Long-term save wanted for experiment

[ilkork]

What's the experiment about:
-A comparison in the attributes "Consistency" and "Important Matches", so to check if they do increase (or decrease) after some years, in both real players and newgens.
The comparisons will be performed with the help of Genie Scout.

Feel free to make suggestions as to what else could be compared.

Requirements:
-A long-term save, having being saved in a 5/10/15/20 year period, for example: Save A=2016, Save B=2021, Save C=2026, Save D=2031, etc. (of course it doesn't have to be during a 5-year period, 6-7 years will do. And only a save in 2016 and a save in 2024 will still do)
-Changes with the pre-game editor: No (at least not after the first save)
-In-game Editor used: No (at least not after the first save)
-Other Editors used: No (at least not after the first save)
-Please inform me if you added or removed any leagues after setting up your database and what's the deal with the "Detail Level" in your save.

Why am I doing this?
An experiment was conducted here, which sort of proved that the "Important Matches" attribute doesn't improve as it should be. But, since it wasn't a detailed one, I want to do it again.


Could someone share his long-term saves please?

[ilkork]

Reserved for results

[Cougar2010]

Why do you need a save to show you something that is so clearly obvious just from playing a save yourself??

While I appreciate you are trying in your own way to identify issues that could be improved or aren't working as they should but you would get far more from the game just playing & enjoying it.

[ilkork]

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Why do you need a save to show you something that is so clearly obvious just from playing a save yourself??

While I appreciate you are trying in your own way to identify issues that could be improved or aren't working as they should but you would get far more from the game just playing & enjoying it.

I wouldn't call it obvious. But hey, that's why I am asking for a long-term save, so to find out what's really going on.
I am sure that it doesn't really matter (we still enjoy our saves), but as you said, if any issues are identified, the results could be used to improve the game.


I thought that SI has testers who do play the game like we do, but, after reading the following, I am not so sure anymore...

On 14/6/2017 at 15:28, Glenn Wakeford said:

These are bugs, but they have not been logged in the bugs forums, and they haven't been seen in-house. It would really help this area of the game if people logged these contextually incorrect questions. We can't improve on this aspect of the game unless bugs are raised, so please log them as bugs when you see them.

 

[Cougar2010]

I know for a fact that both change as I see it in my saves.

I don't use any editors but from keeping a spreadsheet for my squads and updating it through the seasons I see changes on the staff reports for both consistency & important matches.

 

[ilkork]

1 minute ago, Cougar2010 said:

I know for a fact that both change as I see it in my saves.

I don't use any editors but from keeping a spreadsheet for my squads and updating it through the seasons I see changes on the staff reports for both consistency & important matches.

But, how reliable would you call your staff?

Still, I think we can draw a better conclusion by looking at exact numbers.

[Spedding]

lollujos save

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fcofa5y1dvtnc2d/20YearsSave.fm?dl=1    

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, ilkork said:

But, how reliable would you call your staff?

Still, I think we can draw a better conclusion by looking at exact numbers.

I would call them reliable enough.

If you get a defensive coach telling you that a defender has a major "red" weakness in consistency which then turns to yellow a couple of seasons later and disappears off the report as neither a strength or a weakness another couple of seasons down the line then its more than fair to assume the hidden consistency attribute for that player has increased.

 

[gfx]

I suggest you to group players using some parameters like:

    - Age: If you have a 10 years period save you can compare year 1 and year 10, then you can break that period in 2-3 subperiods to check if the attributes develop specially well at a certain age.

     - Club reputation: Probably important matches develops faster for players in high rep clubs since they have more important matches than someone in a low tier league.

     - Matches played: As you have been told on your other post important matches develops when players performs well on that kind of matches, therefore taking into account players that do not play does not contribute.

 

Also I can tell you by playing very long term saves (30+ years) that these attributes DO increase over time. Try it for yourself, start playing without using genie and you will learn a lot of things that you won't using third party software and most important, you will enjoy the game more (this is self experience).

 

6 minutes ago, ilkork said:

I thought that SI has testers who do play the game like we do, but, after reading the following, I am not so sure anymore...

That the staff didn't find a bug doesn't mean they don't play the game. You are referring to a post that is about media questions and that's not related to newgens or player development and the comment you're quoting is about a minor bug like 1 media question that has little to none effect in the gameplay.

