2025-10-30, 07:14 PM - Word count:
Hey SSL!
I've been playing with a spreadsheet this week, and teasing some of my findings in the league discord. A little recap:
In this article, and possibly others to follow, I'm going to imagine the SSL with a different cost structure for turning TPE into attribute points. An SSL with more expensive Pace and Acceleration for outfielders. An SSL with a player update page that doesn't offer the same simple math for all attributes and might take a few extra seconds to understand. An SSL in which Canadice has a headache for a while over portal implementation problems, but eventually solves the problem as he always does.
So, let's propose a couple possible answers to this question:
What if (at least) Pace and Acceleration points had a cost in proportion to the demand for them?
Another related question first: Woog, why the heck do you care? Good question. I like weird spreadsheet problems, sometimes. I've wanted to try this one since several seasons ago (when my player was a keeper who rightly had little stake in pace and acceleration). And I like thought exercises. We spend relatively more on Pace and Acceleration because the engine rewards it. Well, OK.... but FM24 doesn't exactly dole out 19s and 20s in pace and acceleration to players at anything near the rate the SSL's player development generates them. And concentrating spending on those attributes gives players less to spend on others (where "normal" FM24 might generate higher scores). So, spending more on paccel reduces player diversity. Player diversity is worth encouraging.
So: the league's outfielders have spent over 34,000 TPE on Pace and over 33,000 on Acceleration. Passing gets 15,000ish, Finishing just over 10,000 and Vision 9,400ish. In a spreadsheet, it looks as though we care more about winning running races than anything else.
Let's divvy up all attributes (that cost, so no Stamina or Natural Fitness) into 5 tranches, each of which is as close to 20% of outfield TPE as possible. All attributes are ranked by TPE spending. Each time you reach a new tranche, you've finished another 20% of league-wide TPE spending.
FIRST
SECOND
THIRD
FOURTH
FIFTH
N/A
First up, in that last tranche I put some asterisks down. I suspect (and might further analyze later) that Free Kick, Corners, and Penalty Taking draw less spending less because they aren't impactful, and more because you only need a limited number of players per team investing in them. We're gaming the system to let other players invest in more improvement elsewhere. I don't know that we need to make those cheaper. I'll treat those as though they're in the third tranche instead. (Don't like that? Write why in the comments. Maybe I'll invite you to my spreadsheet.)
For a minimum of change, let's keep attribute point costs the same for the third tranche.
So, depending on what your attribute score is already, you spend 2/4/6/12/18/25 TPE for the next point. This will apply to 8 attributes (the original third tranche plus the 3 asterisks).
Then, if we're doing this in the name of player diversity, we're trying to encourage less spending on tranches 1 and 2, and more on 4 and 5. Let's adjust prices as follows:
FIRST
6 / 8 / 10 / 16 / 22 / 30
SECOND
3 / 5 / 8 / 14 / 20 / 28
THIRD (no change)
2 / 4 / 6 / 12 / 18 / 25
FOURTH
2 / 4 / 6 / 10 / 16 / 22
FIFTH
1 / 3 / 5 / 8 / 11 / 15
If the league's current outfield attribute scores had been bought this way, Pace, Acceleration and Agility would together be a full third of TPE spending (up from a quarter). This passes my eye test for a balanced disincentive to spend too heavily on these three (with paccel costing more than agility, to be clear).
Maxing pace or acceleration would cost 232 TPE instead of the current 170 TPE (saying it that way makes it sound like it's no so harsh a price hike).
On the other end of the spectrum, maxing Leadership would cost 110 TPE instead of 170.
But then fewer of us would be just running around like racing rabbits. It would probably look like there was more leadership on the field either way.
- - -
I see other ways to tackle paccel, too. But 800+ words is enough for this article. Let me know what you'd like in a sequel, and I'll consider it.
I've been playing with a spreadsheet this week, and teasing some of my findings in the league discord. A little recap:
- league-wide (excluding the academy) outfield players spend 10% of their TPE on Pace, 10% on Acceleration, and third place is in the dust (Agility at 5%)
- keepers have more concentration of spending, with Reflexes, Aerial Reach and Agility all above 18% of their spending.
