Long-term save wanted for experiment

[santy001]

Testing that it increases or not doesn't test if it can increase or not is the main jist of what I'm going for here. 

It's entirely possible to run an enormous amount of tests and not see it budge, but someone who plays the game in a certain way may actually see regular changes. 

AI managers are at an enormous disadvantage to players still, because they tend not to recognise when to retrain, when to train certain things, which leads me to believe they'd also be oblivious to consistency changers and important matches changers. It means testing AI behaviour is always going to be a stab in the dark. 

[ilkork]

19 minutes ago, santy001 said:

It's entirely possible to run an enormous amount of tests and not see it budge, but someone who plays the game in a certain way may actually see regular changes.

I can't understand though, what's that "certain way" that can make you see regular changes.
 

11 minutes ago, santy001 said:

AI managers are at an enormous disadvantage to players still, because they tend not to recognise when to retrain, when to train certain things, which leads me to believe they'd also be oblivious to consistency changers and important matches changers. It means testing AI behaviour is always going to be a stab in the dark.

But that's the point of my experiment! To show the SI devs that the AI behaviour needs improvements, because I am 100% sure I will find flaws.
I'd like to believe that your opinion is one that is also being shared among the SI staff and I hope that they are already changing things.

[santy001]

The biggest limiting factor is one that all games face, most game AI has seemingly hit a limit. They can add more rules, conditions and parameters that govern their behaviour but it still always breaks down to at a horribly over simplified level of A+B=C 

There will be further improvements, and it will get better but its an iterative process that has limits on how much can be added each year just down mostly to physical man-hours. 

At the same time, the AI isn't meant to know what these triggers are, and as I said, its not something I see any way to test, but I believe consistency and important matches will be tied mainly to the events that happen in matches. This may mean you have a theoretical situation where an AI manager can bring about these changes, but the triggers in game just don't occur because the game plays out a different way. 

Let's say, for the sake of argument, there's a condition in the game that scoring 5 penalties in total, deep into cup competitions when the score is level. Now a player may never even have this situation occur in his career, and even if he does, he might do 4, but then on the 5th he's been subbed off, or a more proficient penalty taker is now in the team. It's a difficult thing to improve, and you're not likely to stumble upon a surefire way that you can remember across your gameplay without logging every choice. 

[ilkork]

Now I understand.
But this doesn't mean that I can't test other things. It won't just be about Consistency and Important Matches.

And I am open for more suggestions, as to what else I could possibly test.

[herne79]

@Seb Wassell

I noticed your posts in the Suggestions forum re. PA and how there have been some changes made to provide greater variety of personality in newgens, found here:

It made me wonder if what @ilkork has been discussing in this and a previous thread may be linked? 

Long story short (I appreciate you may not have be familiar with this), ilkork has noticed what he believes to be an issue with some attributes - particularly hidden attributes - either not developing properly and/or being set too low, such as consistency and big matches.  If the DB has now been adjusted as you mention above to "produce more Balotellis or Ravel Morrisons", could this be a factor?

As you say, in 9 out of 10 saves you want them to waste their potential, but one out of 10 they become world class.  I guess it probably isn't quite that cut and dried, but it just made me wonder if this could be a reason for the lack of development that ilkork has seen.

[Seb Wassell]

43 minutes ago, herne79 said:

@Seb Wassell

I noticed your posts in the Suggestions forum re. PA and how there have been some changes made to provide greater variety of personality in newgens, found here:

It made me wonder if what @ilkork has been discussing in this and a previous thread may be linked? 

Long story short (I appreciate you may not have be familiar with this), ilkork has noticed what he believes to be an issue with some attributes - particularly hidden attributes - either not developing properly and/or being set too low, such as consistency and big matches.  If the DB has now been adjusted as you mention above to "produce more Balotellis or Ravel Morrisons", could this be a factor?

