Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

SFraser

Members+
  • Content Count

    2,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SFraser

  1. Nice post, especially the part about Complacency. I have only ever managed to make Complacent players Nervous or continue to be Complacent with my teamtalks.
  2. The first two posts in this thread provide a comprehensive arguement backed up by test data that CA and Attributes do not change at all significantly through training. As CA is simply a measure of the quantity of points distributed into attributes there is little point in drawing a distinction between the two. The most significant factors in an increase of CA is Personality and Match Experience, as shown by the tests above. Attributes obviously cannot grow past the level of CA present in a player nor drop below the level of CA. Understanding the relative weights of attributes alone is of limited utility ingame. Understanding that CA increases or decreases according to Match Experience and Personality, and that attributes themselves have a changing affinity towards CA increases or decreases according to Age is of most relevance. Training provides a negligible source of CA gain, while high levels of Professionalism, Ambition and Match Experience provide the greatest gain of CA. As is also shown in the thread above these gains of CA can be dramatic, for example 39 CA in 6 months under ideal conditions. The poster Riz Remes may be correct in principle in what he says but he is saying it in a way that is misleading. Attributes may grow according to their natural affinity for CA brought about by age combined to slider positions on the training schedules, but it is personality and match experience that will determine the exact extent of the gains or losses. By implying that Training raises Attributes which in turn raises CA he is contradicting a huge amount of detailed test work and basic trends that can be easily observed ingame just by playing a season.
  3. Just to add my 2 cents here. In the table quoted above, the Attributes with weight zero are not Free Attributes, they are attributes that do not change. During gameplay, CA will not be distributed into these attributes nor will CA be removed from these attributes. They are CA independent attributes that can only be altered by mentoring or particular ingame events. The table certainly looks accurate but it raises the question of whether or not some other vital pieces of the puzzle are missing, as Age certainly seems to have an impact on the growth of attributes, while the table would seem to imply that either a defender would naturally evolve into a striker and vice versa or that acceleration and pace are the easiest attributes to develop. Neither of which seem correct. I have long held the suspicion that attributes themselves have a particular affinity towards CA that is modified by Age, and that player Position is a modifier of this affinity. I do not doubt the accuracy of the table, but it certainly seems clear to me that some other vital mechanic is being missed. If I was to theorize I would say that the table represents multipliers for CA per attribute per position, with the attributes themselves having a particular affinity for CA that changes with Age. For example if Acceleration at Age 18 has a natural positive affinity for CA, then a Right Winger would gain a 6x multiplier to Acceleration gains at Age 18. If Acceleration at Age 30 has a natural negative affinity for CA, then a Right Winger would be fighting against a 6x multiplier for CA loss at Age 30. The size and type of this natural affinity, i.e. large increase - large decrease / small increase - small decrease would depend upon the natural attribute weights and age. As it stands, the table on it's own provides expected weights but an illogical explanation for their function. Central Defenders do not naturally evolve into Technical and Creative Set Piece experts, nor do they gain 6x Acceleration compared to Creativity throughout their careers. They do however go through an early phase of dramatic Physical Attribute increases and a later period of Physical Decline coupled to Mental Improvement. I would be looking to investigate the role of Age as a modifier of these Attribute weights. I would expect to find that a low age acts as a positive modifier for Physical Attribute weights, with increasing age making this 6x attribute weight increasingly negative. The weight of the attributes would not change, but the function of these weights as positive or negative modifiers would change with age. For example age 18 might be 6x(1), age 20 might be 6x(0.5), age 24 might be 6x(0.1), age 26 might be 6x(-0.1), age 28 might be 6x(-0.5) and age 30 might be 6x(-1). The relationship should look something like a quadratic curve. I don't have the mathematics background to produce an example of the equation but I can see the possible relationship as something like a quadratic curve. Food for thought anyway.
  4. Skill on multiple levels. I see what you did there. However ports beyond the PC make me uncomfortable
  5. Whizzing through games is lame, and completely defeats the point of a Football Management simulator. CM was good but FM takes it a different level in terms of immersion.
