Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Weston

Are Newgens Too Good?

Recommended Posts

On 13/08/2018 at 21:41, Weston said:

Also it looks like some of these guys have been generated at the start of the game so they may have been generated as first teamers to fill in some blanks rather than as real regens, though you'd generally expect those players to be slightly older (20-25 at generation).

So is this a bug, then?

Managed to check this from my game in 2018 and it looks like Argentina and other countries get their first youth intake during 2017 so from the history screen it looks like they got generated at start when in fact they were just part of the first years intake (if you check the youth intake transfer screen they should be listed if a proper regen).

Also as far as I am aware view-only leagues are treated the same as in-active leagues with the generation of regens - if you look at their youth intakes you'll likely find they only get one or two instead of the 16 you get in playable leagues. And as they are only producing a handful of regens on average they'd have a higher PA than the active leagues (mainly due to the fact that in-active leagues don't produce the low quality regens as they'd just waste game resources).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@michaeltmurrayuk Wow, that's an impressive amount of data, thanks for putting that together. So why are PAs so high for the first few years of newgens, then? Because they are trying to hype up the game, because they need to replace the current crop of high-CA players and they worry the AI and/or human managers will do a worse job nurturing talent than what happens in real life so they raise the odds to compensate, or because they actually lowball PA in real-life youngsters because they want to avoid looking like they got a big "prediction" "wrong"?

Seems problematic, though, that the game hides better-than-average PA newgens in inactive leagues as a sort of compensation. Seems like this doesn't really fix anything and can just be gamed, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, thank you for another detailed breakdown.

This is definitely another thing to keep in mind when I start a save and decide which leagues to make active. I typically only make European leagues active because I start my career in Italy and don't really see myself realistically leaving the continent in my career, but I always make other important leagues viewable because I wan't them simulated accurately due to their importance in the global footballing ecosystem.

Am I perhaps misunderstanding what "viewable" means, then? I was under the impression that status was closer to "playable" than being completely inactive, but you seem to be saying the opposite is true. I do a lot of scouting in South America, for example, so I want those leagues to seem "real" - should I make them "playable" even if I have no intention of every managing a club there? Does setting my database to the larger settings offset these issues a considerable amount? I wonder if there is perhaps some recommended template for how to create a realistically whole global footballing ecosystem for the average Serie A manager...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's fair to say there are too many players who are fully developed age 19 to 21, if we strictly compare FM to real life. 

But I dread to consider the alternative. As it is, the AI consistently struggles to develop players at a rate that is comparable to human managers. If we make this process harder/longer, it will hurt the AI more, thus widening the gap. 

The19yo youngsters from Argentina need 130+ CA before moving to Europe because otherwise, they'd simply stop developing due to lack of game time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Weston said:

Am I perhaps misunderstanding what "viewable" means, then? I was under the impression that status was closer to "playable" than being completely inactive, but you seem to be saying the opposite is true. I do a lot of scouting in South America, for example, so I want those leagues to seem "real" - should I make them "playable" even if I have no intention of every managing a club there? Does setting my database to the larger settings offset these issues a considerable amount? I wonder if there is perhaps some recommended template for how to create a realistically whole global footballing ecosystem for the average Serie A manager...

 

 

View-Only works the same as not selecting the league, the only difference is you get to see the league table. If you check when creating the save view-only leagues don't add any more players into your game.

If you don't want to/cannot make the leagues playable then I think using the advanced options to retain players (rather than just increasing the database size) might make the teams that have been given full squads more active than they would be with near empty squads, though @Seb Wassell or @Neil Brock might be able to provide (or pester who knows :) ) a definite answer as to whether using the advanced options has any long term affects on teams not in playable leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retaining players in viewable league will correctly fill squads & clubs will run active squad shortlist so they will be active in the transfer market albeit with a simplified finance module & produce full youth intake cohorts.

The downside is the additional memory & processing that adds which means you might as well make the league active as the quick ME will not add much to the processing commitment & clubs will operate with a more realistic finance module.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there's no real benefit to making leagues view only beyond just simulating a table? Good to know... I guess when FM19 drops I will experiment with setting all the viewable leagues I had to playable instead and see if this slows me down a drastic amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, hasn’t been since add/remove leagues was introduced because that feature does pretty much same job behind the scenes.

