AI Experiment - what would happen if?

[Watford_fc_4_lyf]

Great thread mate!

KUTGW!

[DS]

Originally posted by leftback in the changing room:

Excellent stuff kipfizh. Your determination to see this through to the end is extremely impressive!

As well as throwing up some very interesting questions, this test has also proved several of SI's statements about the qualities of players as they age.

Firtsly lazy players will decline rapidly as they get older and retire earlier - Vis Idiots A & B (RIP Idiot B ) However it appears that high ambition doesn't necessarily equate to keeping yourself in good shape.

Secondly Strikers and wide midfieldes decline earlier - and significantly more rapidly - than defenders and central midfielders. These attacking minded players have suddenly gone from around 190 CA to around 178 CA. The exception is Striker 3, who has played far fewer games than his colleagues.

You've also provided ammunition for the argument that people get far too hung up on CA and PA. Look at striker 4. A CA of 178 and yet a Avg rating of 7.72.

KUTGW!

really strikers IRL dont go so rapidly. It is usually wide midfielders then central midfielders.

[leftback in the changing room]

Originally posted by DS:

really strikers IRL dont go so rapidly. It is usually wide midfielders then central midfielders.

Three words - Jimmy Flloyd Hasselbaink. From 20 goal a season man to has been in two seasons.

[DS]

Originally posted by leftback in the changing room:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DS:

really strikers IRL dont go so rapidly. It is usually wide midfielders then central midfielders.

Three words - Jimmy Flloyd Hasselbaink. From 20 goal a season man to has been in two seasons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what about romario he is still going at 41 and sheringham is also still going and at a good level.

[zeusbheld]

Originally posted by DS:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leftback in the changing room:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DS:

really strikers IRL dont go so rapidly. It is usually wide midfielders then central midfielders.

Three words - Jimmy Flloyd Hasselbaink. From 20 goal a season man to has been in two seasons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what about romario he is still going at 41 and sheringham is also still going and at a good level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the careful observer will note that, statistically, romario and sheringham are outliers.

all in all i think players fade at about the right time, but i wouldn't mind more variation in the outliers than i've seen.

[zeusbheld]

this experiment has been brilliant. i read all twelve pages in one sitting, a near-miracle given that i was, tragically, born without an attention span.

the ideal way to do the staff quality experiment would be to start out with identical bandits teams/games on separate machines, and run them concurrently, with the only initial difference being the staff. if it was 2 years ago, i'd have volunteered to help, as i used to run a computer lab but i no longer have access to anything like that.

keep the updates comin'! looks like bandits will make the big time one day (slowly).

[Hunter Thomson]

Greatest Thread Ever! Kudos for sticking with this and writing fantastic updates that have clearly sucked so many people in and illuminated a variety of aspects of the game engine to us

[Craig Williams]

Quality work.

[kipfizh]

Originally posted by Walcott's Wonderkids:

Great stuff again Kipfizh, you had me going there for a second when I saw the league position of the Bandits

Sorry about that - it was late

One question Kipfish, you probably have been mentionned earlier, but I can't find it in the last few pages... on the Bandits' playing page there is the affiliated clubs submenu, could you possible tell us /re-tell us, who their Parent or more likely Feeder Clubs are please?

They do not have any parent clubs, but they have Boreham Wood (if I remember correctly, I'll confirm later) as a feeder club. No great shakes there.

[kipfizh]

So, with the ex-Bandits on the cusp of retirement, this seems like a good time to reflect upon what we have seen so far in this experiment. Back on page 1, I asked a lot of questions - time for the answers:

The club

Would the club, in financial security, keep hold of the players for at least a couple of seasons, having unparalleled success?

Well, they didn't have a ridiculously good start - sure, they won the FA Trophy and the league, but with all those starlets they could've won a major cup too. The players left pretty quickly as the overtones of the giants proved strong.

Verdict - that's fair enough. The manager wasn't great, so he brought the standard down, and with an unambitious chairman and manager they was no stopping the players leaving for the big time.

Would these starlets give them a successful cup run or two?

They won the FA Trophy, but even with all the starlets only managed round 2 of the FA Cup. Then they left.

Verdict - I don't think the manager instilled the belief in them that they could go on a serious run.

Would the players all demand to leave, leaving the club rich but playerless and in deep trouble?

No-one ever demanded to leave, but the offers came flooding in and the lack of ambition shown by the small club meant the transfers were inevitable. As for being in trouble, they signed enough players to cover and never struggled in the Conference once the starlets had left.

