How does morale affect the game?

[Daveincid]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb 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

if you click on those tests and check the screenshots below, there are 80 games. Edit: It's being written that the testing results were translated into 38 games so I assume the test was still 80 games, so just based on that fact the test is worth nothing.

vor 5 Minuten schrieb JimmysTheBestCop:

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

I won't repeat myself again.

 

Edited February 14 by Daveincid

[JimmysTheBestCop]

Please then stop repeating yourself. But you are coming off looking bad man. 

You are looking like some body that refuses to acknowledge any dirt of tests that isn't personally done. 

What you are giving off is if you don't create it then it's not valid. You are looking super arrogant and super hard headed. 

The way to disprove people is to use their tests and then create your own to test and see what happens. 

If you aren't willing to do either why even comment on it. Just be like yeah they got data but I don't feel like looking at it. 

Instead you are like no all of their data is bs and invalid. I don't like it. I don't want to look at it. No no. Stop asking. Dude that is how you are coming off. 

we certainly know their top rated tactics are dominating. So they must have some kind of valid testing. Or it wouldn't work for tactics. 

I also think it's very weird to dismiss or belittle the only community that is at least doing testing and making it public. 

No other community is out there doing what they do on the level that do. Instead of belittling if you think you can be helpful why not actually try go be helpful to them. 

Seems like you are more concerned with the game getting exposed. No game is perfect. Every game will get exposed. It doesn't change anything man

[Daveincid]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb JimmysTheBestCop:

Please then stop repeating yourself. But you are coming off looking bad man. 

You are looking like some body that refuses to acknowledge any dirt of tests that isn't personally done. 

What you are giving off is if you don't create it then it's not valid. You are looking super arrogant and super hard headed. 

The way to disprove people is to use their tests and then create your own to test and see what happens. 

If you aren't willing to do either why even comment on it. Just be like yeah they got data but I don't feel like looking at it. 

Instead you are like no all of their data is bs and invalid. I don't like it. I don't want to look at it. No no. Stop asking. Dude that is how you are coming off. 

we certainly know their top rated tactics are dominating. So they must have some kind of valid testing. Or it wouldn't work for tactics. 

I also think it's very weird to dismiss or belittle the only community that is at least doing testing and making it public. 

No other community is out there doing what they do on the level that do. Instead of belittling if you think you can be helpful why not actually try go be helpful to them. 

Seems like you are more concerned with the game getting exposed. No game is perfect. Every game will get exposed. It doesn't change anything man

Is there really a need to get personal? At this point, there won't be any further discussion with you from my side

[JimmysTheBestCop]

Literally wasn't personal at all. I was stating how you were coming off in this particular thread.  Not what your intentions were and not what  kind of person you are. 

The appearance of how a person comes off in a written forum isn't close to a personal statement about that person. 

I was giving you a heads up on how you were looking. 

Furthest thing from a personal attack. 

[herne79]

52 minutes ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

The way to disprove people is to use their tests and then create your own to test and see what happens.

Sure, that can be a way.  However in this context the only thing that should be happening is for someone from that community to open a bug report here, upload their data and ask SI to check things out.  At this point, regardless of how much testing they do or what methods they use, all they have is something which appears to show something odd - not something which does show something odd.  No conclusions can be drawn by anyone until SI verify things.  SI are always open to that kind of approach.

FM Arena (and others) might be onto something, but until these people give the data to SI (just making it available on their website isn’t good enough) don’t draw conclusions.

56 minutes ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

we certainly know their top rated tactics are dominating. So they must have some kind of valid testing. Or it wouldn't work for tactics.

In this context, this is not necessarily true.  With tactic testing, one way can be throw enough dirt at the wall until something sticks.  In other words, just repeat ad nauseum until you find something which gets results.  I have no idea if that’s what happens here, I’m just saying not all tactic testing has technical validity.

Nobody here is defending SI.  The game has problems.  Personally I’ve stopped playing FM24 because the delivery simply hasn’t matched up to the pre-release hype imo.  But there are ways and means of getting SI’s attention in order to verify the validity of testing and data.  And simply releasing said data on a YT video or a fansite isn’t one of them.  Be wary of drawing conclusions without verification.

[JimmysTheBestCop]

I'm not even bringing Si up or am I bringing up anything that truly broken. 

I gave evidence my personal saves that morale and dynamics were irrelevant to my saves in both fm23 and 24 in long saves 2060 starting with a low build a nation save. 

I then provided evidence from the only massive test every run on morale and posted the result table. 

Personally I don't need Si to do or verify anything. 

I'm sure morale makes an impact. But the question is if that impact is significant to the majority of the user base in the majority of saves. And is it worth real life time and millions of clicks in a 4 decade save. 

My answer to that is no it's not worth. Maybe to someone else it is worth it. I don't think anyone is trying to prove something like morale is completely broken. 

I'm discussing if impact of it has meaning and is worth bothering with. 

Plus I gave evidence of holidaying. If morale and dynamics made heavy impact you could never holiday for and entire season and be successful. 

You can test this. Make promises to everyone. Holiday the season, promises break, and other discussions fail. Dynamics and morale take a hit. Do you still win? Yes you do. 

Again I'm not saying anything about it being broken or we need Si to look at it. 

I'm saying it's not worth my real life time to pay attention too. Because in almost 2000 hours played over last 2-3 versions it has made bare minimum impact on my saves. 

Maybe for new players or bad players morale makes more of an impact. But if you know how to play the game. I haven't seen it in my saves and the only tests ever done back me up.