Share this post


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

No, hasn’t been since add/remove leagues was introduce because that does pretty much same job behind the scenes.

Thank you for the insight.

In the spirit of #experimenting with #data #analysis would you be willing to provide the numbers for your newgens like we did above? I'm really curious to see a larger sample size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Weston said:

So there's no real benefit to making leagues view only beyond just simulating a table? Good to know... I guess when FM19 drops I will experiment with setting all the viewable leagues I had to playable instead and see if this slows me down a drastic amount.

Do you usually add players to the view only divisions or something similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Barside said:

Do you usually add players to the view only divisions or something similar?

Do you mean just by checking the box that says something along the lines of "add players and staff to leagues..."? Because I usually click that, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep that’s what i meant, chances are you’ll end up with a similar size player pool so expectation should be very little addition cost in processsing time.

Will be interesting to read your feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Barside said:

Yep that’s what i meant, chances are you’ll end up with a similar size player pool so expectation should be very little addition cost in processsing time.

Will be interesting to read your feedback.

Wait, I'm confused and i want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. So selecting a lot of view-only leagues + "add players" is similar to selecting a lot of playable leagues, or not? First I'm told it is no better than leaving them inactive and now I'm told there is very little difference to if they were playable. Are you saying it's roughly the same size player pool either way the only benefit is the clubs' financial modules? Is selecting "add players" what really matters regardless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Weston said:

Wait, I'm confused and i want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. So selecting a lot of view-only leagues + "add players" is similar to selecting a lot of playable leagues, or not? First I'm told it is no better than leaving them inactive and now I'm told there is very little difference to if they were playable. Are you saying it's roughly the same size player pool either way the only benefit is the clubs' financial modules? Is selecting "add players" what really matters regardless?

The first part I’ve highlighted is my expectation, it’s not something I have tested but the theory is based on knowledge of the constituent parts of the processing & memory requirements

Second highlighted section is a yes, by manually adding players through the advanced DB option the user is doing the same task as the game code if the leagues were active & do tend to end up with similar sized active player databases & it has to be added that the user is more likely to create a database imbalance due to a lack of experience with player pool creation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Weston said:

Wait, I'm confused and i want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. So selecting a lot of view-only leagues + "add players" is similar to selecting a lot of playable leagues, or not? First I'm told it is no better than leaving them inactive and now I'm told there is very little difference to if they were playable. Are you saying it's roughly the same size player pool either way the only benefit is the clubs' financial modules? Is selecting "add players" what really matters regardless?

The first part I’ve highlighted is my expectation, it’s not something I have tested but the theory is based on knowledge of the constituent parts of the processing & memory requirements

Second highlighted section is a yes, by manually adding players through the advanced DB option the user is doing the same task as the game code if the leagues were active & do tend to end up with similar sized active player databases & it has to be added that the user is more likely to create a database imbalance due to a lack of experience with player pool creation.

 

Share this post


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

The first part I’ve highlighted is my expectation, it’s not something I have tested but the theory is based on knowledge of the constituent parts of the processing & memory requirements

Second highlighted section is a yes, by manually adding players through the advanced DB option the user is doing the same task as the game code if the leagues were active & do tend to end up with similar sized active player databases & it has to be added that the user is more likely to create a database imbalance due to a lack of experience with player pool creation.

 

Okay. So is doing that a possible explanation as to why my numbers seem so inflated over time? It seems I might as well just make the leagues playable, but then should I keep "add players" checked even then or does it become redundant? Apologies for so many questions this just seems like a crucial part of creating a realistic save so I'm surprised it's not made more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@michaeltmurrayuk has given a solid explanation on why your setup might be a contributory factor.  My rule of thumb is if you’re not sure what affect the add players options will have on long term save integrity leave the database at the default medium setting & active leagues only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/08/2018 at 20:32, Weston said:

So there's no real benefit to making leagues view only beyond just simulating a table? Good to know... I guess when FM19 drops I will experiment with setting all the viewable leagues I had to playable instead and see if this slows me down a drastic amount.

I don't know how right or wrong I am, but I feel that it also makes leagues in View-Only a little bit more active on the transfer market than if they're not simulated at all. They tend to have a little bit more "actual" players instead of greys/fake ones. I find it a bit more advantageous to loan players where at least the league table is somewhat simulated since they get stats generated for themselves. Also, the scouts you send in remote places don't complain as much about their assignment being useless... even if they're mostly watching fake players. :lol:

But yeah, in terms of actual realism it's not there, but I think it's better than nothing at all; especially since the processing cost is very negligible if not inexistent.

