tam1236 said: I think it was HarvestGreen22, who proposed, after testing , not to accept field players under 7 work rate because of fatal negative impact. This attributes in italics for these positions (presume the rest are ok too) will be actually nearly impossible to find outside the editor or top stars, I'm afraid. And with such unreal demandings You still didn't get jumping for ST and only 13 pac/acc and 12 for DC? Expand This time I believe I am not mistaken.
If you look at my 1 CA templates, you'll see I use at least 7 work rate. Not because 7 is required, but because mentals/technicals can decrease as training redistributes attributes. I am, as you are, taking the 6 minimum from HarvestGreen's data. In this case I am still using the extra 1 point buffer, as in my ideal test of the meta training work rate was +1-2 after 4 years, and as mentioned I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training results, so 6 filter denotes 7 after training.
The attributes in italics are in italics for the reason that they are difficult to find, but they are not impossible to find. I have taken them from my ~115 CA ideal templates, which in turn are taken from a search of the database in Genie Scout to find attribute values for which there are at least ~50 players available. If I filter for attributes for DC, including the drib 13, there are 9 results, 1 of which is age 28 and valued at $150k pounds. If you remove the drib 13, as I recommended, I find 245 results.
As shown in my 1 CA results, jump reach of 1 scored best for ST. Not because 20 isn't better of course, but because it isn't strictly necessary. The reason jump 15 is included for AML/AMR is because I believe it is strictly necessary if want to get the bulk of performance. Yes I tried 20 jump ST with 1 jump AML/AMR. Yes I tried 20 jump with 20 head, 20 jump + head + strength, and so on. All failures. The poster asked for the minimums for a filter - 12-13 pace/acc results in ~16-17 pace/acc after training, which is the bare minimum I found to be able to do very good in the Premier League.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: GK - agil 11, pace 4, work 6, aer 15, ref 9, comp 4 DL/DR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, work 6 DC - acc 12, pace 12, jump 16, drib 13 DM - acc 13, pace 13, work 6 AML/AMR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, pos 13, work 6 ST - acc 13, pace 13, work 6
Minimum 0 CA attributes for all positions (these I'm more guesstimating than the above): 6 det, 6 nat, 8 pressure, 8 pro, 14< dirt, 14< injury, 6 loyal, 8 consist, 6 imp match.
Attributes in italics will be difficult to find and you should probably leave out of your filter, even though they are important.
The idea here is that with training, you will reach what I consider the minimums for what accounts for the bulk of max performance. I actually wanted to make 'pre-training' templates, but I found the effects of training to be too variable when comparing idealized isolated tests vs realistic premier league use, and I don't know yet what is actually realistic or typical. But with this filter here, I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training over 4 years, resulting in pace 12 > 16, which is the bare minimum I believe to get tangible victories (for premier league). It may fall short, but it will still serve it's function of separating most of the chaff from the wheat.
In regards to pro 12 being necessary, what I meant was that primarily pro 12< is rare, and we also know the following (source: Orion's FM22 testing):
So actually it's pro ~10 that is necessary, but I would guess that ~8 is not too bad either, based on how work rate matters a great deal up to just 6 then it tails off.
.grf file goes into (FM Genie Scout folder) > Ratings. Then in Genie Scout, press top left button > Rating and load the file. Expand
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: But it turns out professionalism under 12 is quite rare Expand No idea where you are getting this from because majority of players are under 12, especially younger players
Yarema said: No idea where you are getting this from because majority of players are under 12, especially younger players Expand I thought so too, but tam1236 pointed out to me that this is not the case
..Although halfway through writing up this reply, I realize we are talking about two different things here - you have in mind absolute abundance, I intend to mean relative abundance. Tam1236 was saying that I shouldn't favor pro over det, because low pro is significantly rarer than low det.
Nonetheless I think just laying out the matter will bring everything together.
Opening up a save I have where I have 140k players loaded, 1.5 years in (I thought I was a few years in before, but its enough for 1 year of newgens at least), I find the following using Genie Scout:
Total players = 139,514 Total players newgen only = 14,033
Det 1-6 = 27,235 players Pro 1-6 = 1,870 players
Det 1-6 newgen only = 4,185 players Pro 1-6 newgen only = 524 players
Det 1-8 = 41,228 players Pro 1-8 = 7,998 players
Det 1-8 newgen only = 5035 players Pro 1-8 newgen only = 1045 players
Det 1-12 = 88,614 players Pro 1-12 = 104,391 players
Det 1-12 newgen only = 9721 players Pro 1-12 newgen only = 9328 players
So you are right that majority of players are going to be under 12 pro, however we don't need 100k, or even 1k of players, when we are filtering.
