannot meet these conditions to get the 'proof'.

correct

vor 9 Minuten schrieb ChaosReiter:

confidence in our findings can be enhanced if the conditions are properly set

I also agree with this point but as soon as the testing scenario is a newly set-up league which doesn't exist within the normal gaming world, the majority of the findings can't be trusted, no matter how much data you gather.

vor 9 Minuten schrieb ChaosReiter:

what's your opinion on this video?

Due to the answers I've just given above it should be clear: It's worth very little to nothing because unrealistic input = unrealistic output.

 

Edited February 14 by Daveincid

[Daveincid]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb ChaosReiter:

And what's your opinion on EBFM's experiments if you have watched them?

same as the other set-up experiments = very little to nothing in most cases. There were 1-2 which I found pretty good but the rest is more than questionable to me

[ChaosReiter]

刚才, Daveincid说:

to me

No worry, I got your point. I think you are the kind of person who favors certainty, that's cool. Many variables are excluded from the control in various experiments. For example, in a chemistry experiment, if some reactions occur in the morning and others in the evening but all other conditions remain the same, we consider them equivalent. This is a premise for attempting to draw conclusions from experiments. And for many experiments related to FM, the premise needed is precisely what you do not agree and do not care: realistic or not doesn't matter to those who do their experiments. In my view, those experiments are not aimed at drawing general conclusions (although they may use this as an attractive gimmick), but rather resemble: 'In certain circumstances', things are likely to be…… Again, you can argue that without 'in certain circumstances' and 'likely', they are wrong, but their work still has reference value which you don't care. 

[Daveincid]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb ChaosReiter:

realistic or not doesn't matter to those who do their experiments.

Then they should clarify this in their experiments because a good bunch of people will see those tests and take them for realistic.

vor 10 Minuten schrieb ChaosReiter:

but their work still has reference value which you don't care.

It has a reference because it generates controversity within parts of the community and I absolutely hate when people who love the game loosing it due to such tests for no reason. That's why I will always criticize the people behind it and their motivations.

[ChaosReiter]

30 分钟前, Daveincid说:

It's worth very little to nothing because unrealistic input = unrealistic output.

I'm a big fan of your work, and playing a save with it right now. The first season has passed, and I think your patch has made the game more dramatic. This is a conclusion with even less samples and being less rigorous but in a normal gaming world. Still, this is something no one can proof it right or wrong even someone played 99999 seasons.

[Daveincid]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb ChaosReiter:

I'm a big fan of your work, and playing a save with it right now. The first season has passed, and I think your patch has made the game more dramatic. This is a conclusion with even less samples and being less rigorous but in a normal gaming world. Still, this is something no one can proof it right or wrong even someone played 99999 seasons.

I'm glad you like it

[NineCloudNine]

1 hour ago, Daveincid said:

Might do later but I would like to discuss the testings also in here:
1. They are writing that they have tested it with 38 games to simulate a season.
But in the screenshots provided there are 80 games played within one season in a set-up league. So what's now true?
2. Did they took into account that in a 80 games season the player happiness may be completely different due to the high amount of games?
3. Did they took club reputations of other teams into account?
4. Did they took staff ratings or club ambitions into account?
5. Did they took international call-ups into account?
6. Did they took 100% realistic ratings for their set-up teams from A to Z?
7. How accurate is their set-up league? Clubs may behave differently depending how important a league and how high the reputation of this league is.
8. Did all the other teams used the exact same formation?
9. Why did they used exact that formation?
10. Did they added a transfer ban for the winter transfer window?
11. Do all players speak the same language?
12. What are their hidden attribute values?
13. Why they didn't test it within a real existing league to remove a lot of possible knock-on issues?
14. How do you come to the conclusion that tests for FM23 can be translated 1:1 to FM24?

There are dozens of other questions I could ask.

Again, my point is that people might need to accept that you won't be able to accurately "proof" anything, no matter how shiny your excel will be or how eloquent you speak trying to back up your findings. 
I would be very careful using words like "evidence" or "proof" in that context anyway. All I could say is "I assume" or "I guess" but nothing more. 

I'm doing a lot of editing myself and I test my stuff all the time and there is a lot of things I changed that I don't even mention in my posts because I'm not 100% certain that the effect is how I think it is. 

So I would argue that I do have a little bit more experience as the "casual" FM user. Just with all my experience in the back I can say with confidence that those tests about moral aren't accurate at all to draw conclusions.