[ilkork]

@Spedding Thanks for the suggestion, but I still want more than one save (if it's 2036, I also want the same from the year 2030 for example) as I am going to compare real players as well and not just newgens.

[ilkork]

@gfx Thanks for the suggestions, although something similar I had in my head.

As for the "the comment you're quoting is about a minor bug like 1 media question that has little to none effect in the gameplay".
What do you have to say about the Copa Libertadores bug? Is that insignificant as well?

[ilkork]

26 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

I would call them reliable enough.

If you get a defensive coach telling you that a defender has a major "red" weakness in consistency which then turns to yellow a couple of seasons later and disappears off the report as neither a strength or a weakness another couple of seasons down the line then its more than fair to assume the hidden consistency attribute for that player has increased.

I believe you!
Although, the following is very important to me as well (to check how the AI performs in developing youngsters):

38 minutes ago, Barside said:

There is one key factor to consider when running a soak test & that is how well the AI managers perform at developing their younger players, it has been a consistent theme over the years that the AI can be lacking in how well they develop players & in most cases a human manager makes better use of the development tools at our disposal. What this means is that any results will only show you what the AI managers do within their logic framework rather than what is or is not possible in FM, of course Ai managers are an integral to any save so if your experiment identifies possible weaknesses in AI manager performance that's still a valid outcome & one to bring to SI's attention by providing save files for a deeper analysis.

 

[gfx]

@ilkork Not sure about which Libertadores bug are you talking about? There are a lot of issues with cups that I remember from FM I think most of them are due to corrupt saves. (if you have a link send me it through PM to avoid going off topic)

BTW, what I meant with my comment is that most software is tested again and again and it's still launched with errors, that's why patches exist. There's no way a small group of testers can spot all the errors during test phases, then once games are launched due to the higher number of players a lot of issues are found. This is probably more noticeable with small bugs (except windows where you can see any class of issues when it's recently launched)

[forameuss]

If you've got that much of an obsession with it, why not produce the saves for yourself?  Why are you expecting others to produce them for you?

[XaW]

14 hours ago, ilkork said:

I thought that SI has testers who do play the game like we do, but, after reading the following, I am not so sure anymore...

Comments like this is the reason why you get some many negative comments back. The issue is that you seem to have some valid complaint and suggestions for improvement, but when you pack them into comments like that your whole meaning don't get through. I'd advise you to try use constructive criticism instead of this.

To give it a bit more input as to testing, I'll say as a certified tester, that it's really not easy to find every bug or error before releasing a product. That have nothing to do with having enough or qualified testers, but have a whole variety of causes. And with all the possible variables that go into each calculations in the match engine, a small change might have severe effects. I'm guessing the testers at SI have identified an enormous amount of small and big bugs before the game is released. SI even have an both a closed and open BETA for users to help out finding bugs. I've reported several bugs throughout the last versions, and most have been fixed within the next update.

I actually commend SI for their willingness to interact with users on this level. While it's hard, if not impossible, to have no known bugs in a game such as this, it's also the fact that different user will have different meanings regarding how certain aspects of the game should be. Some will call a certain behavior a bug, while others would call the opposite the same.

So if you need help from other user to find out if some might be a bug, then it's at least a hard to spot bug, if a bug indeed. There are several areas on the game I would like improved or changed ( I should write some up in the suggestion forum, but I have not had the time yet), and if I find bugs I'll report them in the bug section and so should you.

[forameuss]

7 minutes ago, XaW said:

I actually commend SI for their willingness to interact with users on this level. While it's hard, if not impossible, to have no known bugs in a game such as this, it's also the fact that different user will have different meanings regarding how certain aspects of the game should be. Some will call a certain behavior a bug, while others would call the opposite the same.

and also worth noting that they used to be a lot more active, but decided to withdraw because of comments like that.  Totally correct too - why should they have to listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about throw out wide conjecture like it's fact?

[Mons]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

If you've got that much of an obsession with it, why not produce the saves for yourself?  Why are you expecting others to produce them for you?

@ilkork: this, really. It's not particularly hard work, either.

• Start a new game with a small amount of leagues loaded and an unemployed manager, and go on holiday for 10/20 years. The less leagues you load, the quicker it'll be, but also the less players you'll have, so I'd suggest 2-3 nations with only a couple of leagues in each, depending on the strength of your system.
• Change the preferences to have the longest auto save interval and also to ensure a new file is created for every auto save. This may take up a bit of space on your hard-drive but you'll thus be able to chart progress on a frequent basis.
• Leave your PC on overnight or while you're at work so that the required amount of years are processed by the game.
• Make your checks, evaluate them and post them.