 

[herne79]

26 minutes ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

I then provided evidence from the only massive test every run on morale and posted the result table

And there’s the point - it isn’t “evidence” of anything.  It might be, but that can only be confirmed by SI and until that happens all we actually have is a nicely presented table of data.  So I appreciate you haven’t directly brought up SI, but in mentioning specific tests which, as you put it, is presented as “evidence” we have to then bring in SI as they are the only people who can verify such “evidence”.

I may be labouring a point here, but presenting data which - intentionally or not - gets interpreted as evidence can actually damage the community.  This is how myths become fact and suspicion of how the game works arise.  You only need look at some of the comments in this thread to see that.

Anyway, the bottom line is that whenever this topic comes up (and it frequently does) any and all data from community testing should be given to SI for their investigation, with no conclusions made or data presented as (or interpreted as) evidence until it has been investigated .

[JimmysTheBestCop]

What would Si do with any data? As far as video game developers go Si has to be the least communicative game developer I've ever seen or heard of. 

I get dozens of games a year. And basically always have my whole life. But in the last decade the game making process is completely different. 

Most small devs and some big are in constant contact with their user base through out all media platforms. And actively encourage player feedback and take it in while the game is being developed. 

Honestly I've never seen Si open to criticism ever. I don't see them actively communicating anything. 

Example any info on winter patch? Any info on fm25? On unity? On if it's just a graphic engine or the entire match engine has be redone? Was any code saved? Entire new code base? Any details about anything?

So please tell me what would Si do with any community data? I know other game devs seek out data and run their independent tests with out even being prompted. 

I'm not attacking Si or their developers or their programming skill. But I will openly criticize their communication. 

I mean when Zealand called Si out over dynamic youth Si responded like a kid who got their feelings hurt. I've seen them more defensive when presented with data or questions then welcoming. SI is always playing defense. 

SI could be the best project management and coders at all of Sega but darn they are lousy communicators compared to the current video game scene. Why would anyone ever want to present Si with anything?

I can go on about how many users since the fm24 beta went live were complaining there was a problem with negative transfer budgets. Even uploaded saves. And for months were told it wasn't an issue only to finally get acknowledged in January that it was a bug. SI again was overly defensive and dismissive of it's user base. Bottom line. 

Tbh we don't need Si to verify anything. You think just because they are devs they know more then the collective community?

Numerous gaming communities have proven time after time they know just as much as the devs. And time after time devs that are part of public traded companies lie. Not saying Si lies. But nearly every public traded company does. 

Look at the mess of cities Skylines 2. Devs say oh yeah these mechanics work. Game simulation works. Then 100 fans prove it doesn't with video and hours and hours of game play. And Co the devs attack the community. 

So I completely disagree we need Si to do anything. All game mechanics should be verified by the community. If a community tests aren't good enough as a community we should make them better. 

You should strive to improve community testing. But usually what I see is people tearing down FM community tests. I've never seen anything like that in other gaming communities. 

 

[Etebaer]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb NineCloudNine:

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

The plural of anecdotes is called summed up experience which is resembling empirical data bcs you will face in this anecdotes not singular events but similar events repeating over a long period of time in my case!

 

Holiday results to me mean nothing - i doubt they replicate the Human vs AI matches as in these matches AI acts for the human part making it AI vs AI matches and win loss statistics prove absolutley entirely nothing!

(In regard how the Human vs AI results would have been influenced if the Human would not have gone on holiday)

Edited February 15 by Etebaer

[herne79]

6 hours ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

So I completely disagree we need Si to do anything. All game mechanics should be verified by the community. If a community tests aren't good enough as a community we should make them better.

Ok, so the community verifies game mechanics.  What then?  If we do nothing with the data, which is what you are suggesting, how will the game improve based on that testing?  The people who run the tests can’t change the game, only SI can do that.  And if SI aren’t given the data they can’t make changes either - SI need that data to check and verify.

6 hours ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

Honestly I've never seen Si open to criticism ever. I don't see them actively communicating anything.

Could SI’s communication be better?  Absolutely.  Could the game be better?  Absolutely.  But SI are not some secret society who you (and others) seem to believe are not open to criticism or don’t make changes based on community feedback.  From my own personal experience I know that’s not the case.

6 hours ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

You think just because they are devs they know more then the collective community?

Whether they do or not, I know they are the only ones who can actually change the game.  And that won’t happen unless the devs see demonstrable evidence by way of extensive testing which reveals a change is needed.  And a YouTube video or data on someone’s website isn’t sufficient demonstrable evidence - SI needs the data themselves.

6 hours ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

You should strive to improve community testing. But usually what I see is people tearing down FM community tests. I've never seen anything like that in other gaming communities.

Yes community testing should improve because a lot of the time the testing is done by people who really don’t know as much about the game as they (and their viewers) think they do, so their tests are easily debunked.  But the results of these tests are still out in the public eye misleading people into believing it.  That damages the community so yeh, people will tear down those “tests”.  

On the flip side there is some good testing out there but picking out the good from the bad is a minefield.  Yet the crazy thing is there is a very simple solution to all of this: give the data to SI to verify before releasing it to the public.  That way only good testing and data is publicly released, nobody gets misled by nonsense, no tear downs will happen and the game gets improved.  It really is that simple.

[whatsupdoc]

Disagree that bad tests harm anyone. If they're so bad they'll be quickly debunked which is what happened with the guy making claims about the 9 meta attributes. The existence of that test was a positive overall though in my view, as it created discussion about whether a more nuanced look into certain attributes' influence was merited.

The general bias in the opposite direction on this forum is arguably more stiltifying to progress.