Very little testing or modelling in any field would account for variables in as detailed a manner as you ask here. An experiment that detailed wouldn’t be a test, it would be the whole game. That negates the point of modelling, which is to look for patterns in a simplified version of a complex reality.

You are also using a very human trick to discount something by saying you’d believe it if it satisfied certain criteria, but then setting those criteria at an impossible level. That way you can convince yourself you are being rational, but in fact you’ve just found a neat way to discount something you’ve already decided you disagree with. Turns out you are human too .

[Daveincid]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb NineCloudNine:

Very little testing or modelling in any field would account for variables in as detailed a manner as you ask here. An experiment that detailed wouldn’t be a test, it would be the whole game. That negates the point of modelling, which is to look for patterns in a simplified version of a complex reality.

You are also using a very human trick to discount something by saying you’d believe it if it satisfied certain criteria, but then setting those criteria at an impossible level. That way you can convince yourself you are being rational, but in fact you’ve just found a neat way to discount something you’ve already decided you disagree with. Turns out you are human too .

There is no trick, just facts that some things can't been proven without having access to the game code. Deal with it

[XaW]

10 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said:

Very little testing or modelling in any field would account for variables in as detailed a manner as you ask here. An experiment that detailed wouldn’t be a test, it would be the whole game. That negates the point of modelling, which is to look for patterns in a simplified version of a complex reality.

You are also using a very human trick to discount something by saying you’d believe it if it satisfied certain criteria, but then setting those criteria at an impossible level. That way you can convince yourself you are being rational, but in fact you’ve just found a neat way to discount something you’ve already decided you disagree with. Turns out you are human too .

But SI can control these variables, and when the say "no that is not how it works, we've looked into it" it seems strange to me that so many people discount that... If you go by proof, then that's the best proof you can get.

The point I think @Daveincid is making here (and feel free to correct me, Dave!) is that only SI can do controlled tests for these things, so seeing others doing it while NOT controlling variables and then presenting their "finds" as proof is the issue. Not that these tests can't indicate or show trends or the like, but they are certainly not "proof" or "evidence" of anything. At best it's a hypothesis or a theory. And here I'm being very kind, since these test often show clear bias towards an outcome before the test has even started. The methods used are clearly faulty in most of these cases, and it's more of "how can I get the game to show what I want" rather than open ended tests.

And again, those tests can be a good example to give to SI to get an _actual_ test on it, but they are useless as proof of anything other than as an example of hyperbole for views in content creation.

[Daveincid]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb XaW:

The point I think @Daveincid is making here (and feel free to correct me, Dave!) is that only SI can do controlled tests for these things, so seeing others doing it while NOT controlling variables and then presenting their "finds" as proof is the issue

Exactly.

[NineCloudNine]

14 minutes ago, XaW said:

But SI can control these variables, and when the say "no that is not how it works, we've looked into it" it seems strange to me that so many people discount that... If you go by proof, then that's the best proof you can get.

The point I think @Daveincid is making here (and feel free to correct me, Dave!) is that only SI can do controlled tests for these things, so seeing others doing it while NOT controlling variables and then presenting their "finds" as proof is the issue. Not that these tests can't indicate or show trends or the like, but they are certainly not "proof" or "evidence" of anything. At best it's a hypothesis or a theory. And here I'm being very kind, since these test often show clear bias towards an outcome before the test has even started. The methods used are clearly faulty in most of these cases, and it's more of "how can I get the game to show what I want" rather than open ended tests.

And again, those tests can be a good example to give to SI to get an _actual_ test on it, but they are useless as proof of anything other than as an example of hyperbole for views in content creation.

This largely negates any and all testing of any game system by players. It might even be said to negate all feedback since by definition this will be based on one person’s unreliable experience.

It also assumes that SI do in fact conduct such tests, that they do so accurately, and that they act on what they find. I’m sceptical about all three of these assumptions, while also sharing your distate of clickbait testing being done by people with an axe to grind and methodologies that an 8-year old would be failed on.

[herne79]

21 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said:

It also assumes that SI do in fact conduct such tests, that they do so accurately, and that they act on what they find. I’m sceptical about all three of these assumptions

Don’t be .  Personally I have first hand experience of SI doing precisely this as do many others around here.

22 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said:

This largely negates any and all testing of any game system by players.