For an absolute filter I suggest 8 pro. This leaves 94% of players while getting rid of the bulk of the poor performance.
For a relative filter (Genie Scout attribute weightings) I suggest weighting pro at ~2/3rds of det, because while their performance and training impact is roughly similar overall (beyond ~7), your chance of having low det players in your search is much higher. I guess you could kind of think of this as the inverse corollary to the 'absolute' filter; it is designed to cull as many players as possible from the list while minimizing performance loss.
I realize that few would have the time and energy to read all of my posts, and that certain things in my initial post are now contradicted by things I've said more recently.
I'll fix and clean up everything in an update of my initial post, but that'll probably have to wait until after Christmas.
I feel like I've come to pretty solid conclusions on everything that matters now except the matter of practical training.
So my plan for the next few days is to create a proper test of training, where I take Luton and/or Man City in Premier League and replace their players with realistic value buys (cheap, high CA-PA difference, etc.) using my GS ratings file, and apply the meta training as well as other training methods. My aims are:
1) See if meta & rest training actually works as intended or not (I actually kind of suspect it doesn't work as well as HarvestGreen22 assumes it does, based on some tests I already did) 2) Conclude what actual boosts will be had with meta & rest training 3) Try and find the ideal training regime for realistic use
Just to clarify, uploaded the last rating file on fmscout, and use the filters on main post. I get it right?
Using this on fmscout?
Shortlist filter:
GK - Age 31 max, Agility/Leadership 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Pace/Vision/Technique/Determination/Reflexes/Aerial Reach/Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Jumping Reach 8 min, Work Rate 6 min, Acceleration/Decisions/Handling/Rushing Out 15 max, Injury Proneness 10 max DL/DR - Same as ST except Agility/Stamina 8 min, no Dribbling 8 min DC - Same as ST except Jumping Reach 12 min, no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min DM - Same as ST except no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min AML/AMR - Same as ST ST - Age 22 max, 100 PA min, Acceleration/Pace 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Dribbling 8 min, Determination/Work Rate 6 min, Decisions/Injury Proneness 12 max
Just to clarify, uploaded the last rating file on fmscout, and use the filters on main post. I get it right?
Using this on fmscout?
Shortlist filter:
GK - Age 31 max, Agility/Leadership 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Pace/Vision/Technique/Determination/Reflexes/Aerial Reach/Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Jumping Reach 8 min, Work Rate 6 min, Acceleration/Decisions/Handling/Rushing Out 15 max, Injury Proneness 10 max DL/DR - Same as ST except Agility/Stamina 8 min, no Dribbling 8 min DC - Same as ST except Jumping Reach 12 min, no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min DM - Same as ST except no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min AML/AMR - Same as ST ST - Age 22 max, 100 PA min, Acceleration/Pace 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Dribbling 8 min, Determination/Work Rate 6 min, Decisions/Injury Proneness 12 max
PS: on ST - Decision 12max?
Thank you Expand Yes, use the last ratings file I uploaded with FM Genie Scout
Shortlist filters need an update, but that will do fine
Decisions should be 12 or less because it takes up a lot of CA but does hardly anything
Not double-checking everything I'm about to say right now, but I would surmise it as two main differences:
1. Orion's data is based on correlations with in-game ratings, whereas I'm focused on actual performance (win rate and goal difference). There appears to be a discrepancy between these two things because ratings overvalue technicals/mentals and devalue physicals, even where the physical players win the games - I haven't derived this from my own testing, it's from a youtuber who did an experiment showing this. I already knew there was something of a mismatch, this would explain why.
2. I weight all attributes, not just a few of them, and try to be as precise as possible taking into account all considerations. This wouldn't matter a huge deal, except that actually certain attributes such as the personality attribute 'pressure' do in fact matter a lot - this comes from Orion's own findings, that the difference between pressure 1 and 10 is something like a 40% performance difference, which is huge.
Not double-checking everything I'm about to say right now, but I would surmise it as two main differences:
1. Orion's data is based on correlations with in-game ratings, whereas I'm focused on actual performance (win rate and goal difference). There appears to be a discrepancy between these two things because ratings overvalue technicals/mentals and devalue physicals, even where the physical players win the games - I haven't derived this from my own testing, it's from a youtuber who did an experiment showing this. I already knew there was something of a mismatch, this would explain why.
