Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Trump

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Trump

  • Rank
    Amateur

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Rotherham

Recent Profile Visitors

168 profile views
  1. I've been doing more testing, and I've discovered something of significance importance. Either the based nation or unique division has a significant effect on regen quality. If you put the top English teams into Romania Div 1, the best regen of the lot will only be around ~150 PA. In the English Premier Division, this would be ~190 PA. The same thing happens if you put Romanian teams into the English Premier Division - their top regen goes from 150 PA to 190 PA. It's not just the top regens that are changed, it's the average/median of the youth intake too. Factors that have been controlled for (that is, made equal): Nation youth rating, nation reputation, economic factor, nation attendances, nation ranking points, nation region, nation max youth age, nation state of development, nation federation financial power, nation tactical profile and preferred formations, division reputation, club continental cup nation set to the nation club is sent to Other factors I have tested and have found to make no difference: City, City attributes, Stadium city, City nation The city (or stadium city?) of the team determines a regen's nation. I found that whether English or Romanian regen nationality, the results were the same. Therefore it's either the nation the club is based in, or the unique division itself, that is the factor, not nationality itself. I suspect it is the unique division itself rather than the nation, because I've found an unexpected difference between the Premier League and English League 1 too (though this could be due to division level or city competition for recruitment). There are some things I haven't copied over, such as competition records, but I think this is unlikely to make a difference. This all means that youth rating is not the only national factor we have to take into account. We cannot merely presume that because Ivory Coast has a high youth rating, its domestic clubs can produce good regens. It seems that each division must be tested individually, as there is a hidden factor at work. Perhaps by testing each division I can create a ratio table by which to multiply, for there are only a few dozen divisions included by default in the game, and it wouldn't change much from year-to-year.
  2. There is a guaranteed process, and I'm going to identify it and disseminate it here (or elsewhere if need be). I may not be able to see the hidden variables, but I can measure them by their in-game outcomes. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it won't be able to put it back in again, and that is a pleasing thought to me. I do not subscribe to the belief that explaining the magic ruins the enjoyment of it, and it disgusts me that SI have decided to defend the magic over the years not just by remaining silent on the core mechanics of the game, but by actively misleading users and hiding variables in the editor. Knowing that 'youth facilities' and 'game importance' have zero effect on regen starting CA/PA doesn't take away from the magic of the game at all, as there is an inherent randomness, complexity and stability built into the mechanics of the game that makes it impossible to exploit unless you make the decision to reload saves and/or use 3rd party optimized tactics and/or genie scout. This is why the game continues to be enjoyable despite SI's mediocre (or even regressive) yearly refreshes of the game. Not knowing that 'youth facilities' and 'game importance' have no effect on regen starting CA/PA means however that it is impossible to make heads or tails of the game, even with years of experience. Mercurial and unreliable you say it should be.. well then why have player-managed facilities at all? Clearly the intention here is that there is some degree of predictive structure that players are meant to be able to utilize, but how can they utilize it if they have no way of knowing how the predictive structure operates?
  3. But why is England better than Romania at producing young footballers? I'm not asking why, I'm asking how, and not in terms of the real world, but in terms of how the game operates. A lot of us here (I presume) have operated on the assumption that all else being equal, youth rating is what determines regen quality. Going by my testing, this is wrong, because even when all factors are made equal and youth rating is equal too (120), teams in the English Premier Division still produce regens that have on average ~40 more PA than Romania Div 1! I'm not taking exception to this on the basis of realism, I'm taking exception to it because it means we cannot predict where good regens in the game will come from, or if a team in one nation can ever equal a team in another nation - even when edited! This is true, but besides the point. My interest is in the average or median CA/PA of regens. My personal reason is because I'd rather have one 190 PA regen every year, not 1 in every 10,000 intakes from a club in Micronesia.