  6. I have not found a correlation between low skills and a refusal to train PPM's, but I have found a correlation between number of existing PPM's and refusal to train PPM's, and there is potentially a correlation between position and refusal to train PPM's. There may also be a correlation between certain hidden mental stats, i.e. professionalism and the refusal to learn/unlearn PPM's. I cannot get my professionalism 12, sportsmanship 8, temperament 8, 21 year old CM to learn any PPM's despite the fact he currently has none. Likewise Wayne Rooney (professionalism 13, sportsmanship 10, temperament 5) refuses to unlearn "Argues With Officials" and "Dives Into Tackles". Personally speaking, with a quick look through FMScoutGenie, if I had to select one attribute that most closely corresponds to my success or failure at getting players to learn PPM's it would be Professionalism, as sorting by descending professionalism (high to low) places the players with the highest rate of success at learning PPM's at the top and the players with the lowest, or zero rate of success at learning PPM's at the bottom, with the "50/50" or "maybe" players sitting right in the middle. It would seem to me that the cut-off point or the point of below 50% success rate given all other positive factors is 15 professionalism. Age matters, as does number of PPM's and perhaps so does position and personality for certain PPM's, but ultimately it appears to me that Professionalism is possibly the important statistic for determining whether a strong candidate for a new PPM accepts or refuses. Obviously this is a casual observation and has not been tested but I would suggest the Professionalism is a strong candidate for an important factor in learning PPM's. Every other hidden mental attribute shows no correlation whatsoever while Professionalism appears to match directly my ingame observations of who will and who will not learn PPM's.
  7. Not to derail this thread but in your opinion WWFan is Creative Freedom an offensive bias or a perception/technical difficulty bias? I have been playing around with Maximum Creative Freedom and it seems to me that events allowed through Maximum Creative Freedom are not inherantly riskier yet seem more aggressive. I have seen some audacious means of maintaining possession in tight areas and offensive moves that were far less risky in their apparent nature than less creative moves in the same context. From what I have seen Creative Freedom is not necessarilly offensively oriented untill coupled with offensive instructions, though no doubt there is a definate element of risk in high Creative Freedom. I would appreciate your opinion on this.
  8. Perhaps if you had given him Maximum Creative Freedom, Neutral Passing, Neutral Mentality and Neutral Player Instructions then your fantastic player would take the perfect option? What you think is "on" is irrelevant. Each player has their own mental attributes and their own ability to read the game. You either understand how they see the game rather than how you see the game, and how tactical instructions apply to them rather than you, or you do not see these things. When you apply tactical instructions it is not you that makes the critical decisions on an event by event basis. It is the player. If he does not choose the obvious pass then either he cannot see it, or your instructions are forcing him not to choose it.
  9. You think he has options. This is not the same as putting yourself in his shoes and understanding the effects of his attributes and his instructions. He cannot see multiple moves ahead. He cannot see how the AMC and AML and MC will offer him a pass after he has dribbled forward. He can dribble forward, yes, but his appreciation of the situation may be that he does not see this opportunity, or that he does not weigh it to be very beneficial or successful. Your mentality setting for this specific player mean that not dribbling forward and doing something else is better than dribbling forward, for him. If he is closed down then his decisions are impacted by composure. Ontop of that his passing range may be below the distance to the MC. Likewise the ball from the fullback to the MC may be a throughball, cutting out the closing down player. No matter the situation, his mentality forces him to balance all choices equally. The problems are that you have given him a neutral mentality while telling him to run forward, and you have given him short passing and no through balls. This instructs him to make the shortest and safest pass possible, and to run forward as often as possible but only when it carries no risk. His Creative Freedom settings not only allow him to choose no alternatives, but may even remove his ability to choose to dribble forward. His settings may make some kind of objective sense, but you have to apply these to a specific content of player attributes and situation, and you have to alter your settings according to this scenario. The greatest assistance you could give your fullback is to increase his passing range to neutral and give him TTB Mixed. This will allow him to try passes that are slightly less risky than the dribbles you want him to attempt. You could also increase his mentality to encourage more risk taking behaviour, but above all else you could provide this player with greater numbers of better passing options through his passing settings and the positioning of players around him. Just spotted this and Amen.