2. I weight all attributes, not just a few of them, and try to be as precise as possible taking into account all considerations. This wouldn't matter a huge deal, except that actually certain attributes such as the personality attribute 'pressure' do in fact matter a lot - this comes from Orion's own findings, that the difference between pressure 1 and 10 is something like a 40% performance difference, which is huge.
Yes I'll be updating the main post at some stage. I'm quite busy with life right now Expand
I've been following your test for a month now. I even registered an account just to follow your test and look forward to the final selection criteria. I also want to confirm if FM26 is as effective? Finally, I wish you a Happy New Year! I'm from Macau.
em421 said: I've been following your test for a month now. I even registered an account just to follow your test and look forward to the final selection criteria. I also want to confirm if FM26 is as effective? Finally, I wish you a Happy New Year! I'm from Macau. Expand I uploaded a genie scout ratings file for FM26 on page 3 of the thread, which won't be as precise as I've just adjusted it roughly according to HarvestGreen22's FM26 data. But in general, while there are some differences, they're relatively minor.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I uploaded a genie scout ratings file for FM26 on page 3 of the thread, which won't be as precise as I've just adjusted it roughly according to HarvestGreen22's FM26 data. But in general, while there are some differences, they're relatively minor. Expand
1 - You mention two training methods: a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed?
1 - You mention two training methods: a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed? Expand
The difference is minor, there's a bunch of training combos now that are all roughly similar that are really just a few % better at most. I recommend going with (a) because that is proven to work and it's still up there with the best.
I don't know how well pace/acc can be maintained after age 24, but I do know and have seen that young age is very important for gains in pace/acc. If training up a player, I would be looking towards 18 year olds and below, and while players ~19-21 are still viable, I think you'd have to temper your expectations about how high you could grow their pace/acc.
Thanks George for this amazing post! I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious.
Pun said: Thanks George for this amazing post! I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious. Expand
I would be cautious in taking any single number as an absolute. Most things in FM are non linear so something like pressure may have a large effect if your whole team has a rating of 1, but having a couple of players with 7 or 8s and the rest 10+ will have only a small impact compared to every player at 15+ (which is impossible anyway). I don’t believe professionalism makes any difference in games, its good to have for your high PA players as they grow faster.
Hi, i downloaded your ratings for FM26, but i see a huge difference among "best current position", "best pa position" and the single role like "Ball playing Goalkeeper", as in the first 2 one of the best keepers is rated 67/68 and in the role is like 78 now and 85 potential, other keepers that are like 64/65 in the position are like 89/92 in the role, which should i priorityze?
Pun said: Thanks George for this amazing post! I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious. Expand Astute observations, but yes these are deliberate rather than mistakes
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
Bombardiro said: Hi, i downloaded your ratings for FM26, but i see a huge difference among "best current position", "best pa position" and the single role like "Ball playing Goalkeeper", as in the first 2 one of the best keepers is rated 67/68 and in the role is like 78 now and 85 potential, other keepers that are like 64/65 in the position are like 89/92 in the role, which should i priorityze? Expand If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency.
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency. Expand
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency. Expand
Thank you for your response! It’s crazy how much work you put into these ratings
And thank you to @MeanOnSunday for your response too.
Hi i'm using your r5xm3t file for FM26. While are you assigning such high coefficients to long shot for striker? i thought it is a non significant attribute?
Another thing about the r5xm3t rating file. Anyone here using a strikeless tactic seen any difference in using the Attacking midfields ratings vs the fast strikers ratings for their top line?
I'm using the AMC/Wingers ratings even if there are no strikers up front. It's working well, but wondering if anyone tries to use other ratings?
I tried to put my best "target striker" as my AMC in my strikerless tactic and THAT went poorly.
TactocTestor said: Hi i'm using your r5xm3t file for FM26. While are you assigning such high coefficients to long shot for striker? i thought it is a non significant attribute? Expand The ratings for 'target striker' are if you want a good set piece taker (penalties, free kicks) specifically
Use 'fast striker' for pure performance
Panneton0 said: Another thing about the r5xm3t rating file. Anyone here using a strikeless tactic seen any difference in using the Attacking midfields ratings vs the fast strikers ratings for their top line?
I'm using the AMC/Wingers ratings even if there are no strikers up front. It's working well, but wondering if anyone tries to use other ratings?