[herne79]

38 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Disagree that bad tests harm anyone. If they're so bad they'll be quickly debunked

In this very thread we have someone posting how much they trust a content creator even though many of his tests have been debunked.  Viewers don’t always see the debunking because that usually takes place on a different platform.  Nor do content creators always post when they get it wrong.  Myths get created, rumours spread, mistrust in SI expands.  SI deserve criticism but fighting unnecessary fires distract from actual issues.

57 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

The general bias in the opposite direction on this forum

It also creates divides within the community.  Nobody holds SI in such high regard, but as soon as someone posts something which appears to defend SI or attempts to discredit some testing or try to explain why someone may have got it wrong, those that believe the myths disagree and things can quickly deteriorate.  A them and us attitude ensues.  Yet never once on this forum have I seen anyone just defend SI or even show a bias towards them.  But I’ve seen plenty of “fanboy” accusations and people refusing to accept reality, even when SI themselves enter a discussion to say how something is wrong.

Harmful indeed.

[lied90]

21 hours ago, Daveincid said:

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?

I'll give it a go, was on my phone yesterday so answering all this was a hassle.

1. Point average is calculated as if it was a 38 match season.
2. Player happiness is frozen.
3. All clubs have the same rep.
4. All staff have the same attributes and rep.
5. There are non.
6. A bit hard to explain. All teams have the same set of players, attribute distribution depends on their position. I don't remember 100% how they explained it to me, but the attribute distribution is based on what players exist in the real database, but their weighting also take into consideration what attributes are important. Better to ask them than me on this one.
7. I think it's set to the same as the EPL.
8. No, each AI team has a different formation/tactic, and they never change that formation/tactic. This is because the database is normally used to test tactics, so you want to test the tactic against several formations.
9. I don't know.
10. No teams make any transfers.
11. Yes.
12. I can't remember, would have to download their save file again. But all players have the same hidden attributes.
13. Their database is created to have a controlled environment where they can isolate variables. This is not my field, but this seems like standard practice for testing, no?
14. It might not be 1:1, but you can ask them to run it again in FM24.

 

And again, if you have more questions it's always better to get it from the source than asking in an outside forum.

[Daveincid]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb lied90:

I'll give it a go, was on my phone yesterday so answering all this was a hassle.

1. Point average is calculated as if it was a 38 match season.
2. Player happiness is frozen.
3. All clubs have the same rep.
4. All staff have the same attributes and rep.
5. There are non.
6. A bit hard to explain. All teams have the same set of players, attribute distribution depends on their position. I don't remember 100% how they explained it to me, but the attribute distribution is based on what players exist in the real database, but their weighting also take into consideration what attributes are important. Better to ask them than me on this one.
7. I think it's set to the same as the EPL.
8. No, each AI team has a different formation/tactic, and they never change that formation/tactic. This is because the database is normally used to test tactics, so you want to test the tactic against several formations.
9. I don't know.
10. No teams make any transfers.
11. Yes.
12. I can't remember, would have to download their save file again. But all players have the same hidden attributes.
13. Their database is created to have a controlled environment where they can isolate variables. This is not my field, but this seems like standard practice for testing, no?
14. It might not be 1:1, but you can ask them to run it again in FM24.

 

And again, if you have more questions it's always better to get it from the source than asking in an outside forum.

thanks for the info. As I wrote earlier, point 1 alone is enough for me to not trust any of the testing results.

[lied90]

29 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

thanks for the info. As I wrote earlier, point 1 alone is enough for me to not trust any of the testing results.

I dont understand why, can you explain?

Nothing changes from match to match (except the tactic of the opponent), so the length of a season/amount of seasons is only to limit RNG and get a accurate average value.

Converting it to 38 matches point average is only to make it more understandable to people. (Total points/80 matches) x 38 matches.

Edited February 15 by lied90

[Daveincid]

vor 56 Minuten schrieb lied90:

I dont understand why, can you explain?

Do you think there is no chance that results of a test-league with 80 games compared to a test-league with 38 games may be different?
 

vor 59 Minuten schrieb lied90:

Converting it to 38 matches point average is only to make it more understandable to people. (Total points/80 matches) x 38 matches.

Again. the main problem is the test-setup itself.

[whatsupdoc]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

Nobody holds SI in such high regard, but as soon as someone posts something which appears to defend SI or attempts to discredit some testing or try to explain why someone may have got it wrong, those that believe the myths disagree and things can quickly deteriorate.

People react badly (in either direction) when they feel the dismissal is premature or biased. This isn't to be confused with good or bad testing. A test can be bad and interesting - like the one you mentioned - and it can merit further exploration rather than dismissal. 

An open minded and exploratory spirit to get to the bottom of things will always be more beneficial than the kind of ad hominem automatic dismissals we see far too often around here. Ultimately the frustration is about improving the game and different perspectives on how to achieve that. 

Edited February 15 by whatsupdoc

[lied90]

6 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

Do you think there is no chance that results of a test-league with 80 games compared to a test-league with 38 games may be different?

I don't think you understand. NOTHING from game to game changes, everything is the same every game (except that each team use their own tactic). Morale doesn't change, attributes don't change, fitness doesn't change, no players change clubs, there are no injuries, team cohesion doesn't change etc.

The amount of games do not influence the results, because all variables are frozen.

[Daveincid]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb lied90:

I don't think you understand. NOTHING from game to game changes, everything is the same every game (except that each team use their own tactic). Morale doesn't change, attributes don't change, fitness doesn't change, no players change clubs, there are no injuries, team cohesion doesn't change etc.

The amount of games do not influence the results, because all variables are frozen.

You don't understand it but I tried enough to showcase that those tests aren't accurate. If you don't want to see that, that's on you.

[lied90]

4 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

You don't understand it but I tried enough to showcase that those tests aren't accurate. If you don't want to see that, that's on you.

