Subject: »General Questions

Ehhh... next time please try reading with comprehension...

I know there are long-term trends which make players have MIN/MAX form for a long time and yes, it's problem. Everyone who plays this game for longer knows that.

I was referring to this:

"only a theory that defines that an ''unknown variable'' is affecting his form" / "A player can change his unknown variable over time!"

there are no "unknown variables" affecting form... the game is too simple in all aspects to suddenly become complex only for form.

having said all that, I'm not sure people would prefer the "fixed form issue" which would lead to MOST players having form around 9-13 and only some having 0-5 / 14-18. I'm sure people would be angry then that "almost all players have no form".

Did you read my just up post?

Of course it's not "totally" random as form could be 10 and the week after 18 or 2
It's the evolution for form which is random, but a random beetween -3 and +3
Sometimes there is a +4 or a -4 but it's a visual wrong +-4 because of the display of rounding

And whatever, the =0 is not so expected than the +-1 which is more expected than the +-2 as the +-3 is the less expected.
I think they are dispatched on a Gauss random courb for -3 -2 -1 =0 +1 +2 +3
Some statistic studies where done on sokker about those evolution, some years ago.

Why the hell not having this most ''around 9-13 and only some having 0-5 / 14-18''
Simple explanation those around 0-5 came out of a long term injury (makes sense). And these super formed players who perform very well and do incredible things in their respective club and NT, completely fine and those players who just sit in their clubs loyal ones nothing special they can be in the range of 9-13 fair enough

Here surely we all are not on the same page of the topic. I am complaining/discussing about players who are for several seasons at least between 0-5 form that's a bit of a nonsense. Not talking about form fluctuation, i'd be glad if any of my sh1tty formed players would be 10 :D never happened so far. +3 -3 up and down go ahead, but not like 70 weeks hoovering around 0-5 for a player AGAIN who is a key player for the club and plays regularly and performs for the club, total nonsense.

as for this

I've seen the trend endless times over and over! Especially with players that reach their max potential!
If it's totally random, then why are NT teams struggling with form so much?

let's look at facts based on Belgie NT which you mentioned later on, data based on BEST players for each position, top 10 (sorted by max value when in max form)

ATT: 7/10 high form, 1/10 mid form, 2/10 low form

(18, 16, 16, 15, 15, 14, 14, 12, 5, 0)

MID: 3/10 high form, 7/10 mid form, 0/10 low form (and most mid is very close to high)

(16, 16, 15, 13, 13, 13, 13, 12, 11, 9)

DEF: 4/10 high form, 4/10 mid form, 2/10 low form

(16, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 7, 7)

I honestly doubt that big data would support your theories that "player who reach their max potential get low form" or that "NTs are struggling so much with low forms"

fact is people want all/most players in form 15-18, people expect TOP form... when most players are 14-18 for many seasons in a row it's never an issue, when a couple of them have 0-5 then it's a tragedy and "NTs struggling with form"
(edited)

You are talking about the current form of the players in Belgium, I was talking about the best 5 mids we had over the last 20 seasons in their generation... they ALL had form issues and 2/5 had more than 4 seasons of bottom form.
Also, where did you get your data? From the current selected players? Or the best players skillwise?
You can state facts as an empty shell if you cannot back them up with sources.
I know I cannot back my ''facts'' up with sources, since most of them are already out of play or it's just been too long gone and I don't have the time or willpower to browse the forum back several years to ''find'' the original posts back.

But again, where can you back up your statement that my statement of unknown variables is false? You just go and claim that it is false. Also, I set that statement up as a theory, not a fact. If anyone needs reading properly, try taking your own advice at heart for once.

You are talking about the current form of the players in Belgium, I was talking about the best 5 mids we had over the last 20 seasons in their generation... they ALL had form issues and 2/5 had more than 4 seasons of bottom form.

and there were loads of 5x 16, 5x 17 or 3x 18 players who had no big form issues. The first 3x superdivine striker was Belgian and NEVER had form problems. How is it possible that those top stars were not touched by the "form curse attacking best players when they reach their peak"? why would anyone code such thing anyway...

without any real, actual data it doesn't make sense to discuss whether 5 best mids every last 20 seasons in Belgium really had such big form issues. I can write that top 30 best French defenders in history had zero form problems, it's not worth anything though.

it's random, due to random some players have most often top form, others most often low form during careers. when 5 players have 15-18 form for seasons nobody is bothered, when one player has very low form for seasons then suddenly it's a big issue. One Polish 5x16+ MID has only 10 NT appearances due to form issues. Another DEF (!) with sumskill 79 has 3 games in NT because of form issues. Bad luck for them, but there are others who have 30, 40, 50 games in NT which means they were always in top form.

Also, where did you get your data? From the current selected players? Or the best players skillwise?

I wrote that already... ("(sorted by max value when in max form)") - best players based on their potential max value (only issue of this method is wingers having higher value than CMs, but that's not an issue in this case)

You can state facts as an empty shell if you cannot back them up with sources.

same source as usually, G&M. https://geston.smallhost.pl/sokker/scouting.php

But again, where can you back up your statement that my statement of unknown variables is false? You just go and claim that it is false.

You can make all sorts of theories, but when these theories are based on nothing except "oh I have A THEORY!" then what are these theories worth?
(edited)

Haha really are you complaining about top players to have top form?
I think it's normal to be honest, obviously noone is complaining about top formed players. Though i don't rhink it's normal (globally speaking) to have 3-infinite seasons of 0-5 form for top or key players in club level. That's the issue.

If you want 18 form all the time is the issue as well, okay then there's an issue in the end, it's not equal, there's a bad bug in the system globally speaking that's my point personally.

What you have between you guys that's your problem, im here to talk about form issue which actually exists. What proof do you need more here?