  10. The twisted logic is that if his only option other than clearing the ball is taking on the opponents entire flank untill help arrives within 2 metres and in acres of space, then he needs an attacking mentality that makes Ghengis Khan look like a coward.
  11. What do you expect from short passing, no through balls, limited creative freedom and a balanced mentality? You have instructed your fullback to either pass it to the guy in acres of space right next to him, or clear it. If you set his mentality to 1 he might just stay close enough to your Centrebacks to actually pass the ball, but then you force him into the ultra safe decision which probably means row Z.
  12. It was you that didn't understand me. Wrong footed Wingers supported by right footed fullbacks are the key to fantastic football in FM, when given sufficient Creative Freedom.
  13. It is far from half a solution. When supported by correct footed attacking fullbacks, wrong footed wingers are actually twice the solution of any other attacking system. Barcelona are not offensively potent by accident, nor was the wingplay of Rooney and Ronaldo for the last 2 seasons. Infact the top 2 sides of the last 2 years employ precisely the system you call a "half measure". I employ the exact same concept in my highly offensive 4-4-2. The Match Engine cannot be both rubbish and brilliant in the exact same situation.
  14. The positioning of the AMC and Striker is determined by Footedness, whereas under a 4-4-2 with position swapping the positioning of each player is determined by space. This is instantly a massive tactical problem with negligable gain upon solution. The AMC will have a natural tendency to double up with an MC while the lone Striker is forced into an entireally isolated position on the flank opposite the AMC's favoured foot. This demands the withdrawl of an MC to a defensive position, rather than this tactical development being a considered choice. The entire balance of the formation is then determined by the footedness of the withdrawn Striker. The next issue is that while the AMC is capable of joining up with the CM duo, his closing down is nigh on impossible to get functioning. His positional sense is likewise, in general, incredibly inferior but has the added bonus of forcing the CM duo to adapt to his inferiority. This leads to a situation where you place your MCd behind the unchangeable favoured position of the AMC, rather than in the tactically sound position. Possession has merit when you are controlling a favourable result. When in persuit of a goal it is an entireally different situation altogether.
  15. From my experience the 4-2-3-1 is extremely potent in its flexibility but also requires much more micromanagement on a game by game basis than the 4-4-2. If you lack the patients for game-by-game minute micromanagement or lack the knowledge to be able to custom design the specifics of the 4-2-3-1 to your opponent then there are question marks over the performance of every single position outside the defence and goalkeeper. Personally as far as FM is concerned I think dropping a Striker is more trouble than it is worth. If you need to pack the midfield then do so, otherwise the 4-4-2 is king in terms of solidity, offensive potency, flexibility and overall player performance in a single match context. I would much rather swap a Striker for an extra CM than figure out the compexities of the 4-2-3-1 on a match by match basis. 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 is as far as I go in FM09, because I can get them to work.
  16. I have been having a bash at these ideas myself and there definately seems to be some merit in them. I have been increasing Time Wasting from first notch of rarely to bang in the middle and the build up play of my team certainly appears more composed and far less direct. From what I have seen I would tend to interprate the sliders according to what they say, i.e. low time wasting means "waste no time" and aims to get the ball in the back of the net asap whereas high time wasting means "take your time" and aims to keep control of the ball. Tempo would therefore remain the overall speed of play once a decision has been made, with high Tempo meaning each move is sharp and fast. There definately seems to be something in this approach. Time Wasting is a much maligned slider that has been rarely touched in my tactics, but this has changed since reading this thread.