  4. I've been trying to crack the code as to what exactly effects newgen starting CA/PA. I've worked out that most of the factors - most notably game importance - have no influence at all (or at least, nothing even slightly noticeable over ~10 youth intakes). Having worked out many of the factors out roughly, but well enough, I decided to test this using an unedited database, comparing the youth intake of an English Premier League team to a Div. 2 Romanian team. If my factors were accurate, it should predict the CA/PA with fair accuracy. But they weren't accurate. So I decided to control most of the variables I hadn't yet tested, such as economic factor and division level. But no matter what I did, the values didn't change (which also demonstrates btw, that these misc variables probably have no effect on regen starting CA/PA either). So I ended up deciding to do the ultimate control test. I used Romania Div 1, set the reputations, youth rating, economic factor, ranking points, etc. to the same as England, and swapped as many teams as I could from the English Premier league with the Romania Div 2 teams. And then I set those English teams to be based in Romania and to all be in one particular Romanian city/region. Testing this, I found that there was still no difference. Regens had improved a bit, yes, but only in line with Man Utd's reputation and other club factors - the highest PA regen out of all these teams I had put into Romania Div 1 was just ~150. I tested this several times, with the same results. Now anyone here acquainted with the various game factors would be quick to point out that it's probably the fact that I've used the same Romanian city/region, and that this is the cause of my results. However the Romanian teams I had put in the English Premier Division, I had left their city/region as the Romanian defaults, and yet they were now producing ~190 PA regens (as high as 197). Leave them back in Romania and they're back to producing ~150 PA regens again. Keep in mind that this is all with youth rating, economic factor, etc. all equal. I would be inclined to test this further, but I have already previously established through testing that city population, city attraction, etc. has no effect on regen CA/PA (multiple teams in one city does effect the lower youth recruitment teams a bit, but that's not relevant here). tl;dr SI is discriminating against people, based solely on their country of origin. Now I'm not asking SI to 'fix' this, as their track record shows they do very little year to year and they often botch things even more when they do do something; I'm just pointing this out so people aren't operating under the illusion that all nations in the game are equal and that the only fixed determinant is 'youth rating'. I guess 'youth rating' has been taken as the only fixed determinant since forever, because it seems to make obvious sense - Germany and Brazil produces lots of good regens, Papua New Guinea and San Marino don't. But my testing has shown me there are some other factors at work here, probably hidden, and so you can't just judge by the youth rating if you want to be accurate. I'm thinking now that I'll just test each individual division, as is, to work out the exact ratios. Youth recruitment, junior coaching, etc. seem to be applied to every nation in the same way, so I think all that's really needed is an additional table of ratios to be applied to each individual division in a calculation.
  5. A separate post for this. I have been attempting to further confirm my values of the factors by testing comparing a club in Romania Div. 2 (unedited) to my West Ham results (unedited). If my factor values are correct, then I should be able to predict accurately the difference in regen CA/PA by calculating with the factor values. Unfortunately, it's not lining up at all. I suspect it is because I am not accounting for other factors, in particular league reputation, which I've completely forgotten about. I'm thinking perhaps league reputation, because the difference between West Ham (premier league - '172') and FC Bayern 'perfect' ('200') would be easy to overlook, whereas the difference between West Ham ('172') and Romania Div 2 ('86') is significant. That said, there are probably some other factors at play, or I have to reassess the curve/interactions of my factor values.
  6. What has an immediate effect on regen quality Well I look at it this way: If the effect is so negligible that it's not apparent from 3.. 6.. or even 10 intakes, then it's not even worth identifying. I don't know about other people, but I've rarely played beyond a few years when I play. Now, you posit that there is a shift of the distribution towards lower values, but my testing shows that the average remains the same. The average would only be an inaccurate judge in this case if along with the lower-shifted distribution, there were more high outliers to offset it - but if you look at my results, the highest outliers for 'completely useless' were 135, 138 and 138. For 'very important' the results were 134, 143 and 146. What about if we look at medians, is there a difference there? 105, 116 and 117 for 'completely useless' vs. 104, 109 and 114 for 'very important'. To add to the West Ham results, I can also add the samples from my FC Bayern testing, so we have a sizable sample size now showing no observable effect of 'completely useless'. Also, another reason to doubt that higher outliers would be created to offset the shift in the average, is that it wouldn't contribute to the realism of the game - why would a completely useless nation be more likely to produce top-tier regens in the game? I've thought about 'game importance' might actually be doing. I noticed during my testing that 'very important' seemed to produce a bunch of non-club low quality regens every second intake test or so. It could just be coincidental, but it would make sense as a mechanic - more relevant nations (i.e. England) produce a few more low/mid-tier players (and staff?) to sort of fill out the game for immersion, and less relevant nations (i.e. Afghanistan) don't get this to save on performance. Another thing it could be doing is that perhaps it doesn't effect the human manager's regens, but maybe it does effect the AI's regens. This kind of makes sense if you consider a human player managing in India - if that human player gets East Bengal to championship-tier quality within a few years, do you think it's realistic or rewarding for the other clubs in the league to get up to a similar standard also, simply because one team keeps winning all the cups? I plan on looking more into this, but from my cursory glances I didn't notice a change in regen quality for the AI. You say that 'completely useless' might shift back to its default setting within a year. It's possible, but I don't think it's likely. I think if it did happen, it's most likely to happen as a bug, for if the setting is dependent on other factors, why have it as an attribute in the first place? If, for instance, 'game importance' is ultimately determined by a combination of 'reputation' attributes, then why have a separate setting for it - or how would even changing it effect anything? The number of staff and/or non-club regens explanation seems much more likely to me.
