50-pence
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by 50-pence
-
-
On 22/07/2022 at 02:55, Rashidi said:
The roles are still the same as they were in FM21
Are you sure? I see wide center-backs that weren't there before.
0 -
-
Thank you guys.
@Seb WassellWould you say the way WWY is *supposed* to rise is merely by incorporating youth into the first team? Or training youth? Developing youth into full regulars? Working as U19 and U23 intl coach?
What's the path to it?
0 -
34 minutes ago, DazRTaylor said:
I will add my opinion as you linked to my topic. I have also recorded my stats on the dafuge Challenge this season.
In my time of recording my games on the forum, around four years or so, my LoD, Adaptability & WWY have never increased. Bug or working as intended? Only SI can answer.
Thanks for bringing this up. From what I've read, LoD can be increased by disciplining/fining your players for suspensions, performances, etc. (See the discipline contract at the start of the season). And adaptability can be increased by taking a job in a foreign country/a country where you have to learn a different language. I'm inclined to believe those reports.
WWY, however, doesn't seem to change, even when someone works with plenty of young players (23 and under). As a last ditch effort, I wonder if it is only increased if you coach a youth team (such as an youth nation in an international competition).0 -
You would think so. But reviewing others' experiences that doesn't seem true.
See the stat progress for managers in this challenge (ctrl+f "WWY"). You'll find virtually all stats increase except for WWY (
)
Likewise here, notice all stats improve except LoD, Adaptability, and WWY. We know how to improve LoD and Adaptability, but not WWY ()
1 -
24 minutes ago, Zeonflux said:
Wrong thread fella 😉
Whoops. Hid it!
0 -
Hi there. I've done a great deal of searching and it looks like nobody has an answer:
Is there really no way to improve your manager's "working with youngsters" attribute?
Everything I've seen suggests it's impossible, and I'd love to get confirmation from a staffer.
0 -
The game has just reached full-time (as seen on the top left), but look at the first pep-talk option: "...let's get out there for the second half."
That doesn't seem right, clearly.
0 -
On 03/11/2019 at 20:40, Pattric_b said:
The best prospect from my one intake so far
Now that's what I call a beard!
0 -
edit: Nevermind, read you wrong.
The test to see if mentality influences it needs to be more thorough though. Did you try two vastly different mentalities to see how it influenced the graphs?
0 -
Stefaan, it's interesting that lowering their PA lowered their graphs. I'm assuming you didn't touch their mental stats or hidden attributes.
Could it be that the graphs are connected to PA/CA/Attribute development?
0 -
50-pence I've done some testing, like you suggested.
This is the result after 120 days in training and matches. the two players are identical in every aspect. There training s the same, their coaches too. They have the same role in the team. botrh players played equal matches and the graphs showed slight differences. Both players improved a lot because I had given them enough potential to improve. There was absolutely no obvious impact on training.
Awesome. Were all the training categories equal or was the graph on one category higher than another?
What about match rating?
0 -
But how would you do this? No match experience is the same. What if one palyer gets a good grading, and the other on doesn't? What if one player scores? What if...?
I think it's possible to guesstimate based on their match stats and match rating related to mentality.
That's right 50-cent, it's what I explained in this post...And it came from Vaughan who explained that to make things more simple for everyone, SI mixed a lot of parameters to produce the graph.But I don't want to explain again and again.
No, I gotcha. I don't think anyone really knows yet if the graphs are truly an important influence. I mean in terms of whether they significantly influence stat gain.
0 -
That's a good issue to bring up, as I do think the bar graphs need to be looked at in more detail not only in order to make sense of them, but also to make use of them. They clearly have a purpose irrespective of confusion and obscurity of what they show, so understanding them really should be a massive help when training players.
