Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

136 "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

About goranm

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

376 profile views
  1. Yes, that's the point of what I am saying, that the hidden hard-coded development pattern dominates development over match experience and match performance. That's not what the issue is. The issue is that players after age 24 pretty much stagnate. It's not about players reaching much higher levels, it's about reaching just higher levels. Right now I can give you 10 players off the top of my head that are/were noticeably better at or after age 27/28/29 than at 24: Suarez, Modric, Pirlo, Van Dijk, Mane, Lewandowski, Xavi, De Bruyne, Sneijder, Robben. If you go from club to club you'll fi
  2. But the development is very boring and they do develop as expected (as I would expect the game to develop them, not how I would expect players IRL to develop). Players will max out at 24ish and already at 19/20 I pretty much know how a player will turn out. The DLP in my example above I already know won't ever be good enough for my squad, and I knew since he was 19. Coaches are still reporting that he's a 4 yellow star talent, but I know that as soon as he hits 22/23 they'll very likely re-evaluate down to 3-3.5 stars. If you play the game long enough, you'll even start picking up on the under
  3. Yes, it's completely realistic, I'm not saying it isn't. However players generally reaching their peak at 24ish is not.
  4. I gave an example above in which two players, of same age (21), training the same amount of time with the first-team (18-21), of the same personality (Fairly Professional), in the same unit (defensive), except one has more than double the minutes of the other, more than 10x the international experience, and performed better on average by far. Intuitively, the one with more experience should improve at least at the same rate as the other, yet with only the "are they playing enough at the right level" we the get counter-intuitive result that the player with less experience, less minutes, less pr
  5. Because the BPD is getting the same good training experiences, with the same coaches. They are in the same "defensive unit" so a lot of the time they train the same things, yet the DLP improved more, particularly in Mentals. They both have the same personality, Fairly Professional. So everything is the same or mostly the same, except the BPD playing more than double the minutes of the DLP, yet the DLP progresses more in training - so what can we conclude here? That the first-team match experience, at least in this example, didn't carry much weight with respect to development rate. This is why
  6. Ok, if the IRL stats are like that, then don't put a strong weight on conversion rate, it's as simple as that. There are other tools IRL and in the game that can indicate improvement, for example xG and performance relative to xG. Again, if the conversion rate is doubled, but the number of shots it took to achieve it was huge, so account for that. Well you started talking about noise. We have the impact of original attributes, we have the impact of 10 other players, we have the impact of the opposition, we have the impact of playing conditions. We don't have to add or subtract anything
  7. Players improving past age 24/25 shouldn't be that rare as it is in the game. I'm not talking about massive improvements here, but consistent improvement that's seen with a lot of well performing players in the high tiers. However it is noticeable that players' development stagnates or is very slow past 24, at least in the highest tier. This can be verified with in-game tools in the development tab - I gave a typical example in one of my posts above where this is very visible. It's not really that far. I have never had any issues with the development rate of players who I'd use
  8. At the highest level, where players get the most development bonus, they in general don't improve much after 24 because they hit their PA too quickly. If you haven't already, after playing 10 to 20 seasons of top tier management, you'll start observing that. You can verify in-game with the development tab that most of your players won't develop much past 24. I am yet to see a Vardy - in FM20 I attempted to recreate a Vardy by stumbling on a player with 200 PA but only 120ish CA at age 23. He reached a certain CA by age 26, far from the 200 PA, and then stagnated for the rest of his career. I'm
  9. "not going into specifics" like you are here, is terrible communication. Saying that I am "spewing nonsense" without referring to anything is terrible communication. Not even @ me when you're calling me out is terrible communication. I know what I am saying and I always respond to other people with exact quotes. However the same courtesy is not always extended to me, for example like you haven't done here, and instead of replying to what I've said, other users sometime reply to what they think I've said (which is a form of logical fallacy, but lets not go into that). Here are some silly
  10. The issue is that the match experience is not nuanced enough, it is either 1 or a 0. I am talking about matches influencing individual attributes. As it is currently stands, this is not how development works in the game, it is following some hard-coded patterns. A player with a 7.4 average rating develops at approx the same pace as the one with 6.9 assuming both have the same number of matches and minutes played. Some players might score 20 goals in a season, but due to the hard-coded pattern they are following, we might not see their finishing increase as much as a player scoring 8 go
  11. This is such a weird criterion to base your argument on, for two things. First, there is only one situation in which a goal doubling long shot goals and the conversion rate works: 1 goal is scored in a large number of attempts and then an additional one is scored. When you do the maths and solve the system g/s=r and (g+1)/(s+1)=2r, here g being goals before the next one is scored, s being shots and r being the ratio, you end up with g=s/(s+2). The only way for g to be approximately an integer is when s is large. Secondly, you still keep insisting that when N pieces of information are give
  12. Lol no, I'm saying different things carry different weights. I can even quote myself saying literally that: "Completing a short simple pass would carry much less weight than completing a difficult pass." For someone calling other people thick, you really are bad at reading. I don't know, if I had a development model thought out to the level of detail you're expecting of me, I wouldn't be telling you anyway, I'd make a game. Why not all of them? The point is you can train all you want, but if you don't deliver, then training alone shouldn't contribute to an increase in the long shot att
  13. Player development has been an issue for a long time. Great strides have been made to improve it, however currently I'm talking about FM21, which is about the same as FM20. FM19 I did not play much - usually I play until newgens completely take over, but with players peaking at 23/24 this usually means that I know how the game world will look like after 7 or so seasons for the next 10 seasons due to predictability of development. Most players at high level and with decent training facilities are already close to PA at ages 23/24, leaving little space for development after that age. This I
  14. Here: "Players might well achieve dramatically higher pass completion from being instructed to play simple passes, but it would be absurd for this to increase the attribute which improves their range of passing." Here "This" being simple passing leading to higher pass completion, so just extrapolate what that means if no risky passes are attempted. No one is suggesting that buffing the completion rate with simple passes should lead to an increase in the attribute which improves the range of passing. Here: "but clearly it would be absurd for playing mostly against midgets to improve th
  15. I know what you said, I'm asking if that is what your opinion is. I'm not sure how the question mark "?" indicating a question, eluded you. Clearly the game already tracks key passes, pass directness, risk of completing a difficult pass etc. so why would only short simple passes have to be accounted for? Completing a short simple pass would carry much less weight than completing a difficult pass. Similarly, the game tracks key headers, player height/jumping reach etc. so why should headers only against short opponents be accounted for? The game already works in this way - players compl
  • Create New...