Verdict - I'm happy with this. They knew they couldn't keep them as their ability was far too good, so they signed a bunch of players and their youth academy saw to the rest. The players were too loyal to kick up a fuss while they were there.

Would their money and profit coming from the ground be wisely invested in more players and a steady climb up the divisions?

Now, this has been the cause of the most debate here. The short answer is - not really. The long answer has more to do with the ambition of the chairman and the series of managers he has employed. There is no doubt that the potential in the club has not been fulfilled, because there have been plenty of excellent players available, and ignored.

Verdict - I'm going to sit on the fence on this one. On the negative side, the reputation of the club does not appear to have been raised enough by the financial situation there. On the flip side of that, the managers have not signed the players that would've happily joined. A future experiment (in design) will address this, by investigating further the effects of the attitude of the backroom and board staff. Watch this space.

Would the money be worthless as no player of talent would join the club?

Yes and no. Logic suggests that better players should've been available to sign, but countering that, there are always enough decent players willing to sign to enable the club to rise at a regular rate.

Verdict - again, keep tuned for another experiment to examine this further, but this may be the main point to come out of this one. What would happen if the Bandits had a man in charge who would stop at nothing to see them succeed? We shall see.

Would the chairman get power hungry and go through a series of managers?

No. He sacked managers only when they failed to meet pre-season expectations, and never set those expectations particularly high.

Verdict - he isn't ambitious, so this is fair.

[kipfizh]

The good players

Would their loyalty see them stay with the Bandits for years, leading a rise through the divisions?

No. Their reputation rose too fast as word of their ability raced round the football world. With the Bandits still in the non-league, and Champions League football on offer, the result was inevitable.

Verdict - this is absolutely right. Loyalty only stretches so far, and in a short playing career they couldn't hang around. England caps soon after, with many medals to boot, proved them right. Besides, with 22 starlets, none could be outright stars of the club.

Would they leave in the first summer or January transfer window for a big club?

Not one of them left in January, but twenty left in the summer at the end of the first season.

Verdict - with the Bandits yet to embark on cup runs, the players' reputations were still close to zero, as I'd set them to 1 across the board. By the summer, the scouts at the big boys had found them. This, again, is absolutely right.

When would they become household names?

During their second season, when they started playing for the top sides, and in a few cases, internationally.

Verdict - absolutely right. Too good to hold down, seeing such talented teenagers would send the media into a fit.

Just how much would they command in transfer fees?

When leaving the Bandits, not a lot, although clauses raised that. For the few that moved clubs, enormous.

Verdict - once finding a home, barely any ex-Bandit moved, since they were so loyal. When they did, it was for massive money. This is spot on.

Who would they go to?

All the big boys in the Premiership, and one daring centre back became a star in Milan.

Verdict - again, this is excellent - the best clubs have the best scouts and the most appeal. Once there, the players became loyal and never left.

[kipfizh]

The bad players

Would they overcome their fragile and arrogant mental states to become world beaters?

They were excellent players, but never achieved as much domestically or internationally as they could've.

Verdict - attitude holds people back folks. Here's the proof.

Would anyone sign such a pair of troublemakers?

Absolutely. They may need a slap, but they are still awesome players, when they can be bothered.

Verdict - absolutely right. Look at Anelka.

Just how many clubs would they get through in their careers?

One every few seasons, forever hating the club they left behind.

Verdict - absolutely right. Look at Anelka. I feel I'm repeating myself.

How many players would end up hating them?

As far as I can see, this didn't happen.

Verdict - did they stay at a club long enough?

Would they ever go to a big club, or would their hatred of all the clubs hold them back?

Never. Too petty.

I guess with such a hatred, it would never happen. Would Gary Neville ever join Liverpool? Thought not.

How much trouble would they get with officials?

Plenty. They seemed to think cards were collectables.

Verdict - again, spot on. They were violent thugs on the field.

Would they ever get international recognition for the right reasons?

Both played many times for England, but as the ex-Bandits dominated, they were often left out. Their international careers also finished earlier.

Verdict - they were too good not to be capped, but with the Bandits having a better attitude, they had to be first choice. And with the idiots' abilities fading faster, their careers ended early, correctly.

[zeusbheld]

perfect timing for the summary.

eagerly awaiting the twilight years of the starlets, and the next experiment on the boys in the backroom.

i'm sure i said it before, but... brilliant thread!

[kipfizh]

England

All these players are English. How long before they get call ups?

Not long at all. Once they hit the big time, and were playing regularly (some sooner than others), in they went.

Verdict - the media would drool over such talent. They'd be no keeping them out.

Does the mental attitude affect the call-up - which players get in?