The problem is that so far the contemporary and consenus understanding has been that the bar chart levels relate to category intensive levels which relates to absolute levels of "maintain" and "improve" and so on, which is nonesense. It's an easy conclusion to jump to, most people jump to it, but it is wrong and you yourself have witnessed that the correlation is not between height and improvement/decline, but change and improvement/decline. I myself have seen that as well. Height is irrelevent, it does not function as the consensus states. Change is what matters irrespective of height.
I personally am not sure exactly what they show. I am reasonably convinced that they do not account for the number of attributes per category, and should therefore be viewed relatively, i.e. Aerobic at a high level is equal to Attacking at a low level. That I am pretty sure of.
However beyond that, what they display is not obvious. Do they display the effect of the training category? Do they show the quantity of CA being displaced? Do they show the attribute change end result from CA displacement + player age and CA gain/loss?
Personally, I would avoid getting too hung up on the bar charts when training players if you do not know for sure what they show. They are afterall only a measure of information, when the input and end result is the key factors. Getting too caught up in bar charts and ignoring input/end result leads to things like the Training Line Theory which produces terrible results and theorises behaviour completely contrary to known game mechanics, yet is accepted as fact because "it makes sense" and is easy to understand, even if completely wrong.
I would like to know precisely what they show, but untill I know that I am happy to completely ignore them in favour of a direct approach of tweaking sliders and observing the actual end result given the actual gameplay mechanics known to exist. Additional information is not always necessary, and if the additional information is obscure then it is unwise to attempt to base your activities on it.
The idea that graphs reflect training intensity itself is incorrect.
A more likely structure: [training intensity + player traits + coach traits + environmental conditions = bar graph]
One way to test this would be to have two identical players take the same routine at the same club with the same coach with the same match experience.
Result:
-If the graphs for both players are virtually identical after repeated tests, then we can establish that traits + match experience = graph.
-If the graphs are wildly different, then we are dealing with RNG or some other factor that we aren't aware of.
0 -
Been reading this thread and it inspired me to experiment on those bar graphs. jim morrow appears to be right:
With every outfielder on the identical generic schedule (General maxed out) after three months, the results on the graph were unique for each player. Tellingly, every player stat increases demonstrated positive correlation with bar graph levels, although the opposite wasn't always the case (high bar graph didn't always lead to stat increase).
In one player, stat decrease was linked to relatively low initial graph reading and progressively decreasing bar graphs over the course of three months.
This doesn't take into account CA/PA, hidden personality stats and perfect training and coaching facilities.
But it indicates a potential variable for training that if optimized would lead to even better control of stat gains. My theory is that the graphs do indeed reflect player response to training, probably influenced by player personality as well as the coaches motivation abilities, if not other stats as well.
Anyway, not looking to take this thread on a tangent. Just wanted to throw my findings out there, that stat increases appear to be influenced by the graphs. The fact that the graph categories don't account for individual stats and stat concentration is irrelevant to this particular scenario.
0 -
Is there a way to cancel a PPM assigned to a player?
0 -
They are absolute, not relative.
However, you don't necessarily need to be precise with your placements. You can put the slider anywhere in the "area" in see the same effect.
A lot of it is personal opinion. For example, it's generally thought that tackling is crucial for a centre back, but I know of one user who doesn't mind if his centre backs can't tackle, because they don't need to tackle in his system.
Do you want your central midfielders to be pacy? Do you want your full backs to get forward and whip in crosses? Do you need your centre backs to be good at shooting as they'll be cutting inside?
If you are using the TC, it's done for you with the highlighting. If not, think of what you want the player to do, or what skills you'd like him to possess, and then look for attributes that go with your expectations and desires.
Thanks a bunch!
0 -
Is there a chart that details what attributes are important for what position?
0
There are hidden playing instructions? How do I verify this?
in Football Manager General Discussion
Posted · Edited by 50-pence
Many sources (most notably guidetofm.com) claim that player roles/duties have hidden player instructions, such as " Move into a more advanced position to close down" for Stopper duties. Other sources, on reddit, etc, have said the same thing."
How do I verify this? How do they know? Is there a way to test this?