With all due respect, you haven't done anything expect asking for second hand information.

I do find it disrespectful that you claim that I " don't want to see it". I have no such intent, I have no skin in the game.

Just like you I have been very skeptical and had loads of questions that I've asked on FM arena, and they've been answered to my satisfaction. The opportunity is there for you to, if you are genuinely curious and want to engage with them to understand why and how.

[Daveincid]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb lied90:

With all due respect, you haven't done anything expect asking for second hand information.

I do find it disrespectful that you claim that I " don't want to see it". I have no such intent, I have no skin in the game.

Just like you I have been very skeptical and had loads of questions that I've asked on FM arena, and they've been answered to my satisfaction. The opportunity is there for you to, if you are genuinely curious and want to engage with them to understand why and how.

Kinda weird if that's your conclusion about everything I wrote in this thread. 

I explained my thoughts several times why those tests aren't accurate, so did others. It has nothing to do with disrespect when I critizise their testing method and questioning the results. It's harsh indeed but if you publish such results, you need to accept feedback in both directions. That's part of the game as a fansite or creator.

 

[lied90]

24 minutes ago, Daveincid said:

Kinda weird if that's your conclusion about everything I wrote in this thread. 

I explained my thoughts several times why those tests aren't accurate, so did others. It has nothing to do with disrespect when I critizise their testing method and questioning the results. It's harsh indeed but if you publish such results, you need to accept feedback in both directions. That's part of the game as a fansite or creator.

 

The disrespect part is that you wrote that I "don't want to see". This indicates not only that I don't understand you, but also that I purposely don't understand you, as if I have sort of agenda.

 

They need to accept criticism and feedback, agree 100%. Which is why anyone who actually want to understand how and why, should engage with them directly. There are so many in here that use time and effort to criticize them, but few if any actually interact with them. I can't fathom why, it's so easy.

[Daveincid]

vor 1 Minute schrieb lied90:

The disrespect part is that you wrote that I "don't want to see".

I've seen their test setup and based on that I know that any result won't be accurate. As simple as that.

[JimmysTheBestCop]

I never said anything about trying to make the game better. That wasnt on my objective list for posting. We should strive to fully understand all mechanics. What works and what doesnt. What is optimal and what is inefficient. We dont need Si for any of that. 

I think when a lot of forum dwellers here see people posting tests and results they get defensive or think someone is trying to say the game is broke. I know I didnt say it was broke. Regardless if morale is the most impactful or least impactful mechanic is has nothing to do with a "broken mechanic". Obviously every mechanic will have a different impact level. We should be trying to uncover the what impact mechanics have and then what is the optimal way to do the thing.

Personally to me morale isnt impactful on my saves or the way I play the game. Obviously that isnt going to be the case for 100% of the users 100% of the time. Again the only place who ever did any kind of testing on morale was fm arena. Whether it is 100% valid or 100% invalid actually makes little difference. The important thing is there was thousands of matches with data and results. Maybe it will take 2 years to improve tests who knows. But I dont see anyone else doing things like that.

I swear when people treat fm-arena like they are vampires. People here the name get defensive and start defending anything. When most of the time people are just showing the results. It is a lot better to also join that community and help make tests better then sitting here and answering the same noob questions week in and week out. 

For an official game forum general discussion is lucky to have a handful of interesting threads every 2 weeks. And as soon as real discussions breaks out we gotta worry about threads getting moved, buried or lock for off topic. 

I see a lot of criticism  of tests sites but not very many people willing to participate and help out the cause. Sometimes it is just a lot of hot air blowing. 

[whatsupdoc]

10 minutes ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

I never said anything about trying to make the game better. That wasnt on my objective list for posting. We should strive to fully understand all mechanics. What works and what doesnt. What is optimal and what is inefficient. We dont need Si for any of that. 

I think when a lot of forum dwellers here see people posting tests and results they get defensive or think someone is trying to say the game is broke. I know I didnt say it was broke. Regardless if morale is the most impactful or least impactful mechanic is has nothing to do with a "broken mechanic". Obviously every mechanic will have a different impact level. We should be trying to uncover the what impact mechanics have and then what is the optimal way to do the thing.

Personally to me morale isnt impactful on my saves or the way I play the game. Obviously that isnt going to be the case for 100% of the users 100% of the time. Again the only place who ever did any kind of testing on morale was fm arena. Whether it is 100% valid or 100% invalid actually makes little difference. The important thing is there was thousands of matches with data and results. Maybe it will take 2 years to improve tests who knows. But I dont see anyone else doing things like that.

I swear when people treat fm-arena like they are vampires. People here the name get defensive and start defending anything. When most of the time people are just showing the results. It is a lot better to also join that community and help make tests better then sitting here and answering the same noob questions week in and week out. 

For an official game forum general discussion is lucky to have a handful of interesting threads every 2 weeks. And as soon as real discussions breaks out we gotta worry about threads getting moved, buried or lock for off topic. 

I see a lot of criticism  of tests sites but not very many people willing to participate and help out the cause. Sometimes it is just a lot of hot air blowing. 

Correct. Well said.

Imagine if people treated tests in a way that sought to help them arrive at the most accurate conclusion possible instead of defaulting to

- ad hominems

- instant dismissals

- claims that the answer is unknowable 

etc etc etc

[NineCloudNine]

18 hours 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. 

 

Just on this, a work client once showed me the basememt where their server/IT architecture lived. The first elements of it were installed on the day the Viet Cong launched the Tet offensive in 1968. There were boxes there whirring away and clearly doing stuff but nobody knew what and no-one was prepared to unplug it to find out.