The idiots had enough of an international career to suggest that the ability is more important, but as they faded, they were gone.

Verdict - fair enough, some complete morons have had successful international careers, and managers good enough to be national coaches should be able to handle them.

How well would England do with them?

They haven't do much as drawn a qualifying match in over a decade, or conceded a goal, so they are clearly dominant over weaker teams. But now and then a top nation (and Mexico, these days) can trump them in a one-off game. Too often those games have come in tournaments, and while they've won some, they've lost more.

Verdict - they've gone out a few times on penalities. Which is proof that no matter how good you are, if you're English, you can't get past that block. Almost makes me wonder if it's coded in

[kipfizh]

Post playing career

Who would go on to be successful after their playing time was up?

Watch this space.....

[kipfizh]

Ugh - too much bold. Sorry folks, that looks quite ugly in places.

Anyway - this does not spell the end for this experiment, but with the players approaching retirement, it spells the end for one chapter of it.

Chapter two follows them into the management game, while tracking the Bandits, and will start as soon as they take the plunge.

My conclusion from the first chapter is simple - the AI of the game is utterly superb. It is often an unsung hero of the game, but if you think about what constitutes the draw of the game, the sheer realism factor, and the feel that those players and managers are real, must come into it. That can only happen with excellent AI.

Of course, the odd daft thing happens, but how many times have you feel attached to a loyal player, or decided a player or manager is an idiot? They're a series of numbers, but they sure don't feel like it.

The one thing to investigate is whether the Bandits' slow rise can be purely attributed to ambition. This will be looked into later.

So - what are your conclusions?

[kipfizh]

Originally posted by zeusbheld:

perfect timing for the summary.

eagerly awaiting the twilight years of the starlets, and the next experiment on the boys in the backroom.

i'm sure i said it before, but... brilliant thread!

Thank you, and thanks to everyone who keeps supporting this thread

[ScottM]

Who would they go to?

All the big boys in the Premiership, and one daring centre back became a star in Milan.

Verdict - again, this is excellent - the best clubs have the best scouts and the most appeal. Once there, the players became loyal and never left.

Great stuff as always.

Just wanted you to remind us which Playable leagues you had selected, as this may affect which clubs the players could go to. I have 20 playable countries selected in a current game, which I find to produce a far more rounded game in the long term. The 2010 WC final was contested between Spain and Slovenia!?

Scott M

[kipfizh]

I only had England selected as a main league, and you're absolutely right, this will have affected destinations.

The second running of this experiment will be more thorough.

[Mighty Red]

The one thing to investigate is whether the Bandits' slow rise can be purely attributed to ambition. This will be looked into later.

I think this would require a number of tests (not necessarily that you should do them Kip!), Ambition alone, would just make the chairman fire his managers when they failed to live up to his (unrealistic?) expectations. Lack of cash (not the case here, but) would prevent buying ambitious signings. Lack of interference would prevent the chairman buying big players (assuming he had ambition and cash).

My predictions are that all 3 are necessary to drive a club upwards, but I have a suspicion that the AI is too rigid to allow for big players to 'see' the attraction of a wealthy but lowly club. I suspect too much rests on the reputation - whether SI can code it so that rep is increased for wealthy clubs, or whether a neater solution can be found.

Given the AI from the first chapter was good, I may be doing a disservice here, but I don't think so.

[ScottM]

Originally posted by kipfizh:

I only had England selected as a main league, and you're absolutely right, this will have affected destinations.

The second running of this experiment will be more thorough.

No criticism intended, of course. It my pet hate on these forums that people perceive an "English" bias to the International/Domestic game, without realising that only having a limited amount of countries/leagues selected will handicap the game.

Scott M

[sten_super]

On a similar theme to what Scott M is talking about, one bizarre element of the game in the long term is that, at least when running only the English league, a lot of the top managers at the major clubs across Europe (and especially I've seen it in Spain) are English. kipfizh has mentioned that Dennis Wise is leading Real Madrid to European glory... in a career game I am running I'm in 2018 and Glenn Roeder is Real Madrid manager while Neil Banfield (currently IRL Arsenal youth coach) is at Barcelona and John Carver is Villareal manager. While I appreciate that the results are affected by only running the one league, the balance of english players moving abroad seems to be fine, yet for some reason the staff seem to be a lot more in demand on the continent than is the case in real life.

[kipfizh]

Originally posted by ScottM:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kipfizh:

I only had England selected as a main league, and you're absolutely right, this will have affected destinations.

The second running of this experiment will be more thorough.

No criticism intended, of course. It my pet hate on these forums that people perceive an "English" bias to the International/Domestic game, without realising that only having a limited amount of countries/leagues selected will handicap the game.