Nobody cares how many Estonians or Belgians or Polish players have or haven't played in NT. What we care about is that form has a beautiful bug in the system

Indeed. Also when the ''bug'' interferes, the form drops rapidly to never rise back up untill the player is dropping in skills again.
Not a fact, but a theory.
@Borkos, Do you understand the meaning of a theory? Cause you seem to think it has to be based on facts. But it has to be based on assumptions and needs proof to turn the theory into a fact. I lack proof, but still I have lots of examples that could look like the theory has some ground in it. Geston's tool is great, but it doesn't proof anything about form. It only shows how form changes over time, but doesn't show the actual code behind it, does it? And maybe there isn't any weird code, but like silvercard says, then it has to be a bug. At least there's something that's not working the way Geston and others are thinking. Let's just agree on the fact that form should never sit at the bottom for more than 2 seasons in a row! Imo, form should always be influenced by the minutes played and / or trained and also on results. It should not be big, but playing 180 minutes each week, getting results, should at least prevent a player from parking his form below average for seasons on, right?

Haha really are you complaining about top players to have top form?
I think it's normal to be honest, obviously noone is complaining about top formed players.

exactly what I meant... if form gets fixed and there will be no players with form 14-18 all the time for many seasons and most will have "normal" form 9-13, then there will be even more angry people

so be aware of what you're asking, because constant top form is also not normal and if they change the long-low form spells to make them bounce more towards centre, then they will impact the long-high form spells as well

I have lots of examples that could look like the theory has some ground in it.

ok, then please show those lots of examples connecter with your theory...

Geston's tool is great, but it doesn't proof anything about form. It only shows how form changes over time, but doesn't show the actual code behind it, does it?

what...? I have no idea what you're talking about, how does it show how the form changes?

your theory was that top players almost always lose form when they reach their peak, so I've shown you form of top Belgian players and most of them have medium/high form which shows that your theory is based on nothing

And maybe there isn't any weird code, but like silvercard says, then it has to be a bug.

and nobody says that it isn't bugged or that it doesn't work perfectly, we are talking about the specific thing that you said, that "there are unknown variables affecting player form that change over time for player"

form is based on a formula, look what Baloomao wrote to you

it's possible that the formula is imperfect and because of that sometimes the form tends to "stick" to either MIN or MAX, thus leading to prolonged very low / very high form cycles

Let's just agree on the fact that form should never sit at the bottom for more than 2 seasons in a row!

I agree
my questions is should player's form sit at top 15-18 for 2 seasons in a row?

because my feeling is that if they start touching the form formula, the end result will be that average form for players will drop and most players will have form around the middle of scale and very low / very high form will be just for very short spells

''exactly what I meant... if form gets fixed and there will be no players with form 14-18 all the time for many seasons and most will have "normal" form 9-13, then there will be even more angry people

so be aware of what you're asking, because constant top form is also not normal and if they change the long-low form spells to make them bounce more towards centre, then they will impact the long-high form spells as well''

That completely makes sense though and if people are angry about a more fair change then oh well.. though i think 9-13 form is much better thn having buggy 0-5 or 16-18 constantly which doesn't make sense.

Data for Average Form by Age :

1) Avg Form by Age are usually between to 8-9, it s match a "pure" random system.

2) There appears to be no difference between players with the greatest potential for improvement (the youngest) and those with little or no potential (over 30 years old). This should be verified in detail.

3) More interestingly, players over 40 decline systematically in form.
If this is not due to a lost of progress, it could be explained by the fact that they are not playing. Or both.

age / avg form
16 8.63851992409867
17 8.51708801498127
18 8.30486907140604
19 8.26569893848318
20 8.29804230423042
21 8.37543500511771
22 8.56011877569667
23 8.65346406357982
24 8.61249578351636
25 8.70291363163371
26 8.73086556169429
27 8.73984636306833
28 8.7011245996872
29 8.66775826138732
30 8.55998185803916
31 8.63402544688159
32 8.69242602479414
33 8.86107382550336
34 9.18469774704439
35 9.36207932692308
36 9.36487042369395
37 9.17540421362077
38 8.64900046490005
39 8.10185185185185
40 7.71017964071856
41 7.65235457063712
42 7.68731268731269
43 7.70339912280702
44 7.70874926600117
45 7.71552723059096
46 4.93121693121693
47 4.68316831683168
48 4.00877192982456
49 3.25641025641026
50 3.32835820895522
51 2.40350877192982
52 2.90909090909091
53 2.12280701754386
54 1.81632653061224
55 3.63829787234043
56 3.11538461538462
57 2.34782608695652
58 3.3030303030303
59 1.68421052631579
60 2.2
(edited)

Now look only at players who play regularly and ignore players from bot teams

ur right. I dont have bots(?) but avg note

At least one play

16 8.95
17 9.23
18 9.19
19 9.23
20 9.34
21 9.22
22 9.32
23 9.36
24 9.16
25 9.24
26 9.21
27 9.14
28 9.11
29 9.06
30 8.91
31 8.98
32 9.05
33 9.21
34 9.52
35 9.77
36 9.79
37 9.71
38 9.19
39 8.62
40 8.45
41 8.19
42 8.18
43 8.29
44 8.14
45 8.17
46 7.25

Zero play

16 7.83
17 6.0
18 5.72
19 5.66
20 5.48
21 6.17
22 6.58
23 6.79
24 7.23
25 7.36
26 7.53
27 7.73
28 7.69
29 7.71
30 7.73
31 7.79
32 7.8
33 8.1
34 8.41
35 8.45
36 8.41
37 7.91
38 7.45
39 7.05
40 6.55
41 7.04
42 7.26
43 7.48
44 7.66
45 7.66
(edited)