I tried to put my best "target striker" as my AMC in my strikerless tactic and THAT went poorly. Expand Something I've noticed, albeit in FM24 testing, is that if I make the striker a complete technical dud (i.e. 1 finishing) other players will pick up the goalscoring slack without any overall performance decrease. And in fact it turned out that this was the most efficient - my best results with a team of 1 CA players came from having strikers who were 1 finishing, 1 long shots, 1 technique, 5 composure. So I think it's probably not necessary to have a striker-like player in a strikerless tactic if the tactic works.
suwit13 said: Hello, I've been using your player rating coeff on Genie Scout and it's been working very well.
Recently, harvestgreen22 released a new test for GK attributes. Can you convert the data to your player rating coeff? @GeorgeFloydOverdosed Expand I've actually been working on this recently
Initially I was just going to redo the GK, but then I realized I want to take a new approach to the whole thing.
I've ended up not entirely satisfied with the new approach, basically I think it's definitely better but even more arbitrary in a way. It's mostly to do with balancing CA weighting vs. raw performance, and the problematic question is if an attribute gives a slight boost to win rate but on the other hand also only has very low CA weight (or zero CA weight, like personality attributes), do you give that some kind of bonus and if so to what degree? Basically, how much is free CA even worth exactly. So I've come up with a take on this, that also integrates training results with good accuracy (i.e. if meta training is expected to lower passing by 1 over 4 years, I adjust the passing value slightly accordingly - this is more pronounced for pace/acc which will increase by ~4 in youth over 4 years!).
It's largely done now, just have to finish off some positions I don't use like WBL/MC/AMC and also create a FM26 adjusted version before I post it. Will be soon.
So my take on the valuation of free CA is roughly this:
We know it has always has some value, because high CA-PA gap = faster training = higher pace/acc faster.
Therefore a zero CA cost attribute such as 'pressure' that has a significant effect on win rate, is even more valuable than an equivalent attribute that costs CA, say dribbling. But by how much exactly? 2 points of pace and acceleration each perhaps? I prefer to go on the safe side and guesstimate 1-2 points of just pace say (I think about what gets 'sacrificed' to stay within PA limit at the end of ~4 years of training).
But then you have positions such as DM where you can easily max out pace/acc to 20 without hitting the PA cap, at least if you're in a good division (which I think most players are in, or plan to end up in).
So I figure the bonus for DM should be reduced, and conversely the bonus for a CA-tight position such as AML should be increased.
But this leads to the peculiar consequence that positions that benefit most from high pace/acc, such as AML, value them least. Not to mention the fact that lowering the immediate gains (from high pace/acc) for expected future gains that may never even eventuate. And then there are also inherent variables whose expected ranges exceed the capacity of this predictive method. For instance, even assuming everyone uses meta training, one player might go from 15>17 pace, another will go from 14>20.
So in the end what I decided is, I will have a set of values for youth/optimization, a set of values for age26+/team selection/pure performance (which will be very closely aligned with HarvestGreen's findings), and then a blend of the two - which will be the file I recommend to use as switching between files is tedious. Is a 50/50 blend the best? Probably not, but it's the best I can do so far. I have checked in genie scout the actual results of these new values, and it seems to be working as it should - the best players are those from Man City, Barcelona, Real Madrid, etc. as you'd expect. I've looked for outliers that have changed positions the most, and overall I'd say the margin of error could be something like -/+3% genie scout rating, which I think is satisfactory.
Here's an example to give you an idea about things:
Default Genie Scout - Kane 91.47%, Haaland 90.95%, Mbappe 88.30% Orion's Coefficients (not my file) - Haaland 88.01%, Mbappe 86.31%, Kane 81.63% My existing file - Mbappe 77.59%, Haaland 77.25%, Kane 67.35% New file (youth/optimization) - Mbappe 79.73%, Haaland 75.69%, Kane 65.64% New file (age26+/pure performance) - Haaland 95.34%, Mbappe 93.59%, Kane 82.21% New file (blended) - Mbappe 85.33%, Haaland 83.74%, Kane 72.46%
Ignore the numbers themselves, it's about how relative they are to each other
tam1236 said: I think it was HarvestGreen22, who proposed, after testing , not to accept field players under 7 work rate because of fatal negative impact. This attributes in italics for these positions (presume the rest are ok too) will be actually nearly impossible to find outside the editor or top stars, I'm afraid. And with such unreal demandings You still didn't get jumping for ST and only 13 pac/acc and 12 for DC?