Scott M </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're absolutely right - it is pointless, for example, me analysing the winners of European competitions without running more than one country's leagues.

For this experiment, I actually wanted to keep as many of the star players in the same country as possible to see how they interacted, so I figured only running English leagues would be best for that. The downside is that we can't accurately follow those who do move overseas.

Since the next experiment does not centre around the players, but the standing of the irrationally placed clubs with extreme staff, it is more relevant to run more leagues, so I will be

That, and the fact that I've just got a new machine which'll run a lot more

[Skat]

Kip, do you think the attitude of the idiots could be bettered by the use of tutoring?

Could there be much of an increase in their professionalism etc by learning from a good player. I suppose this would have a better chance if the good player was a few years older though!

Once again great work!! (i've now developed a soft spot for the bandits, suppose their now my second team)

[ucdawg12]

great thread, im really enjoying this

[zeusbheld]

Originally posted by Skat:

Kip, do you think the attitude of the idiots could be bettered by the use of tutoring?

Could there be much of an increase in their professionalism etc by learning from a good player. I suppose this would have a better chance if the good player was a few years older though!

it could work, possibly, depending on their adaptability. players who aren't very adaptable don't tend to accept tutors. also, given the idiots' nasty attitudes they might tend to end up having a falling out with their tutors.

it isn't an experiment (merely 'anecdotal evidence') but i have some idiots in my current game that i'm trying to tutor, i've sold one so far, the rest are parked in my reserves and will stay there until either their attitude improves or they are old enough to make money by selling them.

low return on investment so far tutoring young idiots, but a couple may come around. also, i'm only in league one at present, so they might respond better to the kind of players i can't afford.

might be an interesting experiment for someone who isn't as lazy as me though.

[Meitheisman]

kipfizh, please post a link in this thread when you start the other experiment, I'd be ****ed if I missed it

[zeusbheld]

Originally posted by Meitheisman:

kipfizh, please post a link in this thread when you start the other experiment, I'd be ****ed if I missed it

yeah definitely post a link here.

[Mygel]

Sorry for not reading all the 13 pages of the post, although an interesting test. My question is, how did the club reputation get affected by these youngsters? My understanding is that much of the club reputation is derived out of the players. This might be the reason that despite the tons of money the club has no one wants to play for them. This is one of the flaws as I see it in the contract/transfer part of the game. IRL there is many good players that is, for many good reasons probably, ready to make moves to any clubs if the money is right. There are probably world class players that will accept maybe a one year contract with an obscure club if they get 100 million for a season.

I play the lower leagues a lot and it sometimes boring to see that transfers that DO happen in IRL is not possible in the game as the contract negotation is not working properly meaning that the players already have made up their minds before the offer is made due to the reputation of the club.

[zeusbheld]

Originally posted by Mygel:

Sorry for not reading all the 13 pages of the post, although an interesting test. My question is, how did the club reputation get affected by these youngsters? My understanding is that much of the club reputation is derived out of the players. This might be the reason that despite the tons of money the club has no one wants to play for them. This is one of the flaws as I see it in the contract/transfer part of the game. IRL there is many good players that is, for many good reasons probably, ready to make moves to any clubs if the money is right. There are probably world class players that will accept maybe a one year contract with an obscure club if they get 100 million for a season.

I play the lower leagues a lot and it sometimes boring to see that transfers that DO happen in IRL is not possible in the game as the contract negotation is not working properly meaning that the players already have made up their minds before the offer is made due to the reputation of the club.

the flip side of that, is that transfers are better than they were in 2k6, where i signed harry kewell on a free transfer... while in league one.

you can get *some* players who would never sign for you, you just need a) a quality shortlist, coz you won't get many, and b) persistence to the point of obsessiveness.

it might could improve but i think it's more, rather than less, realistic than previous versions.

[DS]

Originally posted by Mighty Red:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The one thing to investigate is whether the Bandits' slow rise can be purely attributed to ambition. This will be looked into later.

I think this would require a number of tests (not necessarily that you should do them Kip!), Ambition alone, would just make the chairman fire his managers when they failed to live up to his (unrealistic?) expectations. Lack of cash (not the case here, but) would prevent buying ambitious signings. Lack of interference would prevent the chairman buying big players (assuming he had ambition and cash).

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think interference has more of an impact when a chairman is firing managers then ambition.

[timpino]

There is an attribute called Buying players which I think might affect the chairman and not only the managers... could be that is low

[Jimbokav1971]

Originally posted by timpino:

There is an attribute called Buying players which I think might affect the chairman and not only the managers... could be that is low

Is this a serious coment ?