  7. I'm happy to share my method so anyone can verify, but to nip this in the bud I've decided to do a new test with just one edit of setting England to 'completely useless'. The reason why I made FC Bayern a 'perfect' club was because I wanted to measure the full effect of the options, which isn't necessary here. This method also addresses the points that maybe my results don't apply for the typical user, and that different nations/leagues/teams produce different results due to hidden variables. My settings for the game: To save on time, I've started unemployed and holidayed until 27th Febuary. I've then added a human manager of West Ham with optimal attributes and holidayed until 2nd March (youth intake day is 1st March). West Ham - Normal 1756 PA 773 CA 1575 PA 623 CA 1800 PA 771 CA 1710 PA average 722 CA average West Ham - 'Completely Useless' 1609 PA 698 CA 1840 PA 793 CA 1783 PA 746 CA 1744 PA average 746 CA average So it's clear that the 'completely useless' setting has no effect on regen quality, but there's more to be gleaned from these tests. The average of those 6 totals are: 1727 PA 734 CA The average I have for a 'perfect' FC Bayern (many samples, some tainted by a few foreign nation regens, which I'll fix later) is: 1964 PA 906 CA Given my findings, that are summarized in the OP, I would expect the following for West Ham compared to 'perfect' FC Bayern: 6800 rep (-2.7% CA) 15 youth recruitment (-4% CA & PA) 12 youth coaching (-13.4% PA) nation youth rating 120 (-8.4% CA & PA) City competition from 3 teams w/ higher reputation & youth recruitment (-5% CA) totals: -25.8% PA, -20.1% CA The real difference is: -11.3% PA, -19.1% CA This stumped me for a while. Is the curve for the variables different from what I have assumed? Are there really hidden variables I cannot account for? Well thankfully it turns out neither is the case. Turns out that setting 'youth coaching' to 10 produces similar results to youth coaching 20. I don't know why this is the case, but it does seem to fully explain the difference, for if we remove the -13.4% PA from the youth coaching effect, it becomes -12.4% PA, -20.1% CA which is very close to the actual averaged difference of -11.3% PA, -19.1% CA. For those confused about % figures in the above calculations, I've assumed that the variables all follow the same curve, where '1' is 25% worse than '20', but '10' is only 10% worse than '20', and '15' is only 4% worse than '20', etc. I do at least 3 tests for each setting, some I've done more. My conclusions are based on the averages of these tests (and whatever else I notice). I've tested 'perfect' FC Bayern 12 times, but I will need to redo this data as the foreign regens that come through sometimes will have skewed the results downwards. I think 3 tests is good enough to get a general idea of what the effect is, and 10 is ideal. I've thought about making some graphs, particularly the curves of the variables once I flesh them out fully. I might do it if I have the time.
