Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

wazzaflow10

Members+
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wazzaflow10

  • Rank
    Amateur

Biography

  • Biography
    Nothin like wakin up knowin that for 90 minutes the only thing that matters is the match

Interests

  • Interests
    Football

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Manchester United

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have to get this off my chest... I've never seen so many shots go straight to the keeper from point blank range. They wander offsides on freekicks from the defensive half repeatedly. And can't head the ball towards goal to save their life. I just don't understand what I'm supposed to do anymore in the game.
  2. Whole back line decided to stop chasing after the ball - Daejoen's first goal ~ 60'... on the plus side the Daejeon striker scored a 1v1 Additionally no option to select penalty taker appeared after VAR check for Suwon FC. Suwon FC v Daejeon.pkm
  3. Fair point. But you can also imagine a player that is quick can get away with being rather poor at marking because he has the pace/acceleration to recover and perform at the same level. It's like being Kurt Zouma instead of being John Terry. When Zouma's physical traits go, he'll have to learn to position and mark better because he won't have the pace to make up for mistakes in positioning or marking. Otherwise his CA would drop. Having he ability to use your weaker shouldn't affect your overall ability. All I'm saying is that you should be able to have elite attributes for the particular level but not have a CA that is 30 points higher than the next closest player in the league.
  4. So let's take that idea for a minute. First the game mechanics: If I'm looking for an elite poacher and I search for players with greater than 18 in finishing, I filter out the two footed player. It seems to me that having a two footed ability makes their attributes lower to balance the game and we don't have an easy exploit. That's why I want to run the experiment. Is there any difference in player performance controlling for all the variables I listed above based on their weaker foot rating. Because what I am hearing is that if we take players that are equal in CA, the two footed player will have lower attributes because being two footed costs CA. Having two useful feet doesn't make you a better player it makes you a more flexible/adaptable player and harder to close down, yet it comes at the cost of potentially being worse at critical values. Why can't we have a player that is completely identical except he can use both feet have 19 finishing why is that up to CA? Having two feet is useful but if my poacher is only a 15 at finishing, chances are I'm not going to sign him because that's just a tick above the top tier threshold. Whereas the player with 19 in finishing may be a donkey on his weaker foot but when he gets a chance with his preferred side, he'll more than likely score. And we know the game is played in one off instances. It's a probability engine, and if my right foot only player with 19 can manage to get his right foot on the ball, in that instance he'll have a better chance of scoring than the player with 15. Maybe someone would argue that if he could use his left he is less dependent on a certain scenario occurring to score. But the fact remains that he is still only a 15 at finishing. I'm not trying to unpack the match engine but if we make two players all else equal and one has 15 finishing and one has 19 what's the scoring lift? What is it if the player with 15 can use both feet? I know this isn't the wishlist thread but I'd almost rather see two values for technical attributes - one for each foot where its appropriate.
  5. I see your point, however, to me that is not a correct assumption. Or maybe rephrased, I am on the other side of the fence where a player with two feet should not require a higher CA to have equal ratings. Here's my point, suppose we take the current system where CA points are allocated to weak foot. When searching for a player that has the same ability the mental, physical, and technical attributes are much lower. Your ability to use both feet shouldn't make you an overall worse player in every other metric. By being two footed I certainly am not a less determined or slower player potentially because I use both feet. That is my criticism. Being two footed should be a skill, and perhaps a very hard PPM to master. But there should be a great benefit - not overpowering - but a benefit to being two footed, not a tax. A final point: If we assume to be 20/20 in footedness is to require 30 CA points, that means at the limit of 200 CA points we can have a player allocate 170 to attributes and be penalized for using both feet. That to me does not make sense. The purpose of my experiment is to see if in fact players who controlling for this equal ability players with two feet perform better than others.