  17. I would agree with this analysis, it makes a lot of sense and certainly seems accurate when considering on-pitch behaviour. I have noticed that high Creativity and Technically skilled players look more dangerous when given high Creative Freedom, but don't necessarilly waste possession. Less is more eh? You need the right players, but there is no substitute for putting quality players in the right positions, giving them freedom and letting them do what they do best. Not all players are up to that level though, where when given the freedom they can single handedly destroy teams with a bit of genius you could never instruct. I really like that quote as it sums up how I view the tactical side of FM. The better your players the less you interfere, the worse your players the more you need to control them. Ofcourse if the opponent is quality you need to take measures to stop them exploiting your freedom.
  18. At first glance it seems to be closer to a theory of real life management than FM, but if you read it through you will notice that all the necessary elements of the strategy already exist in FM. Indeed I have been playing along lines similar to those in that post, with tempo strategy and man mangement and manipulation of relationships. If you read the motivation sticky and some of my tactic posts you will see that I have already mentioned all the elements as being possible to exploit. Joor just takes it further and turns it all into a guide for what I would consider the actual gameplay of FM09 once you have a basic grasp of all the details. It is a great post because when you sit back and look at all the tweaks you make or all the possibilities you consider but shrink away from because you are afraid you don't understand the mechanics, you realise that that post describes exactly how you are playing.
  19. 3-D is five years too early. I support this campaign, although we must make it clear that the horrific standard 2-D bug replay is frightening to those aged 12 and under, and that common ground should be sought. We should look to bring our small, accurate yet forlorn ancestor dots into common habitation with the bug-eyed, giant, action packed offspring-of-satan dots.
  20. This is an extremely impressive post for those getting involved with match strategies.
  21. Ha no, that is what happens when you type what you are thinking when you are thinking it, you get a garbled mess. Anyway I did some testing. 3 matches at first notch of rarely timewasting, 3 matches at middle notch and 3 matches at first notch of often timewasting. All matches against the same opponent under same match conditions with the same players, same tactics and identical teamtalks where possible, otherwise as close to similar as I could use. Here are the results. Left 3 results are low timewasting, middle three medium, right 3 results are often. It seems to me that as time wasting increased so did passing accuracy, distance ran and finishing condition, implying that there was a greater control of the ball and less violence/tackling/clashes/high speed closing down. Alternatively the weather which was drizzly and 1 degree C could have had an effect on condition. Ratings, motivation and goals all seem to be lower as time wasting increased from low to medium, however my team has spent 3 seasons playing at low time wasting so it is very possible the first set of results are through gelling. Otherwise high timewasting seems to have produced superior performances than medium timewasting. Medium timewasting was clearly a disappointment. The evidence would seem to support the hypothesis that low time wasting means an aggressive attacking game, whereas high timewasting means a more controlled and careful game. Medium timewasting for my team seems to have produced a kind of "caught in two minds" effect. Indeed from the results the only time Medium Timewasting ever really threatened was the game when both my strikers scored, which I think was the game where the opponents first choice CentreBack was stretchered off. Edit: Just to nip this in the bud, I don't remember discussing this issue with WWFan and I wasn't thinking of him in my previous post. Nor do I see the benefit in continuing this particular discussion. I simply pointed out that others that had been around here longer than me did not think Time Wasting had an effect outside of "Often" and then it was only relevant to set peices or falling over when tackled. I assumed they were right, and they may yet be proven right.
  22. I raised a point similar to this a while ago, and was subsequently shot down by a few of the more longer serving tactical posters, but I never received an explanation for Time Wasting that I considered a good definition for some of the quirks of it's behaviour. The points you raise are points I myself have observed and considered, but since my own discussion a while back I accepted the longtimer "concensus" and lowered timewasting and really did not look into it in any further detail. Obviously with a slider scale of 20 rather a Instruction choice of 3 it ought to be far less black and white than everyone assumes. My point was that Tempo and Time Wasting were two mutually complimenting sliders, Tempo being control over the speed of general play while Time Wasting was control over the bias between possession/care and scoring goals. This was the point that was argued down, but since you raise the point again it is perhaps worth looking into.
  23. Do they not also reduce the likelyhood of getting injuries? I seem to get very few training injuries despite intensive training schedules with 3 World Class Physios.
×
×
  • Create New...