This time I believe I am not mistaken.
If you look at my 1 CA templates, you'll see I use at least 7 work rate. Not because 7 is required, but because mentals/technicals can decrease as training redistributes attributes. I am, as you are, taking the 6 minimum from HarvestGreen's data. In this case I am still using the extra 1 point buffer, as in my ideal test of the meta training work rate was +1-2 after 4 years, and as mentioned I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training results, so 6 filter denotes 7 after training.
The attributes in italics are in italics for the reason that they are difficult to find, but they are not impossible to find. I have taken them from my ~115 CA ideal templates, which in turn are taken from a search of the database in Genie Scout to find attribute values for which there are at least ~50 players available. If I filter for attributes for DC, including the drib 13, there are 9 results, 1 of which is age 28 and valued at $150k pounds. If you remove the drib 13, as I recommended, I find 245 results.
As shown in my 1 CA results, jump reach of 1 scored best for ST. Not because 20 isn't better of course, but because it isn't strictly necessary. The reason jump 15 is included for AML/AMR is because I believe it is strictly necessary if want to get the bulk of performance. Yes I tried 20 jump ST with 1 jump AML/AMR. Yes I tried 20 jump with 20 head, 20 jump + head + strength, and so on. All failures. The poster asked for the minimums for a filter - 12-13 pace/acc results in ~16-17 pace/acc after training, which is the bare minimum I found to be able to do very good in the Premier League.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: GK - agil 11, pace 4, work 6, aer 15, ref 9, comp 4
DL/DR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, work 6
DC - acc 12, pace 12, jump 16, drib 13
DM - acc 13, pace 13, work 6
AML/AMR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, pos 13, work 6
ST - acc 13, pace 13, work 6
Minimum 0 CA attributes for all positions (these I'm more guesstimating than the above): 6 det, 6 nat, 8 pressure, 8 pro, 14< dirt, 14< injury, 6 loyal, 8 consist, 6 imp match.
Attributes in italics will be difficult to find and you should probably leave out of your filter, even though they are important.
The idea here is that with training, you will reach what I consider the minimums for what accounts for the bulk of max performance. I actually wanted to make 'pre-training' templates, but I found the effects of training to be too variable when comparing idealized isolated tests vs realistic premier league use, and I don't know yet what is actually realistic or typical. But with this filter here, I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training over 4 years, resulting in pace 12 > 16, which is the bare minimum I believe to get tangible victories (for premier league). It may fall short, but it will still serve it's function of separating most of the chaff from the wheat.
In regards to pro 12 being necessary, what I meant was that primarily pro 12< is rare, and we also know the following (source: Orion's FM22 testing):
So actually it's pro ~10 that is necessary, but I would guess that ~8 is not too bad either, based on how work rate matters a great deal up to just 6 then it tails off.
.grf file goes into (FM Genie Scout folder) > Ratings. Then in Genie Scout, press top left button > Rating and load the file.
Thanks, bro
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: But it turns out professionalism under 12 is quite rare
No idea where you are getting this from because majority of players are under 12, especially younger players
Yarema said: No idea where you are getting this from because majority of players are under 12, especially younger players
I thought so too, but tam1236 pointed out to me that this is not the case
..Although halfway through writing up this reply, I realize we are talking about two different things here - you have in mind absolute abundance, I intend to mean relative abundance. Tam1236 was saying that I shouldn't favor pro over det, because low pro is significantly rarer than low det.
Nonetheless I think just laying out the matter will bring everything together.
Opening up a save I have where I have 140k players loaded, 1.5 years in (I thought I was a few years in before, but its enough for 1 year of newgens at least), I find the following using Genie Scout:
Total players = 139,514
Total players newgen only = 14,033
Det 1-6 = 27,235 players
Pro 1-6 = 1,870 players
Det 1-6 newgen only = 4,185 players
Pro 1-6 newgen only = 524 players
Det 1-8 = 41,228 players
Pro 1-8 = 7,998 players
Det 1-8 newgen only = 5035 players
Pro 1-8 newgen only = 1045 players
Det 1-12 = 88,614 players
Pro 1-12 = 104,391 players
Det 1-12 newgen only = 9721 players
Pro 1-12 newgen only = 9328 players
So you are right that majority of players are going to be under 12 pro, however we don't need 100k, or even 1k of players, when we are filtering.