  6. I've been playing FM since 07 and have always been curious as to why two footed players have worse stats than single footed players. Just to be clear, this isn't a question of CA/PA, but rather why the mechanic exists in the game. My curiosity extended to a question I'd like to posit (below) and hopefully answer with some regression analysis. The problem I'm running into is extracting all the data/variables I need run the experiment properly. So before I go on a long diatribe about a research question and possible methodologies, I'd like to first know if it is at all possible to extract in-game data and statistics at a large scale. I know I can get their attributes from genie scout but I'm running into trouble with extracting match statistics. Is it all possible to automate extracting match data on a large scale? If yes, I'll continue, if no, I'll have to think of a less elegant way to run my experiment. As a side note I'm a statistician by day and (currently) Rupel Boom manager by night on FM 16. So with all of that said, here's my proposed idea. I'd be willing to accept help from anyone who is interested in this idea. The research question is do two footed players have a significantly lower average match rating than one footed players? Methodology: The dependent variable is the Average match rating. I'm going to use a stepwise linear regression function to predict average match rating. I'll be using all of the players attributes (hidden, technical, mental, and physical), the players CA, PA, position played during the match, the league's average CA, league's average PA, the league's reputation, match opponent's average CA, average PA, current morale (though I would prefer to fix that to superb to eliminate any effects from that) etc. and anything else I can think that may be useful. I'll also be putting interaction variables together (since none of these ratings exist in a vacuum). The hope is that the variable "weaker foot" is statistically significant and negative. This would indicate that a player with a higher rating in weaker foot, controlling for all other variables, inversely impacts average match rating. If it's positive, it would mean that players with like attributes that can use both feet have a higher average match rating (which I doubt anyone would complain about). I have some other methodological musings as well doing things like paired samples and only varying the weaker foot attribute. Anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how to help me complete this project? Thanks in advance!
  7. I don't think it would be that hard for SI to implement. They have scouting and for human picks we get to "ask" our personnel. If they implemented some big board (similar to the team report) I think that'd be a great addition. I don't know all the dynamics of how the code was written but to add this for AI teams would seem to be an extension of the system rather than starting from scratch. It's a great idea though!
  8. Interesting idea and great work! Couple questions though. Did you just run the season once? Or did you do it multiple times and just post these results? I'm not at all saying that certain things don't look out of whack, but some could just be variance. It be worth running about 30 tests to see which statistics are statistically significantly different. fwiw I'd be willing to help with the significance testing.
  9. Part of the issue I had with 2007 was you always knew who the good players were regardless of what your scouting staff said. It was nearly impossible to miss. Very few players attributes significantly better after you drafted them. I think they've improved it a little where guys are not slam dunk picks anymore. I've only played through the 2015 draft though.
  10. I think it has less to do with the cap than it does to do with what the board set as player salary levels. But your point is well taken. The board/GM should recognize that they are getting good players in return that would be worth exceeding the budgetary limits. I think a GM that would turn down that deal might not be a GM for long.
  11. The standings in the NHL have the wrong sorting rules in my save. I'm level on points with Detroit and Toronto for 8th place but behind both in the standings. Detroit and I have played the same number of games and I have 1 more ROW than they do. Toronto has played 4 more games than I have. Per NHL.com If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order: -The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage). -The greater number of games won, excluding games won in the Shootout. This figure is reflected in the ROW column. -The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing. -The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season. NOTE: In standings a victory in a shootout counts as one goal for, while a shootout loss counts as one goal against. Apparently I'm not allowed to paste or attach anything. I did save at the point in my game where it occurred so I can upload if needed.
  12. Anyone else seeing very low morale for teams? Its not just human controlled either. Tampa Bay have been dominant in my save and has all but one player from very low to ok. The one player is "good." I'm not sure if it's a bug or feature but I doubt a team in first place would be feeling that depressed.
  13. Has there been any thought to include these in the game? For those of you who don't know: http://www.colliganhockey.com/nhl-cba-entry-level-contracts-slide/ I get that we can effectively decide to not to sign them until they are really going to be on the team. But it would be nice for guys who may be on the bubble to get a 9 game try-out with the pro club.
×
×
  • Create New...