Share this post


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

I don't know how right or wrong I am, but I feel that it also makes leagues in View-Only a little bit more active on the transfer market than if they're not simulated at all. They tend to have a little bit more "actual" players instead of greys/fake ones. I find it a bit more advantageous to loan players where at least the league table is somewhat simulated since they get stats generated for themselves. Also, the scouts you send in remote places don't complain as much about their assignment being useless... even if they're mostly watching fake players. :lol:

But yeah, in terms of actual realism it's not there, but I think it's better than nothing at all; especially since the processing cost is very negligible if not inexistent.

Clubs in view only leagues are no more active in the transfer market than clubs in inactive leagues as transfer activity is determined by real player (non-grey) squad size, players also do not get any advantage being loaned to a club in a view only league as player match stats are calculated in the same way as an inactive league.

Share this post


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

Clubs in view only leagues are no more active in the transfer market than clubs in inactive leagues as transfer activity is determined by real player (non-grey) squad size, players also do not get any advantage being loaned to a club in a view only league as player match stats are calculated in the same way as an inactive league.

That's interesting to note. What then would be the point of there being the option to add View-Only? I do understand that it simulates a league table, but what would be the point of simulating the table? If the option's there, it may serve a purpose instead of being completely graphic. Has such a purpose been identified? As a subsidiary question, what about loading every league with the lowest level of detail possible (which amounts to "none"), like in the picture below? FM's processing  performance is already bad as it is, so that'd be nice to know before I kill my CPU. :lol:

Regens/newgens being really good is something I thought was present, but mostly because the human player is way better at developing players than the AI. I wasn't sure if how FM generates players was an issue; although I do have an issue with some parts of it that aren't completely linked to this thread and should've been reviewed by the staff already. I especially suspect it because I run empty dbs which are dbs I enjoy testing. As such, they're filled with nothing but newgens. Obviously it's a very extremist way of testing something, but I would expect a spread similar to real life. However, I think, even after reading this thread, that because the AI isn't too good at developing youth, that FM generates a lot of players with great potential knowing very well that the AI won't be able to develop them all. Which makes it all the more jarring for the human manager. But it's only a supposition based on my experience, not something I can directly prove (much like anyone here unfortunately), as I'm not part of SI's dev team. Or maybe FM overreacts by creating so many potentially good players. Any supposition is valid and food for thought in my eyes! :brock:

Sorry to hijack the thread.

fm_2018-08-18_15-41-26.png

Edited by BMNJohn

Share this post


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

That's interesting to note. What then would be the point of there being the option to add View-Only? I do understand that it simulates a league table, but what would be the point of simulating the table? If the option's there, it may serve a purpose instead of being completely graphic. Has such a purpose been identified? As a subsidiary question, what about loading every league with the lowest level of detail possible (which amounts to "none"), like in the picture below? FM's processing  performance is already bad as it is, so that'd be nice to know before I kill my CPU. :lol:

 

fm_2018-08-18_15-41-26.png

View only was a nice feature to add a small level of simulation & promotion/relegation to unplayable leagues but since the introduction of the add/remove feature the game does that by default so imo all the feature adds now is the ability to view league tables.

As for adding all leagues with default processing there is a heavy processing cost & you can test it in your PC or find a comparable setup that’s already been posted by checking out the benchmark thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Barside said:

View only was a nice feature to add a small level of simulation & promotion/relegation to unplayable leagues but since the introduction of the add/remove feature the game does that by default so imo all the feature adds now is the ability to view league tables.

As for adding all leagues with default processing there is a heavy processing cost & you can test it in your PC or find a comparable setup that’s already been posted by checking out the benchmark thread.

 

I remember benchmarking FM17. FM reacts well to increases in CPU speed. You can find my post here. I'm not sure how useful it would be to benchmark FM18, but I'll keep that in mind. EDIT: As for the screenshot I provided earlier, everything is set to "Minimal" as noted in the upper right corner.

Also, I added a few things to my previous post in the thread we're in right now; do you have any information or guesses about what I wrote?

Edited by BMNJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the potential newgens pruduction should be lower in first years of save game, it's a bit anoying in second year of save game a newgen with 16 years in first squad.