Don't see why other people should do the work for you, and it probably won't take you more than a day or two at the most, even if you only let the game process when you're not using your PC.

[ilkork]

3 hours ago, forameuss said:

If you've got that much of an obsession with it, why not produce the saves for yourself?  Why are you expecting others to produce them for you?

 

2 hours ago, Mons said:

Don't see why other people should do the work for you, and it probably won't take you more than a day or two at the most, even if you only let the game process when you're not using your PC.

Because dear @forameuss and @Mons, FM17 was released on the 4th of November 2016 and I bought it on the 6th of June 2017.
You'd figure that there are a lot of people with long-term saves by now, right?

And no @Mons, while I've thought about holidaying and thank you for the suggestion, I am not willing to do that, because my PC is 8 years old. Care about having a look at this list here? It won't take long to find me, just look towards the end...
 

3 hours ago, forameuss said:

and also worth noting that they used to be a lot more active, but decided to withdraw because of comments like that.  Totally correct too - why should they have to listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about throw out wide conjecture like it's fact?

 

2 hours ago, XaW said:

Comments like this is the reason why you get some many negative comments back. The issue is that you seem to have some valid complaint and suggestions for improvement, but when you pack them into comments like that your whole meaning don't get through. I'd advise you to try use constructive criticism instead of this.

When I look at this and see the number 37,842 what do you want me to say? Every year that number gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
So, my suggestion for SI is: first fix everything and then release new things.

Sorry mates, I am not the type of guy who will just let go of things like that. When I see things like this, this or this what am I supposed to do? Compliment SI for their "amazing work"?
Yes @forameuss, I have no idea what I am talking about...

[forameuss]

Just now, ilkork said:

 

Because dear @forameuss and @Mons, FM17 was released on the 4th of November 2016 and I bought it on the 6th of June 2017.
You'd figure that there are a lot of people with long-term saves by now, right?

To your exact specifications and no actions performed that could affect the data for what I'm sure you planned as a very scientific test?  Aye, ok.

Just now, ilkork said:

When I look at this and see the number 37,842 what do you want me to say? Every year that number gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
So, my suggestion for SI is: first fix everything and then release new things.

Sorry mates, I am not the type of guy who will just let go of things like that. When I see things like this, this or this what am I supposed to do? Compliment SI for their "amazing work"?
Yes @forameuss, I have no idea what I am talking about...

If you really believe that, then no, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.  You're equating the number of threads in a bugs forum alone as a metric for how well SI are doing, which is incredibly limited just for starters.  Suggesting that they fix "everything" before releasing new things is also misguided, because they'll never fix everything.  Because that's what happens in development.

[XaW]

3 minutes ago, ilkork said:

When I look at this and see the number 37,842 what do you want me to say? Every year that number gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
So, my suggestion for SI is: first fix everything and then release new things.

Sorry mates, I am not the type of guy who will just let go of things like that. When I see things like this, this or this what am I supposed to do? Compliment SI for their "amazing work"?

Well now, the first are a number of post, not the number of bugs. If you look, you can see that a load of people are reporting the same bugs, so the number of bugs are smaller than that. There's also a number of threads where the answer is that the user have used downloaded leagues who have errors in them and other issues.

In regards to the 3 post of yours. The first in in General discussion, not in the bugs forum. The second was for an "older" version of the game, and something that might still be an error, or not, I don't know. The third was posted in the training discussion. If you would actually report bugs in the propper place with the propper information needed, then you might get a propper answer.

I've complimented SI for their willingness to interact with their costumers. As I clearly stated:

3 hours ago, XaW said:

There are several areas on the game I would like improved or changed

So I'm not head over heels for how the game it, though it is the best football simulation game out there. I do try to report bugs and express my wishes for the game to improve, not ramble about with claim of this and that without backing it up with anything. Once again, as I stated in my first post here, you have some valid claims, but your manner of expressing them completely voids your input.

[ilkork]

18 minutes ago, forameuss said:

To your exact specifications and no actions performed that could affect the data for what I'm sure you planned as a very scientific test?  Aye, ok.

So, you are implying that I am going to edit the data in the long-term save I am looking for (if someone shares one)???
Suppose that's true. When I will submit it in the bugs forum, won't the people from SI ask for that save? How would that make me look when they will respond "Hey ilkork, why did you change the values on player X and player Y"?
Come on...