As you say, in 9 out of 10 saves you want them to waste their potential, but one out of 10 they become world class.  I guess it probably isn't quite that cut and dried, but it just made me wonder if this could be a reason for the lack of development that ilkork has seen.

Cheers for linking me here. Will give it a thorough read. But first, just to clarify, the changes made to development are on the game side ONLY not the research and/or DB side. In other words we have not changed how often someone is awarded a 1 or 20 for Professionalism, instead we have changed what that 1 or 20 means in terms of development when in game.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

On 20/06/2017 at 13:09, ilkork said:

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

A quick look at my save (where I have a save from the start in 2017 and one currently at 2029 - but far too large for me to upload) I have two real players who have been with me through the seasons as I have gone up the leagues and their consistency has improved by 2 and 3 points, whilst their important matches has gone up one each, whilst another real player I have who was recently signed by me in his thirties instead of being developed by me has seen his consistency go up by 3 but his important matches stay the same.

So they can both increase, aslo bare in mind I didn't do anything special to develop the players nor are our facilities great, they have just been key players for me from the Conference and League Two upto the Prem - if you want more details about the players (but not hidden stats) you can get them from my posts in the dafuges challenge thread in the challenges forum (players are Seaman and Gori, with the older one being Pereira).

[ilkork]

Tbh @herne79, @Seb Wassell, @michaeltmurrayuk, @santy001, it all started for me when checking the "Show Potential Attributes" feature in Genie Scout (3rd party scouting tool).
What this feature does it to show a potential development for a player. But it's not 100% accurate, because for example, it might say Balance from 14 will reach 16, but if you do specific training of Balance to the player for years, it will reach 17.
What confused me though, is the fact that, in every player profile I was using that feature, the "Important Matches" attribute would never see an increase, not even by one point. That's why you have this comparison here (if it doesn't redirect you to the exact post, Ctrl+F and type "Another comparison"). Although, that feature always shows that the "Consistency" attribute can see an increase by 1-4 points in players.

Also, if you would like to see images from this feature, it's exactly 2-3 posts after the "Another Comparison" post, here.


That's why I want to test such things in more detail.

[santy001]

24 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Tbh @herne79, @Seb Wassell, @michaeltmurrayuk, @santy001, it all started for me when checking the "Show Potential Attributes" feature in Genie Scout (3rd party scouting tool).
What this feature does it to show a potential development for a player. But it's not 100% accurate, because for example, it might say Balance from 14 will reach 16, but if you do specific training of Balance to the player for years, it will reach 17.
What confused me though, is the fact that, in every player profile I was using that feature, the "Important Matches" attribute would never see an increase, not even by one point. That's why you have this comparison here (if it doesn't redirect you to the exact post, Ctrl+F and type "Another comparison"). Although, that feature always shows that the "Consistency" attribute can see an increase by 1-4 points in players.

Also, if you would like to see images from this feature, it's exactly 2-3 posts after the "Another Comparison" post, here.


That's why I want to test such things in more detail.

I can't speak for SI but I imagine one of the SI guys will mention, tools like that have no real relevance/direct worth for anyone looking at the game because its got a large degree of guesswork.

For example, I'm well aware of those tools, and I've seen the kind of offering up they make on attribute weighting and are so horribly wrong. They're interesting, but development isn't already mapped out and available to anyone to see so it can't be extracted from the game in any way. 

[ilkork]

1 minute ago, santy001 said:

For example, I'm well aware of those tools, and I've seen the kind of offering up they make on attribute weighting and are so horribly wrong.

Agree, but once you compare a 2016/17 save with a 2021/22 save, it's all real FM data, not Genie scout related.

[smallman14491]

Don't know if your still looking but i have a save from July 2044 if that's any good? 

[ilkork]

1 minute ago, smallman14491 said:

Don't know if your still looking but i have a save from July 2044 if that's any good? 

Do you also also have a second save from somewhere between 2034-2038?
It can be used for testing the newgen system.

[smallman14491]

Just now, ilkork said:

Do you also also have a second save from somewhere between 2034-2038?
It can be used for testing the newgen system.

