Re: Synchronated Updates 08-09

Well dividing a price by 4 takes no time at all, and some of the overall skill ratings on FM are just... wrong IMO. Not just slightly wrong. Ricardo Gardner is as good as Kevin Nolan. If you are a football researcher and in your database Gardner is as good as Nolan, you are doing it wrong, and possibly just not paying attention at all. I trust transfermarkt far more, even though it s not perfect

Well dividing a price by 4 takes no time at all

Of course. But you have to round the result to a SWOS price (and then convert it to total skills points). If you want, when I ll have some time, I could try to automatize these operations with the spreadsheet. Let me know.

some of the overall skill ratings on FM are just... wrong IMO. Not just slightly wrong. Ricardo Gardner is as good as Kevin Nolan. If you are a football researcher and in your database Gardner is as good as Nolan, you are doing it wrong, and possibly just not paying attention at all. I trust transfermarkt far more, even though it s not perfect

OK.

Well dividing a price by 4 takes no time at all

Of course. But you have to round the result to a SWOS price (and then convert it to total skills points). If you want, when I ll have some time, I could try to automatize these operations with the spreadsheet. Let me know.

It would be great if you could make it so we can enter the tmkt value and it uses this for the total of points.
Such as
70m+on tmkt = 49 SWOS points (no players would have this many) (£15m+)
60m+ = 48 (£15m)
48m+ = 47 (£12m) (Kaka, Messi, C.Ronaldo)
40m+ = 46 (£10m)
36m+ = 45
32m+ = 44
28m+ = 43
24m+ = 42
20m+ = 41
18m+ = 40 (£4.5m)
14m+ = 39 (£3.5m)
12m+ = 38
11m+ = 37
9m+ = 36
8m+ = 35
7.6m+ = 34 (£1.9m)
7.2m+ = 33 (£1.8m)
6.4m+ = 32
6m+ = 31
5.2m+ = 30
4.4m+ = 29
4m+ = 28 (£1m)
etc

It would be great if you could make it so we can enter the tmkt value and it uses this for the total of points.

Started it on a second sheet of our spreadsheet (for the others: spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pTkVWUJsaIYohd_zW-iCbFw gid=1 ). I ll finish it later, but you can already tell me if something is wrong.

That is once again great. I have been thinking about this process and have made another spreadsheet if you want to look.
It s in Excel though.

synchronated.110mb.com/fmtoswos2.xls
(ignore the goalkeepers in the spreadsheet)

The reason I am thinking this way is that I do not want the price in SWOS to be a product of the skills - I want it to be independent so that players can find bargains and flops, and in a career mode players values will change in a meaningful way.

So I propose that the price comes from tmkt/4 and that the skills come directly from FM and that they are not cross-referenced.

The overall ability in FM has also been factored in, to help highly-rated/world class players be generally better than rubbish ones who happen have good stats in FM, and the effect of the overall ability on the skills has been calibrated until it is observed that lots of players give some realistic results which would be good to play SWOS with.

What do you think? I like your method but also this one benefits from simplicity, and I would really like the price to be independent of the player s actual skills, to make the game more interesting and realistic also I now agree that we shouldn t award such as high tackling stats to attacking players just to get their real value up... which was essentially what we were trying to do efficiently before. You have convinced me

First of all: thanks for asking me (together with all the other sensi-heads, of course).

The reason I am thinking this way is that I do not want the price in SWOS to be a product of the skills - I want it to be independent so that players can find bargains and flops, and in a career mode players values will change in a meaningful way.

So I propose that the price comes from tmkt/4 and that the skills come directly from FM and that they are not cross-referenced.

Smart. Very good!

The overall ability in FM has also been factored in, to help highly-rated/world class players be generally better than rubbish ones who happen have good stats in FM, and the effect of the overall ability on the skills has been calibrated until it is observed that lots of players give some realistic results which would be good to play SWOS with.

I ve suggested this multiplication skills x overall value. With your calibration, the skills looks good to me. To finetune this calibration, you could use the same criterion you proposed for the skills: comparing with SWOS quantities. E.g. there are 500 or so players with 7 in ball control in the original SWOS, a few more than 100 (if I m not wrong ) with your method. Obviously, the numbers have not to be exactly the same, but you could try to be in the same order of magnitude. But, as I ve already said, all is OK now: you can let the things as they are now.

What do you think? I like your method but also this one benefits from simplicity, and I would really like the price to be independent of the player s actual skills, to make the game more interesting and realistic also I now agree that we shouldn t award such as high tackling stats to attacking players just to get their real value up... which was essentially what we were trying to do efficiently before.

We can say that there are two different ways:
a. Strictly adhere to SWOS: Del Piero had 7 in tackle, so Kaka can now.
b. Try to adhere to reality = pick the real price (Transfermarkt) and the real skills (FM): Kaka is the most priced player, but doesn t have all-perfect stats.
Now we know how to realize both these options (a = Google spreadsheet; b = Excel spreadsheet), so you just have to choose which you prefer. I m for b, as I ve written from the beginning, but let s hear what others think.

I think there will be many more players below those currently in the best players list who will get 7 for control.
I ve done the premiership with fm skills and tmkt/4 prices, will upload it later, people can see how the result is.

I think there will be many more players below those currently in the best players list who will get 7 for control.

Don t know. My number ( a few more than 100 ) is based not on your file, but on a FM career with large database + all the players from England, Spain and Italy: I don t think there should be many more players with control = 7 outside of this pool, but I can be wrong.

I ve done the premiership with fm skills and tmkt/4 prices, will upload it later, people can see how the result is.

Perfect.

You re probably right about the dribbling stat but we can t really change the bias for individual skills versus the other skills seems FM is just a bit reluctant to hand out big dribbling ratings. It will be good in swos if someone with 7 dribbling is special rather than common.

This is an England file (team.008) with just the Premiership done. Give it a spin. If anyone else wants to give feedback on this file, please do!
And remember that player stars come from the price - not from skills.
synchronated.110mb.com/skillstest.zip

You re probably right about the dribbling stat but we can t really change the bias for individual skills versus the other skills seems FM is just a bit reluctant to hand out big dribbling ratings. It will be good in swos if someone with 7 dribbling is special rather than common.

I didn t know this. I chose dribbling/control just as an example, because it s the first skill in SWOS order. It looks like I had to look at the other skills as well...

Anyway, the suggestion remains the same: you could compare your data and SWOS original ones about how many players have 7, 6, 5, etc. in each skill (but, again, everything is already OK).

This is an England file (team.008) with just the Premiership done. Give it a spin. If anyone else wants to give feedback on this file, please do!

Great! I myself want to check this with care. I ll probably do it next week, cause I m leaving. Anyway, I m looking forward to other players feedback, because sure they know about Premiership and SWOS more than me.

BTW, I was thinking: it would be good to have a skill range 0-15 and not only 0-7, right? (for players wages) Now, you could assign a value of 15 (not 7) to players that would have more than 8 (or 9, etc.) in that skill. More, you could give 14 if the value is more than 6.0 (and less of 6.50, of course): in general, if x.00 then assign x+8, if x.00 then assign x. Just an idea.