Not really.  Testing is great to do.  The issue is what people who conduct such tests then do with the data.  What they should do, if they find something which appears to show an issue, is start a bug report, give SI their data and ask them to review.  Again, in my experience SI will do just that.  But they very rarely do this and rather present their findings as fact or - at the very least - in such a way as to lead their viewers into believing there is an issue.  Their community then gobbles this up and suddenly something which appears to show an issue becomes fact.  That helps no-one.

So test away, just give the data to SI, that’s all these testers have to do .

[XaW]

31 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said:

This largely negates any and all testing of any game system by players. It might even be said to negate all feedback since by definition this will be based on one person’s unreliable experience.

I disagree. Any testing is welcome. As I said, it can be good examples to give SI for further examination. Other testing can also show examples of how it would work in certain conditions, and that's helpful advise too.

31 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said:

It also assumes that SI do in fact conduct such tests, that they do so accurately, and that they act on what they find. I’m sceptical about all three of these assumptions

Not really sure how to comment on this. SI do run tests, and a lot of them too. They also fix bugs and issues, hell loads of what I've reported myself over the years have been fixed. Not always, of course, and I'm also in favour of a higher percentage dedicated to technical debt, so I don't disagree that they probably should fix more issues... That said, I do think they fix a lot of issues that are really game breaking. Also, SI run loads of testing outside of their internal tests. Many people on this forum have been asked if they want to help out at times too after reporting stuff to SI.

31 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said:

while also sharing your distate of clickbait testing being done by people with an axe to grind and methodologies that an 8-year old would be failed on.

At least we can agree on something!  

[ChaosReiter]

3 分钟前, XaW说:

Any testing is welcome. As I said, it can be good examples to give SI for further examination. Other testing can also show examples of how it would work in certain conditions, and that's helpful advise too.

There are certain things that SI has zero interests while players do, giving these examples to SI won't do any good. And there are things that SI do have interests, but they don't want to share with us. Players of any game are always curious and seeking some possible answers. Like I said earlier, I also agreed anyone come to any conclusion should be very careful.

[Ein]

1 hour ago, XaW said:

And again, those tests can be a good example to give to SI to get an _actual_ test on it, but they are useless as proof of anything other than as an example of hyperbole for views in content creation.

This works both ways though. For instance, the most popular FM Youtubers will generally praise the newest iteration of the game as "the best ever" and will not mention any bugs it may have (certainly this happened in FM24). For people to watch videos on FM, they would first have to own the game so making people lose faith in the game is counterproductive if you are doing it for views. Also, not all bug reports are acted upon. I posted bug reports that remain unresolved 3, 4 years later.

[XaW]

1 minute ago, Ein said:

This works both ways though. For instance, the most popular FM Youtubers will generally praise the newest iteration of the game as "the best ever" and will not mention any bugs it may have (certainly this happened in FM24). For people to watch videos on FM, they would first have to own the game so making people lose faith in the game is counterproductive if you are doing it for views. Also, not all bug reports are acted upon. I posted bug reports that remain unresolved 3, 4 years later.

I always recommend users try the demo if they are unsure if they think the game is what they want. Social media personalities and "influencers" will often do whatever it takes for views, so they usually jump on the bandwagon be that positive or negative... I really dislike the hyperbole of either side of that, but I won't argue on whatever anyone thinks about if it's good or bad, my gripe is with inadequate "tests" being presented as proof.

And as I wrote just below, I also think SI should clear out technical debt, so not sure what you are arguing against there, tbh... I'm still annoyed by how custom columns in the squad view works, so I'm not exactly saying reporting stuff is the magical cure for issues, but it IS the best option to get stuff changed.

[Ein]

1 minute ago, XaW said:

And as I wrote just below, I also think SI should clear out technical debt, so not sure what you are arguing against there, tbh

I replied to that particular statement (people posting negative stuff for views) not to anything else you wrote.

Obviously some shortcomings (e.g. long-term player and squad development) and bugs (mentoring and training, summer tournaments, etc) cannot be tested in the demo given that it only runs for half a season. The demo is mostly good to check the ME, which is not really something I'm hung up on.

[JimmysTheBestCop]

FM engine has been patched and hacked together for 20 years. 

I would bet the farm that their isn't 1 employee at Si that truly understands the code 100%. It would be impossible. Employees come and go. You can have all the code notes and code bibles you want. But most of the time they are guessing. 

And I'm sorry to inform you lot but I can thousands of game communities that know and have worked out things far beyond what the developers knew or even imagined. 