  8. Youth Recruitment 10 1739 PA 849 CA 1832 PA 842 CA 1711 PA 815 CA 1760 PA average (~11% decrease) 835 CA average (~10% decrease) The effect is close to, but not exactly linear. Youth Recruitment 10 + Club Reputation 5000 1800 PA 819 CA 1851 PA 812 CA 1873 PA 819 CA 1841 PA average (~7% decrease) 817 CA average (~11.5% decrease) Although there is just a 1.5% decrease in CA compared to above, CA usually follows PA in ratio, so to see CA decrease while PA has increased by 4%, it suggests that making the club reputation 5000 probably has about the -5% CA effect we would expect from the linear extrapolation of 10000 rep to 1 rep resulting in -10% CA. Notably there is no evident interaction between the factors here. They seem to behave together as they would separately. Next I decided to try and knock out three birds with one stone by setting Youth Recruitment '10' with Club Reputation '5000'. The three things this tells us is: 1. The effect of Club Reputation '5000' 2. The effect of interaction, if any, between Youth Recruitment and Club Reputation 3. The effect of higher youth recruitment/reputation clubs in the same city on regen quality For the third, I edited the City to include several of the top German clubs and have an inhabitants range of just 5,001-10,000 in case that affects some kind of regen 'pool'. Youth Recruitment 10 + Club Reputation 5000 + Competing teams in same city w/ higher club reputation & youth recruitment 1777 PA 720 CA 1760 PA 784 CA 1769 PA 777 CA 1768 PA (~10.7% decrease) 760 CA average (~17.7% decrease) It appears increased city competition is having a non-negligible effect on CA at least. The effect is modest but significant. PA is within the bounds of random difference; more testing can be done to confirm. I will add these findings to the OP.
  9. Another example of 'completely useless': 935 CA 2107 PA Highest individual PA of 164 also suggests an unaltered distribution
  10. Averaged, but small sample size. The only one I'm not too confident about is club reputation has a 10% effect on CA, it could be just random variation. I plan on doing more testing. As to what has been posted by the forum mod and SI researcher above, the first thing I have to say is that what got me started on this is that the information posted in the forums over the years by SI staff and moderators has not only been lacking/vague, but (from memory) they have even contradicted each other. Youth recruitment has a strong effect on CA/PA. On average it seems around 25% on both, or ~20-30% with the random variation. I don't know what 'youth recruitment' interacts with, but I do not think it relates to the club scouting range. Bonus note: It seems that players entering from an affiliate club into the youth intake, are affected by their nationality's youth rating. Or the aspects of the affiliate club perhaps. I discovered this when in my testing with FC Bayern, I noticed that the American affiliate regen that would always come through, it typically had one of the lowest PA and seemed to drag down the total PA of the group as well. Based on my testing, part of this is false. Youth facilities do not affect regen starting CA/PA at all. Perhaps there is a small indirect effect where Youth facilities improve club reputation, thus increasing regen CA, but given that the difference between '1' and '10000' club reputation is ~10% CA only, the effect would be negligible. This is sort of correct, but also sort of wrong. There is a randomness factor, and in my testing it appears to make about a 10% difference one way or the other, in regards to total PA or median PA. What you imply that is wrong is that any club in any nation can produce a 200 PA regen. Technically this is possible I assume, but not practically possible. For instance just by setting 'Youth Recruitment' from '20' to '1' in an otherwise 'perfect' club in a perfect country, typically the highest PA regen you'll get is ~120PA. Suppose only 1 in 10 intakes then has a 150 PA regen, what are the chances a 190 PA regen will be produced? Perhaps a 1 in 10,000 chance? What throws some confusion on the matter is that many of us have had the experience of getting that wonderful regen from Saint Pierre and Miquelon - but it's important to note here that you most likely didn't get that player from a Saint Pierre and Miquelon club, but from either non-club generation or generation at your own club using only the nation youth rating as a point of difference. Remember, there is only a 25% CA/PA difference between nation youth rating '1' and '200'. I highly doubt that any staff member affects regen CA/PA. HoYD does have an effect on the personality values of the regens. Youth coaches? I don't think they affect regens in any way at all, but I'm happy to be corrected. I think my findings provide some important insights. For instance, if you are in the Conference North, what you might want to do is focus on getting higher CA players first up. In that case, it would be important for you to know that 'youth recruitment' increase CA by 25% while 'junior coaching' increases CA by 0%. Conversely, suppose you're at an elite club or you can afford to take the low CA now and reap the increased PA later, you'd want to know that 'junior coaching' increases PA by 40%, while youth recruitment only increases PA by 25%. The order of what you improve could make quite a significant difference. A lot of people are also operating on false assumptions or even false information being told to them. I myself used to believe 'junior coaching' and 'youth facilities' had each other's roles. It's not just about knowing how to develop one's own players either, but knowing where to look for players. Looking in the editor, one might think it's a good idea to keep an eye on Egypt with it's 138 youth rating. But no Egyptian club has 'junior coaching' above 13. One might also discount Czech Republic because their 'game importance' is less than 'very important', or have no clue what impact a club's reputation has (i.e. 