For an absolute filter I suggest 8 pro. This leaves 94% of players while getting rid of the bulk of the poor performance.
For a relative filter (Genie Scout attribute weightings) I suggest weighting pro at ~2/3rds of det, because while their performance and training impact is roughly similar overall (beyond ~7), your chance of having low det players in your search is much higher. I guess you could kind of think of this as the inverse corollary to the 'absolute' filter; it is designed to cull as many players as possible from the list while minimizing performance loss.
I realize that few would have the time and energy to read all of my posts, and that certain things in my initial post are now contradicted by things I've said more recently.
I'll fix and clean up everything in an update of my initial post, but that'll probably have to wait until after Christmas.
I feel like I've come to pretty solid conclusions on everything that matters now except the matter of practical training.
So my plan for the next few days is to create a proper test of training, where I take Luton and/or Man City in Premier League and replace their players with realistic value buys (cheap, high CA-PA difference, etc.) using my GS ratings file, and apply the meta training as well as other training methods. My aims are:
1) See if meta & rest training actually works as intended or not (I actually kind of suspect it doesn't work as well as HarvestGreen22 assumes it does, based on some tests I already did)
2) Conclude what actual boosts will be had with meta & rest training
3) Try and find the ideal training regime for realistic use
Hey @GeorgeFloydOverdosed Thank you for all this data and work
Just to clarify, uploaded the last rating file on fmscout, and use the filters on main post. I get it right?
Using this on fmscout?
Shortlist filter:
GK - Age 31 max, Agility/Leadership 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Pace/Vision/Technique/Determination/Reflexes/Aerial Reach/Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Jumping Reach 8 min, Work Rate 6 min, Acceleration/Decisions/Handling/Rushing Out 15 max, Injury Proneness 10 max
DL/DR - Same as ST except Agility/Stamina 8 min, no Dribbling 8 min
DC - Same as ST except Jumping Reach 12 min, no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min
DM - Same as ST except no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min
AML/AMR - Same as ST
ST - Age 22 max, 100 PA min, Acceleration/Pace 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Dribbling 8 min, Determination/Work Rate 6 min, Decisions/Injury Proneness 12 max
PS: on ST - Decision 12max?
Thank you
Danipinus said: Hey @GeorgeFloydOverdosed Thank you for all this data and work
Just to clarify, uploaded the last rating file on fmscout, and use the filters on main post. I get it right?
Using this on fmscout?
Shortlist filter:
GK - Age 31 max, Agility/Leadership 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Pace/Vision/Technique/Determination/Reflexes/Aerial Reach/Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Jumping Reach 8 min, Work Rate 6 min, Acceleration/Decisions/Handling/Rushing Out 15 max, Injury Proneness 10 max
DL/DR - Same as ST except Agility/Stamina 8 min, no Dribbling 8 min
DC - Same as ST except Jumping Reach 12 min, no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min
DM - Same as ST except no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min
AML/AMR - Same as ST
ST - Age 22 max, 100 PA min, Acceleration/Pace 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Dribbling 8 min, Determination/Work Rate 6 min, Decisions/Injury Proneness 12 max
PS: on ST - Decision 12max?
Thank you
Yes, use the last ratings file I uploaded with FM Genie Scout
Shortlist filters need an update, but that will do fine
Decisions should be 12 or less because it takes up a lot of CA but does hardly anything
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, use the last ratings file I uploaded with FM Genie Scout
Shortlist filters need an update, but that will do fine
Decisions should be 12 or less because it takes up a lot of CA but does hardly anything
Thank you, will try that
Will you update later the filters?
Thank you and Happy New Year 2026
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed What are the biggest differences between your GS ratings file and Orions?
Middleweight165 said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed What are the biggest differences between your GS ratings file and Orions?
They're quite different
Not double-checking everything I'm about to say right now, but I would surmise it as two main differences:
1. Orion's data is based on correlations with in-game ratings, whereas I'm focused on actual performance (win rate and goal difference). There appears to be a discrepancy between these two things because ratings overvalue technicals/mentals and devalue physicals, even where the physical players win the games - I haven't derived this from my own testing, it's from a youtuber who did an experiment showing this. I already knew there was something of a mismatch, this would explain why.
2. I weight all attributes, not just a few of them, and try to be as precise as possible taking into account all considerations. This wouldn't matter a huge deal, except that actually certain attributes such as the personality attribute 'pressure' do in fact matter a lot - this comes from Orion's own findings, that the difference between pressure 1 and 10 is something like a 40% performance difference, which is huge.