This is done through testing game engines. Look at the Baldurs Gate 3 guys that completed the entire game in 10 minutes. Larian the developers had no idea it was possible and never even imagined it. Another completed it by sticking a msin character in a box and being able to skip to the end of game. 

Cities Skylines 1 the developers never figured out traffic. Modders had too. Their sequel guess what still can't handle traffic released without mods and is sitting at 43% on steam. 

The list goes on and on...

In FM arena case they have their test league as a save open for public download. And they are pretty nice and the sdmibs there answer any questions. 

Honestly all I hear is hot air when it comes to disproving FM arena tests. 

No one reruns their tests and no one devises thdur isn't tests to prove or disprove or counter the findings. 

People just talk back and forth. While FM arena is one of the only communities actually testing mechanics. Doesn't matter if there tests are 100% or 60% valid. They are the only ones doing it. 

Again if you think it's invalid why has no one tried to run their own tests to prove anything. FM arena has data the people that say its invalid show us your data

 

[lied90]

6 minutes ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

FM engine has been patched and hacked together for 20 years. 

I would bet the farm that their isn't 1 employee at Si that truly understands the code 100%. It would be impossible. Employees come and go. You can have all the code notes and code bibles you want. But most of the time they are guessing. 

And I'm sorry to inform you lot but I can thousands of game communities that know and have worked out things far beyond what the developers knew or even imagined. 

This is done through testing game engines. Look at the Baldurs Gate 3 guys that completed the entire game in 10 minutes. Larian the developers had no idea it was possible and never even imagined it. Another completed it by sticking a msin character in a box and being able to skip to the end of game. 

Cities Skylines 1 the developers never figured out traffic. Modders had too. Their sequel guess what still can't handle traffic released without mods and is sitting at 43% on steam. 

The list goes on and on...

In FM arena case they have their test league as a save open for public download. And they are pretty nice and the sdmibs there answer any questions. 

Honestly all I hear is hot air when it comes to disproving FM arena tests. 

No one reruns their tests and no one devises thdur isn't tests to prove or disprove or counter the findings. 

People just talk back and forth. While FM arena is one of the only communities actually testing mechanics. Doesn't matter if there tests are 100% or 60% valid. They are the only ones doing it. 

Again if you think it's invalid why has no one tried to run their own tests to prove anything. FM arena has data the people that say its invalid show us your

Would just like to add to this that purpose of FM arena is simply to find the optimal way to win, by knowing what works and what doesn't.  People yelling "BROKEN" and "EXPOSED" isn't FM arena, it's people vising the site.

[lied90]

7 hours ago, Daveincid said:

Might do later but I would like to discuss the testings also in here:
1. They are writing that they have tested it with 38 games to simulate a season.
But in the screenshots provided there are 80 games played within one season in a set-up league. So what's now true?
2. Did they took into account that in a 80 games season the player happiness may be completely different due to the high amount of games?
3. Did they took club reputations of other teams into account?
4. Did they took staff ratings or club ambitions into account?
5. Did they took international call-ups into account?
6. Did they took 100% realistic ratings for their set-up teams from A to Z?
7. How accurate is their set-up league? Clubs may behave differently depending how important a league and how high the reputation of this league is.
8. Did all the other teams used the exact same formation?
9. Why did they used exact that formation?
10. Did they added a transfer ban for the winter transfer window?
11. Do all players speak the same language?
12. What are their hidden attribute values?
13. Why they didn't test it within a real existing league to remove a lot of possible knock-on issues?
14. How do you come to the conclusion that tests for FM23 can be translated 1:1 to FM24?

There are dozens of other questions I could ask.

Again, my point is that people might need to accept that you won't be able to accurately "proof" anything, no matter how shiny your excel will be or how eloquent you speak trying to back up your findings. 
I would be very careful using words like "evidence" or "proof" in that context anyway. All I could say is "I assume" or "I guess" but nothing more. 

I'm doing a lot of editing myself and I test my stuff all the time and there is a lot of things I changed that I don't even mention in my posts because I'm not 100% certain that the effect is how I think it is. 

So I would argue that I do have a little bit more experience as the "casual" FM user. Just with all my experience in the back I can say with confidence that those tests about moral aren't accurate at all to draw conclusions.

More or less all of this has been asked an answered before on FM Arena, but it scattered across the forum in different posts.

 

[Daveincid]

Gerade eben schrieb lied90:

More or less all of this has been asked an answered before on FM Arena, but it scattered across the forum in different posts.

