% of victory factors

[khris]

I was trying to give a % (in intuition mode, nothing proved, just maybe I remember the matches during all these 32 seasons and is a estimate...)

These are my numbers:
8% win bonus
12% good substitution
12% work of testing, man in corners/fouls
15% formation
18% to attend
35% Quality (in same League level terms) counting that if, one team have a initial 11 of +3 stars one have the 0% and other the 35% to do it in some proportion/scale effects....

Maybe we can to add too...
initial orders? change orders in live match? search Key player added in the work of testing?



What is important to manage for you? feel free to give your viewpoint


What do you think? after play some seasons of T11, how affects every section/decision?

[khris]

Yeah, I missed condition, but sometimes I don't have condition LOL
Yeah is something to add, but lets discuss like is now to have viewpoints and impressions :'D
Too I count that don't need all team in conditions + full morale.. but I dont will touch xD

[Buffs Mad]

You missed the good or bad player effect (nothing to do with Q) ->Performance? That little hidden something. >.<

[khris]

You missed the good or bad player effect (nothing to do with Q) ->Performance? That little hidden something. >.<

Yeah, I know I missed things, as I've said like the condition etc.. let's see if we can add things between all and have a general opinion about the % of these things and more LOL

So now things to add:
Condition, morale, individual players (well Ive did mention about key player but thats not the same...) performance, can be mentioned as individual internal proggramming maybe¿? , ...

The idea is too to have a conclusion about what managers feel, so let's add opinions. LOL

[Gert Funck]

You missed the good or bad player effect (nothing to do with Q) ->Performance? That little hidden something. >.<

Ratings and subs can ballance each other out (12% sum of both)

[Blackkiwi]

Interesting idea! It would be cool if T11 released this/the algorithm they use etc. I guess that would give some of us an unfair advantage though
I'd possibly add in previous game history/rating recently of players and how that affects the team. i.e If you've got a key MC in a holding role that has been in crap form/just come back from an injury, he won't provide any good ball to your ST's and so their ability is affected.
Also I personally would have player quality higher. I feel like you can outplay the opposition off the park, but if they have clear superior quality it's still a 50/50 chance.

Edit: I've now noticed Gurt just mentioned ratings as well
.Gotta be quick round here haha.

[Buffs Mad]

I think the Q factor is pretty good for lower levels but less important the higher you go. (NB. I said less important not unimportant.)

On performance, I imagine that to perform the players have their Q. Additionally, to differentiate between good and bad players of the same Q I think of a player's Performance factor - which Khris calls Hidden Programming. I visualise this as being a range between 0.75 and 1.20 (numbers half-plucked out the air and half-chosen as reasonable effects).

So in a calculation a players action (in addition to any random effects) the outcome is affected by their embedded factor. I do not rule out the code carrying 2 factors, 1 you can affect (which Amane would call motivation) and one thats player specific (embedded). You can then see that the 'bad player in bad form' effect could result in a 0.75x0.75 modifier to his action - effectively delivering 50% of his potential.

(Ofc you can go wild and apply this to FK taking, passing etc so Q (potential) x Performance (Embeded x Motivation) = Outcome)

But easier to call it the Bad/Good Player effect or Performance factor.

Don't know where to pitch it as a percentage but I'd guess having good performing players of same Q is 20% of the battle (if not more) and bonus, quality and subs are pitched at too high %age.

It is similar to the FK taker etc stuff as you have worded it. Remove the "testing" and call it Set-Piece Taker Effectiveness. (One of the ways of achieving it isofc testing but that applies to many things ) Because having a Good FK taker and CK taker is definately an advantage.

I'm sure others will say thats too complex for this game but its pretty simple and a foundation of games just like 'random'.

[nikolgiorgos]

quality of the players 20%
form of the players 15%
team formation 20%
presence of the mgr 15%

special ability of some players
(free-kick/ corner) 3%
ball possession/ticket/supporting 3% (max)
win bonus 4 levels > 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%
condition 1%
morale 1%
playing out of position -1%
subs ?%

Luck - priceless

[Gert Funck]

quality of the players 20%
form of the players 15%
team formation 20%
presence of the mgr 15%

special ability of some players
(free-kick/ corner) 3%
ball possession/ticket/supporting 3% (max)
win bonus 4 levels > 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%
condition 1%
morale 1%
playing out of position -1%
subs ?%

Luck - priceless

Yeah, but i would put:
special ability of some players (free-kick/ corner/playmaker/dribler/etc.) -2 to 3%

[nikolgiorgos]

I had this idea for this thread yesterday, after my ch.l. game with my alt team.
I had all the good conditions (except win bonus - I had the 1st level). All my players had a good form (ok, my GK, THE USUAL 6-7-6-6-7).
Started watching the game and when I saw that my oppo was using an asymmetrical formation (and wasn't watching the game), I changed my formation from 4-5-1 V, def/counters to attacking from left side. I took of my right winger, set an AMC (in the left side), put two ST (in left and middle side), I put red arrows in all those attackers and then my opponent scored twice
Oppo scorer got a 5
So, after that game I was thinking what's the real meaning of watching or using the proper formation vs luck (or a fixed result )
This is not the first time. Almost half times, when I see an asymmetrical or not proper formation (for example when oppo has 3DC, attacking from the flanks) try to counter it and it's failing





well, sometimes games favour is just unbeaten !