18 minutes ago, forameuss said:

If you really believe that, then no, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I believe that 1/3 of the bugs there are serious and the rest 2/3 are just the people's fault, corrupt save due to edited stuff, etc.
Still, that amount is not negligible.

18 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Suggesting that they fix "everything" before releasing new things is also misguided, because they'll never fix everything.

So, I should just let go of the stupid experiments I want to perform and all that because "they'll never fix everything"?
 

 

11 minutes ago, XaW said:

Well now, the first are a number of post, not the number of bugs[...]

Still, not a small amount. And I know that most of them aren't real bugs (check my response to forameuss after the second quote).

11 minutes ago, XaW said:

So I'm not head over heels for how the game it, though it is the best football simulation game out there.

It is indeed the best football simulation game out there, but I am not willing to start again the same conversation as to why is that.

11 minutes ago, XaW said:

I do try to report bugs and express my wishes for the game to improve, not ramble about with claim of this and that without backing it up with anything. Once again, as I stated in my first post here, you have some valid claims, but your manner of expressing them completely voids your input.

Nobody is perfect, right?
In a society, you are going to have people like me who are not expressing their views in the healthiest of ways (but still within the rules, right?).

But I do believe that, if I do find something weird results in my experiment, my lack of manners won't make any difference. The SI staff will still going to have a look at my results and try to fix things (hopefully).
 

[forameuss]

5 minutes ago, ilkork said:

So, you are implying that I am going to edit the data in the long-term save I am looking for (if someone shares one)???
Suppose that's true. When I will submit it in the bugs forum, won't the people from SI ask for that save? How would that make me look when they will respond "Hey ilkork, why did you change the values on player X and player Y"?
Come on...

I believe that 1/3 of the bugs there are serious and the rest 2/3 are just the people's fault, corrupt save due to edited stuff, etc.
Still, that amount is not negligible.

So, I should just let go of the stupid experiments I want to perform and all that because "they'll never fix everything"?

So you've wildly flown off the handle on most of that.

- No, I'm not saying you'll do any editing.  I presumed you'd want a stable baseline save where you know exactly where the data began, which isn't something you can control if you don't make the baseline yourself.  Basic stuff.
- Where did I say anything about your "experiments"?  There will never be no bugs in a game, that's a completely separate point.  I don't really care about what you do beyond that, just pointing out that what you said is literally impossible.

You just show a lack of understanding in how development works.  That's fine.  But when you're using that misunderstanding to dictate what SI should do, it falls down.  It also sets you up for eternal disappointment.  

[Cougar2010]

5 minutes ago, ilkork said:

So, I should just let go of the stupid experiments I want to perform and all that because "they'll never fix everything"?

No, but if you want to run an experiment you should be prepared to do the work yourself.

You are asking people for a save file saved every X number of years over a long period which isn't something people would generally have as standard.  On top of that you have a few other "demands" regarding the specifics of the saves.

I could understand it if you were asking people for something that they have sitting around but thats unlikely to be the case here.  I would expect most users have rolling saves activated although others might have different save setups.  The point being any user who is say 30 years into a save is highly unlikely to have any saves older than say a couple of years for that game.

 

Finally you want all that to prove something that the bulk of us already know happens just from playing the game.

[XaW]

2 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Still, not a small amount. And I know that most of them aren't real bugs (check my response to forameuss after the second quote).

Of course there will be bugs. And some very serious ones as well. But that doesn't mean SI haven't testet anything or enough to find bugs. However, of course it could be tested and developed better, but I for one haven't experienced that many game breaking bugs. I've noticed there have been some in this version. Some South American cups come to mind, but I haven't experienced them personally. What I have experienced are mostly annoyances or smaller errors that makes this worse, but not unplayable.

 

2 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Nobody is perfect, right?
In a society, you are going to have people like me who are not expressing their views in the healthiest of ways (but still within the rules, right?).

But I do believe that, if I do find something weird results in my experiment, my lack of manners won't make any difference. The SI staff will still going to have a look at my results and try to fix things (hopefully).

 

Of course, you can express our frustration in any way you want (the mods will take care of it if it's over the line), but what I'm saying is that if you express it in a more constructive manner then you might get better answers. SI staff will of course try their best to help you, but it will be easier and better for all if it's done in a more civil matter. If someone called on you for help you wouldn't want the to scream at you the whole time, right? Yes, it's exaggerated, but the message is the same.