 

And what's the answer in most cases? Did they took most of the factors into account or not?

[JimmysTheBestCop]

17 minutes ago, lied90 said:

Would just like to add to this that purpose of FM arena is simply to find the optimal way to win, by knowing what works and what doesn't.  People yelling "BROKEN" and "EXPOSED" isn't FM arena, it's people vising the site.

Very good point. They have their test league. They run the tests post the results and that is really it. 

People that make a big deal and go over the top aren't the FM arena admins or testing guys. It's really not even their community members either. 

It's some who clicked their from another community sees one table of results and looses their mind. 

[lied90]

51 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

And what's the answer in most cases? Did they took most of the factors into account or not?

Short answer, yes.

Edit: 

To clarify, they always isolate whatever they are testing. If you want to read or ask about how, I suggest you go to their site.

Edited February 14 by lied90

[Daveincid]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb lied90:

Short answer, yes.

I doubt it

[lied90]

5 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

I doubt it

Well if you already (assume) you know, why ask.

[Daveincid]

Gerade eben schrieb lied90:

Well if you already (assume) you know, why ask.

Because I expected a bit more as an answer than just "yes" without even one example

[lied90]

7 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

Because I expected a bit more as an answer than just "yes" without even one example

I'm not here to do your homework, and I'm not a representative of FM Arena. I just replied because people belittle the work they do and service they provide for free.

The answer are there if you care to look, or their admins will answer you. 

[JimmysTheBestCop]

 

8 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

Because I expected a bit more as an answer than just "yes" without even one example

They have their test as a save you can download it and see for yourself. 

If someone were to ask me 2 dozens questions about your realism mod there is no way I could summarize it up for a simple comment.

I would be like yeah it does a bunch it's great go try it. And I would refer them to the mod post with the details. 

I feel like people treat FM arena like a vampire. When others point out yes their save is public. Yeah they are nice and answer questions. Yeah the answers are in their forum. No one goes there to do their own research. They just assume. 

We aren't the mods or admin of FM arena no way we could recall the exacts of their tests. If I need to I usually have to pull out their forum and reread it. 

Out of all the FM communities FM arena are easily the most thorough testers around. Nothing is ever going to be perfect unless you have dev tools for testing. 

But as numerous gaming communities have shown countless times it's possible to have end user test to discover how mechanics of a game work. 

 

[Daveincid]

vor 1 Minute schrieb JimmysTheBestCop:

They have their test as a save you can download it and see for yourself. 

As I already wrote, the setup already makes a valid testing method for the real game impossible (if it's really those screenshots of a 80 game season) so there is no reason for me to download the file.
 

vor 4 Minuten schrieb JimmysTheBestCop:

Nothing is ever going to be perfect unless you have dev tools for testing. 

If they clarify that point somewhere in their disclaimer of tests I would have absolutely no problem at all with their tests. I've read that post which seems to be meant to explain their testing method (while answering very little in the end) and it's never being written that testing methods won't be possible to be 100% accurate.
 https://fm-arena.com/thread/8922-understanding-the-results-of-fm-arena-tactic-testing/

 

vor 8 Minuten schrieb JimmysTheBestCop:

And I would refer them to the mod post with the details. 

I would do the same but I haven't seen any post at all, just a short "yes".
 

vor 8 Minuten schrieb JimmysTheBestCop:

I feel like people treat FM arena like a vampire.

It could be that they receive some harsh critics which may be not totally fair (me included). In my personal opinion they just took a big risk themselves because there isn't much more info available in one post about their method (for whatever reason). If you are a fansite and handle such a topic within the community, you almost provocate extreme feedback (positive and negative).

Just to clarify:
I love the passion of the FM-community, especially those who invest hours and hours into a specific topic. But I would (I personally am) always be very careful about the own testing methods and how those are communicated within the community. If it's done poorly it will end exactly in the situation like we are now. This may doesn't matter much for a single person doing a provocative reddit post but as a fansite or content-creator I would feel some sort of responsibility for this amazing community.
 

[JimmysTheBestCop]

Not sure where you are getting 80 matches from but they use 38 match seasons. It says so right at the top of the link I first included

https://fm-arena.com/table/20-condition-morale-testing/

So maybe you should stop being so dismissive and download the test league?

Remember this is a tactic site that over pandemic started to do other things. 

Even here where they describe some features they say if you want to know everything download the save file

https://fm-arena.com/thread/2712-fm-arena-tactic-testing-league/