In Brazil research we are very criterious with youth players to not create new "FM myths" but with it great part of "real" players retired early. Maybe for the first years the save game should "estimulate real players" even it lower all clubs level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was linked elsewhere, so for reference I would just like to post the below.

CA is the key here, please focus on that rather than PA. We are concerned with the current ability of players in future gameworlds, not how many could/should/would have made it. It is also not a good comparison with the starting DB, as researchers cull PA as players age. For a true comparison you would need to take every player in the starting DB and check their PA in the version of FM in which they were first introduced. In that data set you would see a massive spike in 170-200 PAs.

CA of the starting DB vs. CA of a future DB is what interests us in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my taste there are too many newgen with high CA.

But i have the same feeling at starting, indeed i always change CA-PA of the 100 best players in db. 

(I set 0 player in 186-200 range, 2 players, Messi and CR7, at 180-185, then 14 players in 170-179 and 77 in 160-169.

In the original db se have 2 players at 195, 8 in 180-189, 22 in 170-179 and 62 in 160-169)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

For my taste there are too many newgen with high CA.

But i have the same feeling at starting, indeed i always change CA-PA of the 100 best players in db. 

(I set 0 player in 186-200 range, 2 players, Messi and CR7, at 180-185, then 14 players in 170-179 and 77 in 160-169.

In the original db se have 2 players at 195, 8 in 180-189, 22 in 170-179 and 62 in 160-169)

I'd be interested in knowing why you do this. With Messi at 185 are you saying that you believe a player will come along that is substantially better than him or do you believe that no player justifies 190+?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 ore fa, Seb Wassell ha scritto:

I'd be interested in knowing why you do this. With Messi at 185 are you saying that you believe a player will come along that is substantially better than him or do you believe that no player justifies 190+?

I think Messi is an amazing player, of course. But...

...but i don't think is a game-changer and not even a player that can overcome the weakness of a team. 

He is maybe the best ever cherry on top. That he is.

I'm very nostalgic in some way and even if I love that now (in the last 13 years circa) that are a lot of protection on attacking players, that the balls now seem super-tele like model, etc.. i missing the the great battles defenders vs strikers.

The game were use to be more brutal. So i don't think Messi would be great also at 90s for example. 

The overprotection in Europe then is also the reason Messi cannot perform at World Cup where he a shadow even in 2014 ko stages. 

Winning title is not the Key. Performance is. And Messi cannot reach the level of Baggio in 94, Ronaldo in 98 or Zidane in 06 (talking about players that Lost final and that I saw).

And those player faced much stronger opponents. (Take Brazil-Holland in 98 to see how to stop Ronaldo, dutch had to be brutal - and there were also 2 penalties not seen for him)

Indeed with the current system you can set Messi at 195 with low Important Matches (that has no cost in ca points). But i don't know how much "Important Matches" affect the game.

I think "Important Matches" should be the most decisive factor.

The range should be more greater.

And great players (175+ with current system) would be very rare, so that would be harder get them.

(I would made a post about all that in the next day)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard many criticisms of Messi, but this is definitely the first time I have heard it suggested that he is "not a game changer" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minuti fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

I've heard many criticisms of Messi, but this is definitely the first time I have heard it suggested that he is "not a game changer" :D

I don't mean the single 'game', but the game-football itself. 

To stop Ronaldo in Italy in 97-98 or Maradona in Naples opponents need one thing: refree that protect defenders (and that were paid to make Juventus win...).

With Messi, you have refree that protect him to let him perform.

It's an huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - how did my thread about overpowering newgens devolve into "Messi is overrated because Juve pays refs" haha, amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2019 at 06:50, Seb Wassell said:

This was linked elsewhere, so for reference I would just like to post the below.

CA is the key here, please focus on that rather than PA. We are concerned with the current ability of players in future gameworlds, not how many could/should/would have made it. It is also not a good comparison with the starting DB, as researchers cull PA as players age. For a true comparison you would need to take every player in the starting DB and check their PA in the version of FM in which they were first introduced. In that data set you would see a massive spike in 170-200 PAs.

CA of the starting DB vs. CA of a future DB is what interests us in this discussion.