 

[forameuss]

18 minutes ago, ilkork said:

In a society, you are going to have people like me who are not expressing their views in the healthiest of ways (but still within the rules, right?).
 

Implying SI lie about the extent they test, and further that they do little testing at all, isn't going to endear you to them funnily enough.

[ilkork]

@Cougar2010 Yes, most people do it the way you mention. But this doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who have a save every year for example, right? We can't know what all people do.
And I never pointed a gun to someone's head and said "I want that now!". I asked if anyone is willing to share his saves...

15 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Finally you want all that to prove something that the bulk of us already know happens just from playing the game.

Fine. Let me waste my time in trying to find out the same thing you and most people already know. Am I still allowed to do that?
 

17 minutes ago, XaW said:

But that doesn't mean SI haven't testet anything or enough to find bugs. However, of course it could be tested and developed better, but I for one haven't experienced that many game breaking bugs. I've noticed there have been some in this version.

I never said "anything". I implied "not enough". And yes, of course it could be tested and developed better.
And I too haven't experienced any game breaking bugs over the years in my saves (except when I added the claassen leagues, but that's my fault).

20 minutes ago, XaW said:

Of course, you can express your frustration in any way you want (the mods will take care of it if it's over the line), but what I'm saying is that if you express it in a more constructive manner then you might get better answers. SI staff will of course try their best to help you, but it will be easier and better for all if it's done in a more civil matter. If someone called on you for help you wouldn't want the to scream at you the whole time, right? Yes, it's exaggerated, but the message is the same.

Look, I am the type of guy I am. Would you like to call it "lack of maturity"? Fine, I can accept that, no one is perfect.
Although you do have a point with your last two sentences, that's why I am going to try very hard to change .
 

16 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Implying SI lie about the extent they test, and further that they do little testing at all, isn't going to endear you to them funnily enough.

I never implied that they lie about the extent they test, because I never seen someone from SI saying "we do X amount of testing".
I implied that their testing isn't enough.

[herne79]

@ilkork You are clearly a passionate guy with a love for the game and an eagerness to make it better.  Credit to you for that.  Just try to keep that passion in check a bit please.  Questioning the integrity of SI's testing team or the amount of testing that takes place crosses a line, so if you want SI to engage with you, or take any of your findings seriously, I'd keep any comments you make centred around the testing you intend to undertake, not the testing that others already undertake.

Everybody else, give the guy a break, he's just trying to help - albeit in a rather unusual and somewhat confrontational manner.  Although by the same token ilkork, the comments are valid.

Anyway - ilkork - it's extremely unlikely anyone is going to have the type of game save you are after, so if you really want the data I'd get started with it if I were you.  The sooner the better if your PC might run slowly.  However, if you've already got some data (in your other thread) you could try raising that now in the Bugs forum and (potentially) save yourself a lot of work.  Just don't **** off SI if you do ok, because that won't end well .

[ilkork]

@herne79 Fair enough sir, fair enough. I will see what I can do myself.
-
-
-
One more thing though, for the rest who don't like my ways. Now that I gave it a better thought...
Don't say that I am wrong when SI charges 55€ for a game that has so many bugs, so much stupid and irrational media interaction, conversations and the rest.
I expect something better for that price tag.
OK?

I understand that most games have bugs, but try to argue that I am wrong in my previous sentences, if you can...

[XaW]

I won't add more to this, but I felt the need to give my thought. So sorry @herne79, if I took it a bit far. Working in software development I know how difficult it can be to make the product as flawless as possible.

I've never thought you had an ill will to the product @ilkork, only the way you presented it. I'd love for you to find bugs and report them to help SI get FM into an even better state and release an even better game in FM18. 

[Bababui]

On 6/16/2017 at 01:16, forameuss said:

If you've got that much of an obsession with it, why not produce the saves for yourself?  Why are you expecting others to produce them for you?

Not a helpful reply in any way.

[ilkork]

Just now, Bababui said:

Not a helpful reply in any way.

I know. Like it's so bad to share a save if you have one...

[forameuss]

On 6/17/2017 at 19:05, Bababui said:

Not a helpful reply in any way.

To be fair, it's more helpful than your reply to it.  I elaborated on the point in later posts, saying exactly why it'd probably be a good idea to "roll your own", particularly for the purpose he wants these ones.