To a lesser extent this is true of any game engine. It is built upon and patched and hacked and the people who did the building, patching and hacking have long gone, let alone the people who wrote the base code.

Some of the problems in FM are so long-standing and intractable that I suspect no-one at SI knows why they happen or how to fix it. The overpower of physical attributes is, I suspect, one of those things.

I have some sympathy with SI here. Many posters seem to think the ME is a mixing desk where everything can be dialled up or down. It’s not. But at the same time SI can’t come out and say “we have no idea why this happens” because they’d be ridiculed. So they say nothing. 

[JimmysTheBestCop]

31 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Correct. Well said.

Imagine if people treated tests in a way that sought to help them arrive at the most accurate conclusion possible instead of defaulting to

- ad hominems

- instant dismissals

- claims that the answer is unknowable 

etc etc etc

It is honestly why of all the FM communities bi frequentntge official forum is the place I visit the least. 

I find the other communities a lot more friendly and able to have open discussions. 

If you post anything about mrchsnics or tests or simulations or videos it is meant with instant passive aggressive hostility. Many just want to rush dismiss and defend fm when in reality no one is attacking fm or si. 

It is a discussion of most effective and efficient mechanics. 

Can you imagine on an rpg game forum people saying no we need Owl Cat or Larian to tell us the best build or what the best 2 handed weapon is. 

That's what the community is for. Just because the holy avenger is the long sword and other long swords arwess optimal doesn't make it a bad or broken mechanic or a bad or broken game. 

I find the attitude and atmosphere very strange on this forum and nithing like any other FM community. Very weird place

[Costav]

On 13/02/2024 at 12:08, Domoboy23 said:

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

I completely agree. Sometimes I have the feeling that high morale makes the difference between a goal and a shoot on posts/crossbar, but it is just a feeling and I am not claiming that this is fact per se.

Edited February 15 by Costav

[Costav]

5 hours ago, lied90 said:

I dont understand why, can you explain?

Nothing changes from match to match (except the tactic of the opponent), so the length of a season/amount of seasons is only to limit RNG and get a accurate average value.

Converting it to 38 matches point average is only to make it more understandable to people. (Total points/80 matches) x 38 matches.

If I may add something, I do scientific research for my work, I think to have a bit of clue what do tests means and how to "manipulate" (or show/use/explain) data.
It would have extremely more accurate if they would have tested what they tested repeating 80 times a season of 38 matches instead of using the [(Total points/80 matches) x 38 matches] formula. 
First of all because they should have simulated the entire season to see if there is a common pattern of results during all the testing phase, and because there are some other hidden variables (as temperature, weather, date of the match) that I am sure have an impact on the final result. In addition, tactics of the opponent change, and that is something that maybe will have a different impact if they considered 95 matches instead of 80.
However, I cannot express myself more clearly because I did not see the test they did.

In conclusion, the point is that the comment of @Daveincid is completely fair because first of all they should have provided an explanation concerning the from 80 to 38 matches decision. Prerogative are even more important than results in these cases

Edited February 15 by Costav
typos

[Dotsworthy]

Putting aside the accuracy of the testing, I don't think a 5 point swing from morale can be seen as insignificant to the normal FM player.

Sure, if you are using a meta tactic with a super squad it will feel trivial, but in a normal game that could mean the difference between a title/2nd place, or relegation.

[Brother Ben]

3 hours ago, NineCloudNine said:

Just on this, a work client once showed me the basememt where their server/IT architecture lived. The first elements of it were installed on the day the Viet Cong launched the Tet offensive in 1968. There were boxes there whirring away and clearly doing stuff but nobody knew what and no-one was prepared to unplug it to find out.

 

This made me laugh out loud to be fair, i'm literally in a server room in my work right now looking at a load of old tech piled up that nobody dares get rid of.   A lot of it I can't even find reference to on the internet

[XaW]

3 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

This made me laugh out loud to be fair, i'm literally in a server room in my work right now looking at a load of old tech piled up that nobody dares get rid of.   A lot of it I can't even find reference to on the internet

Doesn't all tech companies that has had in-house server farms have a bunch of old AS400 machines running which no one knows why?  

My job are still trying to get rid of them! Images like this haunts my dreams!

[fc.cadoni]

52 minutes ago, XaW said:

Doesn't all tech companies that has had in-house server farms have a bunch of old AS400 machines running which no one knows why?  

My job are still trying to get rid of them! Images like this haunts my dreams!

HEX 

[Etebaer]

There still seem to be variables in that test that are unkown in their effect like tactics.

Was the morale of the opponents locked to a fixed value as well?

Did the teams have different players or were they cloned?

Was the test in a league environment or like a series of friendlies (that would make the test completely illegitimate)?

 

They could have as well created a self fulfilling prophecy with their test setup or a random number generator...

Edited February 16 by Etebaer

[JimmysTheBestCop]

35 minutes ago, Etebaer said:

There still seem to be variables in that test that are unkown in their effect like tactics.

Was the morale of the opponents locked to a fixed value as well?

Did the teams have different players or were they cloned?

Was the test in a league environment or like a series of friendlies (that would make the test completely illegitimate)?

 

They could have as well created a self fulfilling prophecy with their test setup or a random number generator...

Download the test league and answer your questions

[wazzaflow10]

18 hours ago, lied90 said:

I'll give it a go, was on my phone yesterday so answering all this was a hassle.

