Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
jackob

Please re-assure me - positions 'matter' right?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, santy001 said:

I can attest to one of the big reasons why they shouldn't be public. A number of years back the attribute weightings were pretty close to having been figured out, a training system was developed around this that allowed you to manipulate attribute weightings to a desirable level in which almost all attributes had their weightings fairly low. This meant following this cookie cutter guide that appeared on the forums it was very easy to get a massively overcooked player. It meant CA became an irrelevance, and players could manipulate players to become far better. Then Keirrison proceeded to knock in over 2,000 goals for me in the Premier League.

While it's a lot more sophisticated now, the fact remains that if you give the full attribute weighting system out you're exposing a huge element of the game that isn't meant to be part of it. 

Do you want to play the game of football manager, or meta-football manager? If what you seek is this kind of advantage, that gives you such an edge in the game, the easiest way is to just take control of each AI team you play against and play their u18's. 

Don't get me wrong, its fascinating to get the insight and see the bits and pieces and know more about how they work together, but on the flip side @Flohrinho if you get to see it in all its glory, you also get to see it warts and all. It's been working well since its last overhaul, no one has (publicly at least) found a way to break the system again. I expect that if given free reign to see it all someone would figure out the weakspots and pressure points and it would very quickly become in need of another overhaul. People would pool knowledge and resources, and it would just break the game for anyone with access to the forums on which it takes place.

 

Okay I can totally accept that as a good reason, no doubt. Although I always feel that it should be each players own decision how to play the game there is also a online function and it would probably annoy people if someone would use such "exploits". For someone like myself who only plays the game solo, the only one I can actually cheat is myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, santy001 said:

 

As an aside, I would love it if SI had some kind of pill I could take after the research phase that lets me forget everything I know after having been involved in the research.

As a former QA I’d love that same pill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

The thread was debunked.

It was not debunked. It is clear from the tests that while the decisions attribute has an affect, it is clearly overweighted in the CA calculation and has much less impact in the match engine.

Therefore it is no surprise that playing a player out of position, which only impacts decisions, is fine so long as the player has the necessary qualities for that position.

But this makes no sense at all!

Consider a player who can only play in central midfield, and whose attacking movement (Off the ball) and anticipation is excellent. Would his movement and anticipation as a striker also be excellent? Probably not if he has no familiarity with that position.

The same should apply in defense. Having excellent positional awareness as a defensive midfielder does not imply that a player would have equally good positional awareness as a full back.

It seems obvious to me that more mental attributes should suffer when a player is played out of position. At the very least, Anticipation, Decisions, Off the Ball and Positioning should. And perhaps so should Teamwork, Vision and Concentration. All of those depend to a degree on a player's familiarity with where they are on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rhobium said:

It was not debunked. It is clear from the tests that while the decisions attribute has an affect, it is clearly overweighted in the CA calculation and has much less impact in the match engine.

Therefore it is no surprise that playing a player out of position, which only impacts decisions, is fine so long as the player has the necessary qualities for that position.

But this makes no sense at all!

Consider a player who can only play in central midfield, and whose attacking movement (Off the ball) and anticipation is excellent. Would his movement and anticipation as a striker also be excellent? Probably not if he has no familiarity with that position.

The same should apply in defense. Having excellent positional awareness as a defensive midfielder does not imply that a player would have equally good positional awareness as a full back.

It seems obvious to me that more mental attributes should suffer when a player is played out of position. At the very least, Anticipation, Decisions, Off the Ball and Positioning should. And perhaps so should Teamwork, Vision and Concentration. All of those depend to a degree on a player's familiarity with where they are on the pitch.

It was debunked, by @EdL of SI. With respect, I'm not sure how you can tell him he's wrong on that front, after he took the tests and ran them himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

It was debunked, by @EdL of SI. With respect, I'm not sure how you can tell him he's wrong on that front, after he took the tests and ran them himself.

I do not think it is appropriate to use the term debunked, because it suggests there is no problem at all, when that is patently not true. Sure, the decisions attribute does have an effect, but not as much as the attribute weighting suggests it should.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you addressed the actual point of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

It was debunked, by @EdL of SI. With respect, I'm not sure how you can tell him he's wrong on that front, after he took the tests and ran them himself.

This is what EdL said in the decision thread:
Yep as I said decisions is very highly weighted hence the need for a big bump.

Isn't that means decision attribute needs a big improvement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, edk77 said:

This is what EdL said in the decision thread:
Yep as I said decisions is very highly weighted hence the need for a big bump.