Still, I don't understand how the PA of the youngest players in the DB at the start of your save would be so much lower than the PA of the newgens at their introduction. If you look at the first page of this thread there is a lot of data we pulled comparing how drastically the CA of 18-20 year-old players in the starting DB is in fact lower than the CA of the future DB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 ora fa, Weston ha scritto:

Wow - how did my thread about overpowering newgens devolve into "Messi is overrated because Juve pays refs" haha, amazing.

Where did i say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play in Finland the regens I get coming through AC Oulu are usually one really good one, a couple really bad ones and some that will do well in the Finnish Prem and others who might be good First Division ones. One year I had three regens who are now rocking it in my First team but the next year it was ok. This recent bunch I just got had a really promising GK, have fun breaking in dude when my 17 year old is rocking it, and one dude who I looked up his PA and it was 32. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even necessarily mean coming through one's own academy, but just in general. Once you hit 2022-23 pretty much every single team has 1-3 very young newgens in the starting lineup at all times when at the beginning of the save it feels like you almost never see such a high percentage of players that age good enough for that much playing time.

Edited by Weston

Share this post


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

I don't even necessarily mean coming through one's own academy, but just in general. Once you hit 2022-23 pretty much every single team has 1-3 very young newgens in the starting lineup at all times when at the beginning of the save it feels like you almost never see such a high percentage of players that age good enough for that much playing time.

See there could be another issue at play here, it's very often that clubs (and in particular) fans of clubs will feel a youngster is ready, is on the cusp of first team selection. 

What is more often the case is that the managers don't have the proclivity to trust youngsters and tend to do so more when their hand is forced. While there could be an issue with regens, from what you're saying it more felt immediately to me like perhaps AI managers were too likely to give youngsters a chance.

But then could this be because perhaps the more experienced heads of around 32 or so that a lot tend to gravitate towards when they need some "experience" are still fetching too high a price? 

I can't say I've looked at it myself, but feeling there are too many young players in the starting line-up feels like a symptom of another problem given that during the early years generally speaking there are much better distributed players in the actual database than the regens available at that time. They won't have had enough time to develop unless the first year batch but presumably you aren't considering 21 to be "very young".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 ore fa, Weston ha scritto:

I don't even necessarily mean coming through one's own academy, but just in general. Once you hit 2022-23 pretty much every single team has 1-3 very young newgens in the starting lineup at all times when at the beginning of the save it feels like you almost never see such a high percentage of players that age good enough for that much playing time.

It's true. 

You can also build a team with only under20 and win league (at least in low nation).

Maybe mental attributes should be more important (and young should have low value in them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, santy001 said:

See there could be another issue at play here, it's very often that clubs (and in particular) fans of clubs will feel a youngster is ready, is on the cusp of first team selection. 

What is more often the case is that the managers don't have the proclivity to trust youngsters and tend to do so more when their hand is forced. While there could be an issue with regens, from what you're saying it more felt immediately to me like perhaps AI managers were too likely to give youngsters a chance.

But then could this be because perhaps the more experienced heads of around 32 or so that a lot tend to gravitate towards when they need some "experience" are still fetching too high a price? 

I can't say I've looked at it myself, but feeling there are too many young players in the starting line-up feels like a symptom of another problem given that during the early years generally speaking there are much better distributed players in the actual database than the regens available at that time. They won't have had enough time to develop unless the first year batch but presumably you aren't considering 21 to be "very young".

 

5 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

It's true. 

You can also build a team with only under20 and win league (at least in low nation).

Maybe mental attributes should be more important (and young should have low value in them)

As I mentioned there is a decent amount of data in this thread about the quality of the newgens, and we haven't done any proper investigating into the number of teens (therefore, newgens) that actually feature in starting lineups a few years into your save vs at the start. Though I can say, anecdotally, the last match I just played, vs Stuttgart in the Europa League knockouts, I believe they had 3 in the starting lineup. They didn't even look *that* good, so perhaps that adds credence to the theory there is something else in play there. Though usually they are much better from what I've seen.

Perhaps part of it is very young players are more of an unknown quantity in real life whereas in FM their attributes are just as easily seen as a 35 year-old who has been around forever. That means it's easier to trust them in FM than IRL. Also, it's possible that as someone who watches almost exclusively Serie A, where young players are very rarely trusted over experience, the amount I see in-game more closely resembles reality in other countries and the AI just hasn't nailed down Italian-specific nuance, so it feels more drastic to me from my own perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...