'Should I keep an eye on Ivory Coast's ASEC Mimosas, given their reputation is only 4750?'), etc. You say if I'll see different results if I run the test at the same club multiple times. That's not what I've found. There is some random variation, around ~10% either way. For instance, testing the entirely 'perfect' club, I got a low of 1810 PA and a high of 2159 PA. When I set the 'Nation Youth Rating' to 1, my first result was 1405 PA. The median PA went from 110-128 PA to 85 PA. Clearly there is a discernable difference. The chances of getting 1405 total PA at a 'perfect' club just through random chance is probably something like 1 in 10,000 I'd guess. I chose to use FC Bayern instead of creating an entirely new club/nation so that no hidden variables would come into play. I also only tested the difference of one variable at a time, and used the maximum difference to make the effect as clear as possible. I suspect that the variables, and perhaps their interactions with each other, do not result in linear differences, but what we can say for sure is that 'junior coaching' does not affect CA at all (except perhaps it's small indirect effect via club reputation), which is a big deal! From my testing, game importance did not change the number of regens (always 16) nor CA/PA. I don't know if it effects the number of non-club regens produced, or their quality, but a theory I have read is that game importance effects how many staff are generated in that country. My testing disagrees with two claims here. FC Bayern with 20 youth recruitment and 10000 club reputation produced the same amount of total CA/PA whether Germany's 'game importance' was set to 'very important' or 'completely useless'. Are you perhaps saying that 'game importance' determines how many clubs can get high quality regens? For instance a lesser game importance may reduce the possible number of great regen producing clubs from 10 to 2? The second thing is that setting 'youth facilities' from '20' to '1' did not effect starting CA/PA at all. As you can see from my attachments: 'Perfect': 877 CA 1927 PA 'Completely Useless' game importance: 902 CA 1956 PA 'Youth Facilities' set to '1': 870 CA 2087 PA
  11. And what we found surprised us For whatever reason, they won't tell us the basic mechanics of this game. So I decided to investigate some of them myself. Here's what I've found out in regards to regen quality (immediate effects only): Youth Importance = NO EFFECT Youth Coaching = Changing from '20' to '1' reduces PA by ~40%, CA appears unaffected. '10' appears equal to '20', but this requires further investigation. Youth Facilities = NO EFFECT Youth Recruitment = Changing from '20' to '1' reduces both CA & PA by ~25%. Changing from '20' to '10' reduces CA & PA by ~10%. Effect is also influenced by youth recruitment of other clubs, exact amount TBD. Club Reputation = Changing from '10000' to '1' reduces CA by ~10%, PA appears unaffected. Changing from '10000' to '5000' reduces CA by ~4%. Training Facilities = NO EFFECT Nation Reputation = NO EFFECT Nation Youth Rating = Changing from '200' to '1' reduces CA & PA by ~25% Game Importance = NO EFFECT City Attraction = NO EFFECT City Inhabitants Range = NO EFFECT Based Nation or Unique Division = One of these appears to have a significant effect. Possible hidden nation variable. City competition (clubs existing in same city with higher youth recruitment & reputation) = Modest reduction of CA (range of perhaps 5-10%?), no effect on PA. Notes: The above was tested on FC Bayern, edited into a 'perfect' club in a 'perfect' region, 'perfect' country, etc. 'CA' and 'PA' here refers to the cumulative total of one youth intake (16 regens). This is because the highest individual regen PA can be highly variable - you might get one 190 PA regen, or several 160 PA regens, but the cumulative total PA of the intake only has a random variation of about ~10%. A more accurate method may be to compare the median PA of the intake, but comparing the cumulative total seems to do just as well. For instance in one of my tests for changing 'Nation Youth Rating' from '20' to '1', median PA decreased by 28.6% and cumulative PA decreased by 29%. I'm sure most people here already know this, but for those who don't, youth and training facilities only affect CA increase over time, not the initial CA/PA. The caveat to my testing is that it only shows the difference between the absolute best and the absolute worst. The effects could be curved instead of linear when plotted on a graph, but my testing does give a general idea at least as to what does and does not effect regen quality. To sum up: Nation Youth Rating = pa/ca factor (25% effect) Youth Recruitment = pa/ca factor (25% effect) Youth Coaching = pa factor (40% effect) Club Reputation = ca factor (10% effect)
×
×
  • Create New...