% of victory factors

[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'.