Danipinus said: Thank you, will try that
Will you update later the filters?
Thank you and Happy New Year 2026
Yes I'll be updating the main post at some stage. I'm quite busy with life right now
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: They're quite different
Not double-checking everything I'm about to say right now, but I would surmise it as two main differences:
1. Orion's data is based on correlations with in-game ratings, whereas I'm focused on actual performance (win rate and goal difference). There appears to be a discrepancy between these two things because ratings overvalue technicals/mentals and devalue physicals, even where the physical players win the games - I haven't derived this from my own testing, it's from a youtuber who did an experiment showing this. I already knew there was something of a mismatch, this would explain why.
2. I weight all attributes, not just a few of them, and try to be as precise as possible taking into account all considerations. This wouldn't matter a huge deal, except that actually certain attributes such as the personality attribute 'pressure' do in fact matter a lot - this comes from Orion's own findings, that the difference between pressure 1 and 10 is something like a 40% performance difference, which is huge.
Yes I'll be updating the main post at some stage. I'm quite busy with life right now
I've been following your test for a month now. I even registered an account just to follow your test and look forward to the final selection criteria. I also want to confirm if FM26 is as effective? Finally, I wish you a Happy New Year! I'm from Macau.
em421 said: I've been following your test for a month now. I even registered an account just to follow your test and look forward to the final selection criteria. I also want to confirm if FM26 is as effective? Finally, I wish you a Happy New Year! I'm from Macau.
I uploaded a genie scout ratings file for FM26 on page 3 of the thread, which won't be as precise as I've just adjusted it roughly according to HarvestGreen22's FM26 data. But in general, while there are some differences, they're relatively minor.
I've updated the main post
There's further additions/improvements to be made to it, but this will do for now.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I uploaded a genie scout ratings file for FM26 on page 3 of the thread, which won't be as precise as I've just adjusted it roughly according to HarvestGreen22's FM26 data. But in general, while there are some differences, they're relatively minor.
Thank you for your reply and test !!
I have two questions.
1 - You mention two training methods:
a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed?
Due to an unexpected personal event I will be going on indefinite hiatus, perhaps for a fair while but I should return at some stage.
Luckily I've finished and tied up everything I've set out to achieve, and so it's the right time for me to sit back for a while anyway.
Eddie said: I have two questions.
1 - You mention two training methods:
a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed?
The difference is minor, there's a bunch of training combos now that are all roughly similar that are really just a few % better at most. I recommend going with (a) because that is proven to work and it's still up there with the best.
I don't know how well pace/acc can be maintained after age 24, but I do know and have seen that young age is very important for gains in pace/acc. If training up a player, I would be looking towards 18 year olds and below, and while players ~19-21 are still viable, I think you'd have to temper your expectations about how high you could grow their pace/acc.
Thanks George for this amazing post!
I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious.
Pun said: Thanks George for this amazing post!
I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious.
I would be cautious in taking any single number as an absolute. Most things in FM are non linear so something like pressure may have a large effect if your whole team has a rating of 1, but having a couple of players with 7 or 8s and the rest 10+ will have only a small impact compared to every player at 15+ (which is impossible anyway). I don’t believe professionalism makes any difference in games, its good to have for your high PA players as they grow faster.
Hi, i downloaded your ratings for FM26, but i see a huge difference among "best current position", "best pa position" and the single role like "Ball playing Goalkeeper", as in the first 2 one of the best keepers is rated 67/68 and in the role is like 78 now and 85 potential, other keepers that are like 64/65 in the position are like 89/92 in the role, which should i priorityze?
Pun said: Thanks George for this amazing post!
I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious.
Astute observations, but yes these are deliberate rather than mistakes
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
Bombardiro said: Hi, i downloaded your ratings for FM26, but i see a huge difference among "best current position", "best pa position" and the single role like "Ball playing Goalkeeper", as in the first 2 one of the best keepers is rated 67/68 and in the role is like 78 now and 85 potential, other keepers that are like 64/65 in the position are like 89/92 in the role, which should i priorityze?
If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Astute observations, but yes these are deliberate rather than mistakes
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency.
Thank you for your reply!
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Astute observations, but yes these are deliberate rather than mistakes
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency.
Thank you for your response! It’s crazy how much work you put into these ratings
And thank you to @MeanOnSunday for your response too.