1. Point average is calculated as if it was a 38 match season.
2. Player happiness is frozen.
3. All clubs have the same rep.
4. All staff have the same attributes and rep.
5. There are non.
6. A bit hard to explain. All teams have the same set of players, attribute distribution depends on their position. I don't remember 100% how they explained it to me, but the attribute distribution is based on what players exist in the real database, but their weighting also take into consideration what attributes are important. Better to ask them than me on this one.
7. I think it's set to the same as the EPL.
8. No, each AI team has a different formation/tactic, and they never change that formation/tactic. This is because the database is normally used to test tactics, so you want to test the tactic against several formations.
9. I don't know.
10. No teams make any transfers.
11. Yes.
12. I can't remember, would have to download their save file again. But all players have the same hidden attributes.
13. Their database is created to have a controlled environment where they can isolate variables. This is not my field, but this seems like standard practice for testing, no?
14. It might not be 1:1, but you can ask them to run it again in FM24.

 

And again, if you have more questions it's always better to get it from the source than asking in an outside forum.

I struggle with points #6 and #8 here for validity.

for #6 If every team has the same set of players there's bound to be one tactic that takes advantage of the distribution of attributes over another. It might so happen that the player profiles tend to fit systems that press much more. Within a trial you'd want to keep them equal but there should be some between trial variation that implements some change in attributes that perhaps highlight other areas of the game. I can appreciate they keep the distribution around what is found in the game rather than making everyone 1's and 20's but there should be some variation within what is possible to remove any sort of bias that may exist based on attribute distribution.

For #8 How are these tactics determined? Random selection? Other high performers? Out of the box presets? Is each tactic represented equally on every test?

[lied90]

3 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

I struggle with points #6 and #8 here for validity.

for #6 If every team has the same set of players there's bound to be one tactic that takes advantage of the distribution of attributes over another. It might so happen that the player profiles tend to fit systems that press much more. Within a trial you'd want to keep them equal but there should be some between trial variation that implements some change in attributes that perhaps highlight other areas of the game. I can appreciate they keep the distribution around what is found in the game rather than making everyone 1's and 20's but there should be some variation within what is possible to remove any sort of bias that may exist based on attribute distribution.

For #8 How are these tactics determined? Random selection? Other high performers? Out of the box presets? Is each tactic represented equally on every test?

As I've replied to others, this forum is not the right place to ask.

I've hesitated to answer too much because I simply don't know enough to sufficiently answer follow up questions like these.

[wazzaflow10]

6 hours ago, lied90 said:

As I've replied to others, this forum is not the right place to ask.

I've hesitated to answer too much because I simply don't know enough to sufficiently answer follow up questions like these.

If its not the right place to ask then its not really the right place to post this stuff either. Especially if people don't understand how it works beyond "website says its true". I'm not saying you have to have a mathematical degree to post a statistical test but it can't be a free for all spreading information. The poster has to take some responsibility for answering questions about it for it to be taken seriously and not torn apart by people who have experience running experiments. I'm not saying their findings are wrong or don't work in the game but given the amount of posts on the forums of "games broken" or "GGPress is OP"and "no other tactics work" because of sites like these aren't helping anyone. If there was a genuine interest in making FM a better game the tests should have clear, transparent parameters with a hypothesis and a conclusion. Then we can have a discussion about the validity of the test and offer suggestions on new procedures to determine if its an eternally valid result.

As a case for external validity applying here. And I don't expect you to answer, just food for thought questions about how else to test the system.

We know that an extremely high intensity press works under perfect conditions with perfect morale and perfect fitness. Great we have a result that suggests there might be a tactic that performs better than others but its also in unrealistic conditions. No team is going to go through a whole season with those conditions. Does a team that has an extremely high intense press maintain that form for a whole season when some fixed parameters are relaxed or placed in different conditions? If a team is decimated by injuries due to high intensity pressing for a whole season, we can't conclude that it's the best tactic. It might be the best one match tactic if you can pull it off but it might not work either.

There's many, many questions a lot of us would have if the tests were more open. I don't think its malicious or devious on their part. However its hard to take them as a serious claim if questions can't be answered here. I think we're all in agreement the game has some weaker points we'd all like to be fixed. I'm not against trying to show SI what those weaker points are or have discussions about it but we can't take these tests as facts (where's Rafa Benitez when you need him) without much more transparancy imo.

[lied90]

1 hour ago, wazzaflow10 said:

If its not the right place to ask then its not really the right place to post this stuff either.

Yeah, agree.

1 hour ago, wazzaflow10 said:

I'm not saying their findings are wrong or don't work in the game but given the amount of posts on the forums of "games broken" or "GGPress is OP"and "no other tactics work" because of sites like these aren't helping anyone. If there was a genuine interest in making FM a better game the tests should have clear, transparent parameters with a hypothesis and a conclusion. Then we can have a discussion about the validity of the test and offer suggestions on new procedures to determine if its an eternally valid result.

The intent of the FM-Arena isn't to expose anything or improve the game. It's simply to find the optimal way to win, with a heavy focus on tactic testing. You might disagree but I don't think they should be held responsible for visitors of the site taking things out of context. There is only so much you can expect from a website run by a few people in their spare time.

2 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

We know that an extremely high intensity press works under perfect conditions with perfect morale and perfect fitness. Great we have a result that suggests there might be a tactic that performs better than others but its also in unrealistic conditions. No team is going to go through a whole season with those conditions. Does a team that has an extremely high intense press maintain that form for a whole season when some fixed parameters are relaxed or placed in different conditions? If a team is decimated by injuries due to high intensity pressing for a whole season, we can't conclude that it's the best tactic. It might be the best one match tactic if you can pull it off but it might not work either.

I agree, it's very much set up to test what works best over one match. Obviously anyone who does a minimal effort to rotate and adjust training intensity know that it does work over the whole season, but I get your point.