But aye, much better to just be lazy and get others to do the work.  Brilliant.

[ilkork]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

But aye, much better to just be lazy and get others to do the work.  Brilliant.

Yes. That's it. I am lazy.
I bought the game on the 6th of June 2017 out of laziness. I haven't even started my original save yet (I am still experimenting and testing different things so to get as much as I can familiar with the new version), because I am lazy.
Despite the fact that the game is out from November and that by now many people will have a long-term save...
But no, it's better that I create that 10-year save for experimenting, even if it takes me months...

I don't get it. Am I missing something? What's the big deal of asking for a long-term save from someone else?

And I think you've confused the words "demand" and "request" in your head.
I am not demanding a save. I am merely requesting one. If you don't like to share your save, fine, continue with your life, don't post those things. Let others choose for themselves.

[Neil Brock]

If you want to a run an experiment that's absolutely fine. If you have some conclusive results which you feel are bugs, please raise them with the evidence in the bugs forum and our team can use said results to potentially make any necessary changes. 

Thanks. 

[ilkork]

Just now, Neil Brock said:

If you want to a run an experiment that's absolutely fine. If you have some conclusive results which you feel are bugs, please raise them with the evidence in the bugs forum and our team can use said results to potentially make any necessary changes. 

Thanks. 

I am trying, thanks.

[forameuss]

16 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Yes. That's it. I am lazy.
I bought the game on the 6th of June 2017 out of laziness. I haven't even started my original save yet (I am still experimenting and testing different things so to get as much as I can familiar with the new version), because I am lazy.
Despite the fact that the game is out from November and that by now many people will have a long-term save...
But no, it's better that I create that 10-year save for experimenting, even if it takes me months...

I don't get it. Am I missing something? What's the big deal of asking for a long-term save from someone else?

And I think you've confused the words "demand" and "request" in your head.
I am not demanding a save. I am merely requesting one. If you don't like to share your save, fine, continue with your life, don't post those things. Let others choose for themselves.

Really no need to fly off the handle.  Can you at least understand what I'm saying?  If you use a save someone else has provided, then it's automatically tainted, and any results you derive from it are tainted also.  If you really want to prove something somewhat scientifically, you obviously need to have everything controlled that you can control.  

[herne79]

Removing posts isn't constructive, so please no more silly bickering.

[ilkork]

7 hours ago, herne79 said:

Removing posts isn't constructive, so please no more silly bickering.

I didn't know it was "bickering".
I said what I said because my disagreement with forameuss is getting nowhere....

[ilkork]

Please, I don't want my topic to be locked, I am trying to do something here.

Is there anybody willing to provide me with two saves from his career please? One from 2016 and another one from, between 2022-2026?
Or, for testing the newgens only, the two saves can be from whatever period, doesn't matter. They just have to have an 8-10 year difference.
(check the first post for what is this all about)

[Mons]

No offense at all, @ilkork, and I appreciate you genuinely wanting to help out but:

(a) it's already been pointed out, by multiple users, that what you're asking for is distinct enough to the extent that nobody will have save games at hand for the periods and in the manner you are requiring - in fact, nobody has answered you so far; and

(b) if you had started a test save game yourself with the specific parameters you're requiring on the day you posted this thread (Thursday 15th) and left the game on holiday overnight or when you're at work since then, I'm pretty sure that you'd have the save game in hand by today (Tuesday 20th, i.e. 5 days later). I suggest you follow my suggestions here on how to do so, and get cracking. This will additionally allow you the flexibility and also the specificity required to undertake the exercise in the manner and for the purpose required 

[ilkork]

@Mons None taken.
Yes, I'll probably do it that way, thanks again .

[santy001]

One thought I have, is that the AI won't utilise players correctly to see the improvements. Odds are most human players won't either, but developing consistency and making someone comfortable in the big games is something that should be obscure and difficult to understand. 

It may be you can do 9 out of 10 steps right, but the 10th step is an in-game situation that doesn't come to pass. The big problem with this test is that you don't know specifically what you're testing, you're just looking for an outcome. It means while it may appear its not functioning, the situation just hasn't arisen with an AI manager who creates the right environment to take advantage of it. Which I think is the most likely thing. 

There's a reason why this section of the game has to be as obscure and as difficult to interpret as possible - because otherwise its a must-do meta-gaming way to play. The mix with the rest of the metal attributes is far more important, a high consistency, high important matches player with low professionalism is not going to be all that much use to me to be honest. 