In this article, and possibly others to follow, I'm going to imagine the SSL with a different cost structure for turning TPE into attribute points. An SSL with more expensive Pace and Acceleration for outfielders. An SSL with a player update page that doesn't offer the same simple math for all attributes and might take a few extra seconds to understand. An SSL in which Canadice has a headache for a while over portal implementation problems, but eventually solves the problem as he always does.
So, let's propose a couple possible answers to this question:
What if (at least) Pace and Acceleration points had a cost in proportion to the demand for them?
Another related question first: Woog, why the heck do you care? Good question. I like weird spreadsheet problems, sometimes. I've wanted to try this one since several seasons ago (when my player was a keeper who rightly had little stake in pace and acceleration). And I like thought exercises. We spend relatively more on Pace and Acceleration because the engine rewards it. Well, OK.... but FM24 doesn't exactly dole out 19s and 20s in pace and acceleration to players at anything near the rate the SSL's player development generates them. And concentrating spending on those attributes gives players less to spend on others (where "normal" FM24 might generate higher scores). So, spending more on paccel reduces player diversity. Player diversity is worth encouraging.
So: the league's outfielders have spent over 34,000 TPE on Pace and over 33,000 on Acceleration. Passing gets 15,000ish, Finishing just over 10,000 and Vision 9,400ish. In a spreadsheet, it looks as though we care more about winning running races than anything else.
Let's divvy up all attributes (that cost, so no Stamina or Natural Fitness) into 5 tranches, each of which is as close to 20% of outfield TPE as possible. All attributes are ranked by TPE spending. Each time you reach a new tranche, you've finished another 20% of league-wide TPE spending.
FIRST
- Pace
- Acceleration
SECOND
- Agility
- Anticipation
- Decisions
- Dribbling
THIRD
- Passing
- Jumping Reach
- Strength
- Composure
- Balance
FOURTH
- Technique
- Finishing
- Work Rate
- Positioning
- Vision
- First Touch
FIFTH
- Tackling
- Concentration
- Off The Ball
- Marking
- Teamwork
- Crossing
- Heading
- Determination
- Flair
- Long Shots
- Bravery
- Aggression
- Free Kick*
- Corners*
- Leadership
- Penalty Taking*
- Long Throws
N/A
- Natural Fitness
- Stamina
First up, in that last tranche I put some asterisks down. I suspect (and might further analyze later) that Free Kick, Corners, and Penalty Taking draw less spending less because they aren't impactful, and more because you only need a limited number of players per team investing in them. We're gaming the system to let other players invest in more improvement elsewhere. I don't know that we need to make those cheaper. I'll treat those as though they're in the third tranche instead. (Don't like that? Write why in the comments. Maybe I'll invite you to my spreadsheet.)
For a minimum of change, let's keep attribute point costs the same for the third tranche.
So, depending on what your attribute score is already, you spend 2/4/6/12/18/25 TPE for the next point. This will apply to 8 attributes (the original third tranche plus the 3 asterisks).
Then, if we're doing this in the name of player diversity, we're trying to encourage less spending on tranches 1 and 2, and more on 4 and 5. Let's adjust prices as follows:
FIRST
6 / 8 / 10 / 16 / 22 / 30
SECOND
3 / 5 / 8 / 14 / 20 / 28
THIRD (no change)
2 / 4 / 6 / 12 / 18 / 25
FOURTH
2 / 4 / 6 / 10 / 16 / 22
FIFTH
1 / 3 / 5 / 8 / 11 / 15
If the league's current outfield attribute scores had been bought this way, Pace, Acceleration and Agility would together be a full third of TPE spending (up from a quarter). This passes my eye test for a balanced disincentive to spend too heavily on these three (with paccel costing more than agility, to be clear).
Maxing pace or acceleration would cost 232 TPE instead of the current 170 TPE (saying it that way makes it sound like it's no so harsh a price hike).
On the other end of the spectrum, maxing Leadership would cost 110 TPE instead of 170.
But then fewer of us would be just running around like racing rabbits. It would probably look like there was more leadership on the field either way.
- - -
I see other ways to tackle paccel, too. But 800+ words is enough for this article. Let me know what you'd like in a sequel, and I'll consider it.
![[Image: ssl2.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/ssl2.gif)
![[Image: qXecBe9.png]](https://i.imgur.com/qXecBe9.png)
![[Image: JmAhNLq.png]](https://i.imgur.com/JmAhNLq.png)
![[Image: lisfor-3.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/sDzJYqYM/lisfor-3.png)