 

2 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

There's many, many questions a lot of us would have if the tests were more open. I don't think its malicious or devious on their part. However its hard to take them as a serious claim if questions can't be answered here. I think we're all in agreement the game has some weaker points we'd all like to be fixed. I'm not against trying to show SI what those weaker points are or have discussions about it but we can't take these tests as facts (where's Rafa Benitez when you need him) without much more transparancy imo.

I honestly don't think anything should have to be answered here. They have their own forum. Cross posting on different forums to "defend" something posted on their own site sounds like such a mess. It's not like SI devs gets heavily involved in discussions here anyway, they would have to file a report.

[wazzaflow10]

1 hour ago, lied90 said:

The intent of the FM-Arena isn't to expose anything or improve the game. It's simply to find the optimal way to win, with a heavy focus on tactic testing. You might disagree but I don't think they should be held responsible for visitors of the site taking things out of context. There is only so much you can expect from a website run by a few people in their spare time.

They are to a degree if it can be easily copied and spread without providing sufficient information on how the results are achieved or ways to repeat a test outside of their system. The problem here is there appears to be a few people who go to fm-arena then come here to complain about the game and dominate conversations using fm-arena as proof when they don't have a lick of an idea of how anything was produced.

 

1 hour ago, lied90 said:

I honestly don't think anything should have to be answered here. They have their own forum. Cross posting on different forums to "defend" something posted on their own site sounds like such a mess. It's not like SI devs gets heavily involved in discussions here anyway, they would have to file a report.

There's a lot of content creators who post here and explain things they've done elsewhere. I don't know why it would be so difficult to either chime in to explain so we have a source of truth from them. Or at least be willing to be more transparent about what it is they are doing to produce results.

If someone wants to post something from there on here that's fine but they should be able/willing to back it up when asked questions. If they don't know the answer they can't be defensive about it and go "just trust me bro". Its not how statistical testing works.

[lied90]

25 minutes ago, wazzaflow10 said:

There's a lot of content creators who post here and explain things they've done elsewhere. I don't know why it would be so difficult to either chime in to explain so we have a source of truth from them. Or at least be willing to be more transparent about what it is they are doing to produce results.

But they aren't really content creators, and to my knowledge nobody has directly encouraged them to post here, so how are they even suppose to know?

Regarding transparency, they always clarify when someone asks. I understand why a small group of guys doing this in their free time don't prioritize spending god knows how long to write down their entire testing method in detail with a detailed explanation of exactly how they've done it and why, especially when they don't know if anyone will even take the time to read it. It's easier and more reasonable to just answer when they are asked.

[wazzaflow10]

3 minutes ago, lied90 said:

But they aren't really content creators, and to my knowledge nobody has directly encouraged them to post here, so how are they even suppose to know?

Regarding transparency, they always clarify when someone asks. I understand why a small group of guys doing this in their free time don't prioritize spending god knows how long to write down their entire testing method in detail with a detailed explanation of exactly how they've done it and why, especially when they don't know if anyone will even take the time to read it. It's easier and more reasonable to just answer when they are asked.

They are if they're producing something, it doesn't have to be a youtube channel. They don't have to directly encourage anyone but it would be kind of foolish to think people wont take their data elsewhere or use it somewhere else. Which is why they should take the time to fully explain in detail what they are doing so that someone outside their group can actually understand the how and why. If they had full documentation it would be easy for some of us to refute or verify. It's also easier to keep people in the dark so that you don't expose flaws in your testing. Really all we can say about their work is under this specific set of circumstances xyz occurs. And people start extrapolating that to things it probably shouldn't be extrapolated to. And before you know it a bunch of misinformation gets spread about the game. 

Don't get me wrong. The game definitely has some flaws with certain things and I'd love to see them get fixed but its impossible (for me) to support suggestions when we don't know how the results were achieved. If they've gone through the trouble of setting up an entire system to programmatically test the game why not use it to improve it or show SI here's shortcomings we found? I'm sure they'd love the help and manpower to do things their time doesn't allow. 

[akkm]

5 minutes ago, wazzaflow10 said:

They are if they're producing something, it doesn't have to be a youtube channel. They don't have to directly encourage anyone but it would be kind of foolish to think people wont take their data elsewhere or use it somewhere else. Which is why they should take the time to fully explain in detail what they are doing so that someone outside their group can actually understand the how and why. If they had full documentation it would be easy for some of us to refute or verify. It's also easier to keep people in the dark so that you don't expose flaws in your testing. Really all we can say about their work is under this specific set of circumstances xyz occurs. And people start extrapolating that to things it probably shouldn't be extrapolated to. And before you know it a bunch of misinformation gets spread about the game. 

Don't get me wrong. The game definitely has some flaws with certain things and I'd love to see them get fixed but its impossible (for me) to support suggestions when we don't know how the results were achieved. If they've gone through the trouble of setting up an entire system to programmatically test the game why not use it to improve it or show SI here's shortcomings we found? I'm sure they'd love the help and manpower to do things their time doesn't allow. 

so what's your ultimate point in all your recent posts...that no one can conclude anything about any aspect of FM without producing watertight and rigorous test hypothesis and results for everyone to interrogate

I saw this from you on another thread "You post your findings with a solid objective testable hypothesis and a conclusion from testing. You get questioned about the method and results and probably asked to provide the data and parameters so that the test can be repeated outside your set up - and it might not just be from me. You might even have to repeat or modify certain test items to verify its not just a fluke or artefact of something unaccounted for. If you can answer those questions sufficiently then we can talk about right and wrong"

So can content providers and posts on tactics forums be dismissed for not doing above. Is it just things you don't agree with you need above for 

[Rodrigogc]

Many things in a game need no testing. People simply can feel when something is wrong. You don't need to conduct a trillion tests to see and feel that Physical attributes are OP in the game and has been for years. The same goes for other suspicions. 