No sorry, i pretty much let the game sim until 2044 for some research of my own. I don't have anything inbetween sorry. I'm more than happy to share the one i have if you still need it anyway,

[ilkork]

3 minutes ago, smallman14491 said:

No sorry, i pretty much let the game sim until 2044 for some research of my own. I don't have anything inbetween sorry. I'm more than happy to share the one i have if you still need it anyway,

I want to compare the same players. For example, player A when he was 18y old and when he was 28y old. Something like that.
Thank you very much for trying to help though .

[smallman14491]

Just now, ilkork said:

I want to compare the same players. For example, player A when he was 18y old and when he was 28y old. Something like that.
Thank you very much for trying to help though .

No worries. I'm more than happy to leave it to sim tonight for you? What year would you like it in? i can send it over tomorrow night for you I'm new and want to help as much as possible. so you can have the 2044 save then what ever year you want in the future.

[ilkork]

Just now, smallman14491 said:

No worries. I'm more than happy to leave it to sim tonight for you? What year would you like it in? i can send it over tomorrow night for you I'm new and want to help as much as possible. so you can have the 2044 save then what ever year you want in the future.

I wouldn't want to put that pressure to you. You don't have to do such thing.
But if you are going to do it, a save from 2044 and a save from, let's say somewhere between 2052-54 would be perfect .

[smallman14491]

Just now, ilkork said:

I wouldn't want to put that pressure to you. You don't have to do such thing.
But if you are going to do it, a save from 2044 and a save from, let's say somewhere between 2052-54 would be perfect .

I don't mind at all. l'll set it going later tonight and get back tomorrow with it for you. 

[ilkork]

5 minutes ago, smallman14491 said:

I don't mind at all. l'll set it going later tonight and get back tomorrow with it for you. 

That would be awesome, thank you very much .
We will continue our conversation via pm, I have some questions about the save I would like to ask you.

[Seb Wassell]

18 hours ago, ilkork said:

Tbh @herne79, @Seb Wassell, @michaeltmurrayuk, @santy001, it all started for me when checking the "Show Potential Attributes" feature in Genie Scout (3rd party scouting tool).
What this feature does it to show a potential development for a player. But it's not 100% accurate, because for example, it might say Balance from 14 will reach 16, but if you do specific training of Balance to the player for years, it will reach 17.
What confused me though, is the fact that, in every player profile I was using that feature, the "Important Matches" attribute would never see an increase, not even by one point. That's why you have this comparison here (if it doesn't redirect you to the exact post, Ctrl+F and type "Another comparison"). Although, that feature always shows that the "Consistency" attribute can see an increase by 1-4 points in players.

Also, if you would like to see images from this feature, it's exactly 2-3 posts after the "Another Comparison" post, here.


That's why I want to test such things in more detail.

I would not recommend using Genie Scout for drawing any conclusions on how weightings/attributes/development work.

[Glenn Wakeford]

On 15/06/2017 at 18:49, 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...

You have taken what I have written and jumped to a massive leap that's totally incorrect there. I will try and state it in clearer terms.

The game is massive. Like, ridiculously huge. There is a phenomenal amount of code behind the scenes. The database is filled with hundreds of thousands of entries. Every user plays the game in a different way and experiences totally different things. Sometimes the staggering amount of variables in FM will cause something to go wrong in a unique way that doesn't happen all of the time.

If we don't manage to catch those anomalies in testing, and people don't report the bugs when they see them to us - we can't do a thing about it. The code as we know is fine, but we need the example to step-through the code as it happens to see what has gone wrong and what we can do to fix it.

My post was to try and encourage people to log things that seem wrong to them in the bugs forum, where we can address them. There were several issues in that thread being discussed by users who have never raised those issues to us, then using those issues as a stick to beat the game's mechanics with. This is frustrating for us. Please do not misappropriate our communications into yet another stick to beat us with; it is quite, quite tiresome.