Isn't that means decision attribute needs a big improvement?

The short answer is no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rhobium said:

I do not think it is appropriate to use the term debunked, because it suggests there is no problem at all, when that is patently not true. Sure, the decisions attribute does have an effect, but not as much as the attribute weighting suggests it should.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you addressed the actual point of my post.

Except he actually goes on to say there is no issue. And the use of debunked comes from Neil Brock himself. Unless you are trying to say both members of SI are wrong, AFTER they have tested it themselves?

If you read Santy001's posts, you'd see they've been addressed. You wont get better info than from a researcher, so I'm not stepping on his toes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get back to the point of this thread? Is it not reasonable that more mental attributes should be affected by playing somebody out of position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it’s something I’ve argued for a few years now as modifying decisions in isolation is not reflective of the rl impact of playing out of position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Barside said:

This is where the inherent limitations of defining football ability with a numerical range & only modifying decisions based on positional rating comes into play.

The anticipation attribute given to the attacker & defender will be based on the opinion reached while watching each player in their natural positions where each player will display pre-emptive movement based on the experience which in general will have been in areas of the pitch they’d expect to be in based on their normal position/role.

Ask those players to swap to either end of the pitch & their experience is less relevant which in turn often results in them not being as effective when anticipating how a passage of play around them is more likely to develop, therefore their antipicatiin attribute has to be considered as being lower than its normal rating.

It’s a limitation within the ME but one that will be quite complex to address as increasing the number of attribute modifiers will exponentially increase the risk of unintended outcomes which manifest as bugs.

Indeed, how do you penalise it in the right context, without simply making it aribitrary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly couldn’t & it would definitely require more complex coding than many probably appreciate to avoid a linear cookie cutter outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it's difficult to implement this well and there is a whole rabbit hole of problems here.

But I also believe that extending the current approach to penalise more mental attributes would be a simple way to improve the situation and increase realism, with no negative effects.

Edited by Rhobium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Barside said:

I certainly couldn’t & it would definitely require more complex coding than many probably appreciate to avoid a linear cookie cutter outcome.

I agree and that's the problem. Which attributes do you penalise and how? How much is that offset by a players natural versatility. If you're penalising it, does the speed of how player learns a role also need to change (see Delph as a example)

You end up going down a rabbits hole very quickly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple is not the word I would use, desirable would be better & it’s something that I’d like to think is in PaulC’s personal wishlist to take the ME to a new level of simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Barside said:

Simple is not the word I would use, desirable would be better & it’s something that I’d like to think is in PaulC’s personal wishlist to take the ME to a new level of simulation.

Indeed. Be interesting to see if its wrapped up in the long term ME work, which makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I agree and that's the problem. Which attributes do you penalise and how? How much is that offset by a players natural versatility. If you're penalising it, does the speed of how player learns a role also need to change (see Delph as a example)

You end up going down a rabbits hole very quickly

An idea in my mind is to remove the strict positional ratings & replace it with more generic defence/midfield/attack rating, maybe adding in a split  for wide/central & then use the current versatility attribute as the primary pivot that all other attributes work around.

Obviously a very basic idea that would need someone more intelligent than me to step through each theoretical stage to establish if it even presents a viable alternative to invest development resources that could result in nothing of any value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's an interesting concept. After all, positional familiarity should be mostly about where on the pitch a player is. Different approaches within those positions (e.g. a more/less defensive minded midfielder) are more about attributes.

Something I thought about a while ago was 4 vs 3 man defences. Full backs often adapt well to playing on either side of a 3-man central defense, because they are pretty close to their usual position, but they would be a liability as the middle defender or in the middle of a back 4. But FM can't quite replicate this with the current positional familiarity system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that more mental attributes should be affected by their playing position than just decisions. But I wouldn't want playing a player out of position to essentially kill off a teams chances in that area of the pitch.

As with all fm type stuff it is opening a can of worms to explore it:

A players natural versatility/football brain will help them adapt to a new position/role

Whether they are two footed hasn't been mentioned but should matter a lot for some positions

Whether other players around them are influential or also uncomfortable in position. (Think Vidic or Mertesaker yelling at a fullback telling them where they need to be)

Obviously the attributes a player has should remain more important than whether their position light is green or orange.

I haven't noticed fm care much about which side I have my two central defenders on but reall football managers seem to care about it a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...