[zeusbheld]

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by timpino:

There is an attribute called Buying players which I think might affect the chairman and not only the managers... could be that is low

Is this a serious coment ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think he means the chairman has an attribute called "buying players". i think this is probably correct, as many people have reported having a chair who dumps (often unwanted) great (or grate) players on them.

perhaps someone who is using an editor can clarify---is there a *separate* attribute for chairmen buying players or just ambition and interference?

so far i've been lucky and have a chair who loves the club, doesn't buy or sell players, and dutifully expands the stadium, if only in 3,000 seat increments.

[timpino]

Yup, It was serious. any non player person has that attribute.

[timpino]

And by that I mean staff personell, as I haven't checked officials.

[zeusbheld]

Originally posted by timpino:

And by that I mean staff personell, as I haven't checked officials.

i doubt officials can buy players, although officials can be bought (at least in italy, until fairly recently).

[Jimbokav1971]

Cheers timpino & zeusbheld .

I never use the editor so I didn't know that. It's amazing how much hidden depth there is in the game.

[zeusbheld]

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

Cheers timpino & zeusbheld .

I never use the editor so I didn't know that. It's amazing how much hidden depth there is in the game.

i've never used the editor either, only just now (from your post) figured out that the editor comes with the game (d'oh). i've just read in various fora about stuff like that.

after kipfizh's experiment though i feel inclined to look under the hood and see what hidden attributes exist in general. not interested in knowing the 'secrets' of my players and staff though. prefer to let that unfold and torture me rather than have specific predictions.

i think FM07 does a very good job modelling a complex world, and i find this stuff fascinating, but then i'm a dork.

[waz_nufc_awk]

still by far the best thread on the forum...look at the views.

come on you bandits...

[kipfizh]

Sorry about the delay folks, this experiment is still going but I'm having one of those busy periods!

[Kees04]

kipfizh,

Is there any chance of me getting my hands on your database for this experiment, would like a go on it

Cheers

[Meitheisman]

He said he'll post it at the end of the experiment so that people don't start running their own and comparing with what he's getting. I think it makes perfect sense for him to keep the "licensing rights" to his wonderful idea!

We'll just all have to be patient

[Kees04]

Completely understand this, but I'm not interested in posting my results on the forums, don't have enough time to do it nowadays, just wanna play it for my own gain really.

[DS]

As far as I know the Buying Players attribute is how good the staff is at buying players and is not the likelihood of them buying players as was said above.

[Meitheisman]

Interesting point DS but then what attribute would constitute the likelihood of the staff buying players?

[Jimbokav1971]

The next time somebody goes into the editor, perhaps they could post the various attributes for Chairmen here.

It would make some interesting reading.

[zeusbheld]

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:

The next time somebody goes into the editor, perhaps they could post the various attributes for Chairmen here.

It would make some interesting reading.

will look it up a bit later.

[zeusbheld]

it's now a bit later, and here are the non-player attributes. i'm going to list them all, even if they're not relevant to chairs.

just... well... coz i can.

NON-TACTICAL ATTRIBUTES:

buying players

hardness of training

judging player ability

judging player potential

level of discipline

man management

mind games

motivating

squad rotation

working with youngsters

PHYSIO

physiotherapy

COACHING

coaching attacking

coaching defending

coaching fitness

coaching mental

coaching tactical

coaching technical

and now for the money shot:

CHARMAN:

business

interference

patience

resources.

i was looking at two chairmen (for ajax and ajax capetown) and they ONLY had numbers in the 'chairman' categories--NOTHING in the buying players category.

this leads me to believe that INTERFERENCE is the key attribute and "buying players" has more to do with how good (or bad) at it the non-player is.

if anyone has had a chairman (has to be one who actually exits) buy a player, post his name and i'll look up and see if he has a 'buying players' attribute at the start of the game.

i'm wondering though if "non-tactical attributes " might be ratings you earn AFTER you actually do someting? in other words, a chairman with an interference of 20 might have his 'buying players' attribute go up if he buys well?

i don't have any capacity to look at the database of a game in progress, i only have the editor that came on the game disk, so i cannot investigate this aspect.

[zeusbheld]

after i posted it occurred to me that "person data" might be relevant too so here it is:

adaptability

ambition

controversy

determination

loyalty

pressure

professionalism

sportsmanship

temperament.

these no doubt affect a chairman's performance also. imagine an interfering, ambitious chairman with low loyalty, low professionalism, and an unruly temperament--i'm not gonna be able to sleep tonight.

all the players have these attributes too.