[ilkork]

@santy001 Well, if for example I see that Donnarumma's consistency hasn't improved after 10 in-game years of averaging 40 games/season with no injuries (hypothetical scenario all of this), then it's safe to assume that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Same for the best newgen GKs, etc.
Then, you have the distribution of those attributes (consistency, important matches and the rest hidden ones) in newgens. There can be a comparison between real 15/16/17/18y old players and newgens from that age range. If the percentages aren't the same, it's safe to assume that the newgen system needs some changes. Because the percentages have to be the same, it's not like "2020-2025 will be a dry period with just average players"...

Lots of comparisons, not only these ones.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ilkork said:

@santy001 Well, if for example I see that Donnarumma's consistency hasn't improved after 10 in-game years of averaging 40 games/season with no injuries (hypothetical scenario all of this), then it's safe to assume that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. 

It will not be safe to say there is a problem, of you identify such a scenario you the need to still further in to see why the player's consistency has not improved, just say consistency has not increased over 10 years so it must be broken is far to simplistic.

[santy001]

Playing often doesn't make you more consistent. Just because a player plays often, that isn't because they're more consistent.

I feel like this is a major point here. Just playing in games doesn't mean these things must improve, some players can go their entire career playing at the highest level without ever achieving consistency or becoming comfortable in the big games. The problem you'd be assuming needs to be fixed is that you believe playing makes you more consistent, but it doesn't. It's something that develops within some players over time, and actually worsens in others over time. 

Consistency is only a barometer of how often a player can play at his full ability (even then, the other mental attributes affect it), not in any way related to how often he plays. It means there is a place in the world for premier league players to be rated in the 120-130CA range (Glenn Whelan, Jon Walters), because they're extremely consistent. It also means, I could justifiably rate Xherdan Shaqiri as a 170CA+ player with very low consistency, and this is in part why the data and regen systems won't ever match in their spreads. It's very hard to simulate the paths these players have had their careers take. Jon Walters went all the way down the pyramid and came back up, Glenn Whelan has endured the challenge of some £30-£40m worth of midfielders challenging for his spot and not dislodging him and Shaqiri has gone from being the next up and coming players at one of the biggest clubs in the world to mid-table Premier League with Stoke.

[westy8chimp]

Not sure consistency or big game matches should change ... especially as we don't have a staff member dealing with psychological development at the moment.

i.e. Dona has low consistency or doesn't perform in big matches... if that was real life you would send him to a sport psychologist to work on his mental capacity.

Playing more games or more big games wouldn't be cure, necessarily.

[ilkork]

@Barside, @santy001 Ok, fair enough. Care about telling me what I can look for in my experiment that could potentially need to be fixed?

@westy8chimp Also (but that's more of a suggestion), tutoring should affect the Important Matches attribute. Isn't that logical?
By altering someone's Determination, Ambition and Professionalism, doesn't that mean that Important Matches should also see an increase (or decrease depending on the tutor)?

[westy8chimp]

Just now, ilkork said:

@Barside, @santy001 Ok, fair enough. Care about telling me what I can look for in my experiment that could potentially need to be fixed?

@westy8chimp Also (but that's more of a suggestion), tutoring should affect the Important Matches attribute. Isn't that logical?
By altering someone's Determination, Ambition and Professionalism, doesn't that mean that Important Matches should also see an increase (or decrease depending on the tutor)?

Yep added as suggestion... didn't include tutoring, because I'm not sure if it already has an effect or not... I've always assumed it did, especially if you chose the 'mentor' option. Maybe it doesn't... that would probably be a separate feature request.

[santy001]

The major hang up is that without knowing the underlying mechanics you can't really test if its working or not.

I don't know the specifics of what should or should not alter it. No one outside of SI should because its such a potentially powerful, game altering mechanic that works fine as it is on the whole.

Odds are that you don't need 10 years to analyse it, but rather the testing would need to be intensive across a season to work out what can potentially alter it and what can't. As I said though, my theory is that its related to matches themselves in some way, and that the situations are rarely handled/dealt with in a way that increases consistency. 

[ilkork]

19 minutes ago, santy001 said:

The major hang up is that without knowing the underlying mechanics you can't really test if its working or not.

For me, an increase(or decrease) by just 1-3 points will suffice. Fair enough?