If customers have to test the game as if they are working in a lab then they should be the ones working for SI, not the current devs. 

[lied90]

40 minutes ago, wazzaflow10 said:

They are if they're producing something, it doesn't have to be a youtube channel.

I think you are generally reasonable but I find this silly. They also conduct tests and publish data, so are they researchers or data analysts? They run a website, are they website managers? Communication managers maybe, since they post on the forum and speak on the groups behalf. They main function of their site is testing other peoples tactic on request, so they themself barely even produce any "content".

 

Calling them content creators is just wildly inaccurate.

[wazzaflow10]

1 hour ago, lied90 said:

I think you are generally reasonable but I find this silly. They also conduct tests and publish data, so are they researchers or data analysts? They run a website, are they website managers? Communication managers maybe, since they post on the forum and speak on the groups behalf. They main function of their site is testing other peoples tactic on request, so they themself barely even produce any "content".

 

Calling them content creators is just wildly inaccurate.

They can be all of those things why not? It might be 5% of their tasks. But they do run their own tests and provide something for others to consume. We can call them whatever you want honestly. It was the first thing that came to mind since ultimately what we talk about is what they produce. I'm fine to just chalk it up as a poor choice of words by me.

I really don't have any skin in the game other than its getting a little tiresome from the barrage of posts on here being related to something someone found on that site and when asked to either open a bug ticket or information about what they did its just met with resistance of varying degrees. Its just weird to me we're suppose to take their word as gospel but when people with insider knowledge of how the game works come on and correct or provide context and they still persist with it, it just strikes me as odd.

[wazzaflow10]

1 hour ago, akkm said:

so what's your ultimate point in all your recent posts...that no one can conclude anything about any aspect of FM without producing watertight and rigorous test hypothesis and results for everyone to interrogate

I saw this from you on another thread "You post your findings with a solid objective testable hypothesis and a conclusion from testing. You get questioned about the method and results and probably asked to provide the data and parameters so that the test can be repeated outside your set up - and it might not just be from me. You might even have to repeat or modify certain test items to verify its not just a fluke or artefact of something unaccounted for. If you can answer those questions sufficiently then we can talk about right and wrong"

So can content providers and posts on tactics forums be dismissed for not doing above. Is it just things you don't agree with you need above for 

Yeah way to take something completely out of context. Nicely done. You work for The Sun?

[blackbird_dmf]

25 minutos atrás, wazzaflow10 disse:

They can be all of those things why not? It might be 5% of their tasks. But they do run their own tests and provide something for others to consume. We can call them whatever you want honestly. It was the first thing that came to mind since ultimately what we talk about is what they produce. I'm fine to just chalk it up as a poor choice of words by me.

I really don't have any skin in the game other than its getting a little tiresome from the barrage of posts on here being related to something someone found on that site and when asked to either open a bug ticket or information about what they did its just met with resistance of varying degrees. Its just weird to me we're suppose to take their word as gospel but when people with insider knowledge of how the game works come on and correct or provide context and they still persist with it, it just strikes me as odd.

Why are you in every thread trying to defend this game in some way, being super dismissive and in denial? We just want a better game.

 

The game isn't bad in any way, shape or form, I've put a few hundred hours into it myself and I love it, I just really wanted some improvements to flawed aspects of it. So what's the point of being so defensive? Just asking out of curiosity.

[fc.cadoni]

To answer in OP question. From the manual:

Keep your players happy

A happy team is a winning team, and a winning team is a happy team. Your chances of success hinge more than anything on ensuring that your players remain happy. Pay close attention to each individual’s (and therefore the squad’s overall) morale and personality and be aware of their short- and long-term happiness, details of which can be found on their ‘Information’ screens. They often come to you directly with their concerns, and how successfully you deal with them goes a long way to determining whether you succeed in your job. The frequency of this is partly governed by the number Level of Discipline points you assign to your managerial profile, as is described on that screen.

The ‘Players’ section of this guide also walks you through everything you need to know about managing them and finding the right approach for you.

- So Morale playing their role in everything (matches, training, contracts etc).

[wazzaflow10]

1 minute ago, blackbird_dmf said:

Why are you in every thread trying to defend this game in some way, being super dismissive and in denial? We just want a better game.

 

The game isn't bad in any way, shape or form, I've put a few hundred hours into it myself and I love it, I just really wanted some improvements to flawed aspects of it. So what's the point of being so defensive? Just asking out of curiosity.

I'm really enjoying all this attention to reading my post history.

I'm not defending anything nor being dismissive. Far from it. I want people to log bugs if they find them. I've logged a fair share of bugs I've found since release.

Some just rant endlessly about "game's broken" in the general discussion based on some website's findings that no one seems to understand how they got their result. Why are people so adamant this one particular site has some how solved the entire match engine? Its apparently okay to defend that endlessly despite developers and testers telling them otherwise? Could SI be lying about everything? I guess but I don't see the benefit to that really. I'm not talking about the marketing angle but the actual developers that answer questions here. I understand if people feel like the game didn't live up to its expectations.

But at its core if we're talking about statistical testing. There's been very little actual testing and more I simulated a season or two and it confirmed my suspicions. If someone came on here with a well thought out test and conclusions then I'd adapt my thinking. But we've been a little short of that on here. Its a fine line to say I've personally had success with players who are fast and tall and strong while using a high pressing tactic vs a claim that this is the only way to play the game and its completely broken. Because I myself have had success doing different tactics as have others.