Hi i'm using your r5xm3t file for FM26. While are you assigning such high coefficients to long shot for striker? i thought it is a non significant attribute?
Another thing about the r5xm3t rating file.
Anyone here using a strikeless tactic seen any difference in using the Attacking midfields ratings vs the fast strikers ratings for their top line?
I'm using the AMC/Wingers ratings even if there are no strikers up front. It's working well, but wondering if anyone tries to use other ratings?
I tried to put my best "target striker" as my AMC in my strikerless tactic and THAT went poorly.
TactocTestor said: Hi i'm using your r5xm3t file for FM26. While are you assigning such high coefficients to long shot for striker? i thought it is a non significant attribute?
The ratings for 'target striker' are if you want a good set piece taker (penalties, free kicks) specifically
Use 'fast striker' for pure performance
Panneton0 said: Another thing about the r5xm3t rating file.
Anyone here using a strikeless tactic seen any difference in using the Attacking midfields ratings vs the fast strikers ratings for their top line?
I'm using the AMC/Wingers ratings even if there are no strikers up front. It's working well, but wondering if anyone tries to use other ratings?
I tried to put my best "target striker" as my AMC in my strikerless tactic and THAT went poorly.
Something I've noticed, albeit in FM24 testing, is that if I make the striker a complete technical dud (i.e. 1 finishing) other players will pick up the goalscoring slack without any overall performance decrease. And in fact it turned out that this was the most efficient - my best results with a team of 1 CA players came from having strikers who were 1 finishing, 1 long shots, 1 technique, 5 composure. So I think it's probably not necessary to have a striker-like player in a strikerless tactic if the tactic works.
From my understanding if im trying to sign a st do i just disregard finishing for the most part in place for pace?
Medaonehere said: From my understanding if im trying to sign a st do i just disregard finishing for the most part in place for pace?
Yes
Hello, I've been using your player rating coeff on Genie Scout and it's been working very well.
Recently, harvestgreen22 released a new test for GK attributes. Can you convert the data to your player rating coeff? @GeorgeFloydOverdosed
suwit13 said: Hello, I've been using your player rating coeff on Genie Scout and it's been working very well.
Recently, harvestgreen22 released a new test for GK attributes. Can you convert the data to your player rating coeff? @GeorgeFloydOverdosed
I've actually been working on this recently
Initially I was just going to redo the GK, but then I realized I want to take a new approach to the whole thing.
I've ended up not entirely satisfied with the new approach, basically I think it's definitely better but even more arbitrary in a way. It's mostly to do with balancing CA weighting vs. raw performance, and the problematic question is if an attribute gives a slight boost to win rate but on the other hand also only has very low CA weight (or zero CA weight, like personality attributes), do you give that some kind of bonus and if so to what degree? Basically, how much is free CA even worth exactly. So I've come up with a take on this, that also integrates training results with good accuracy (i.e. if meta training is expected to lower passing by 1 over 4 years, I adjust the passing value slightly accordingly - this is more pronounced for pace/acc which will increase by ~4 in youth over 4 years!).
It's largely done now, just have to finish off some positions I don't use like WBL/MC/AMC and also create a FM26 adjusted version before I post it. Will be soon.
So my take on the valuation of free CA is roughly this:
We know it has always has some value, because high CA-PA gap = faster training = higher pace/acc faster.
Therefore a zero CA cost attribute such as 'pressure' that has a significant effect on win rate, is even more valuable than an equivalent attribute that costs CA, say dribbling. But by how much exactly? 2 points of pace and acceleration each perhaps? I prefer to go on the safe side and guesstimate 1-2 points of just pace say (I think about what gets 'sacrificed' to stay within PA limit at the end of ~4 years of training).
But then you have positions such as DM where you can easily max out pace/acc to 20 without hitting the PA cap, at least if you're in a good division (which I think most players are in, or plan to end up in).
So I figure the bonus for DM should be reduced, and conversely the bonus for a CA-tight position such as AML should be increased.
But this leads to the peculiar consequence that positions that benefit most from high pace/acc, such as AML, value them least. Not to mention the fact that lowering the immediate gains (from high pace/acc) for expected future gains that may never even eventuate. And then there are also inherent variables whose expected ranges exceed the capacity of this predictive method. For instance, even assuming everyone uses meta training, one player might go from 15>17 pace, another will go from 14>20.
So in the end what I decided is, I will have a set of values for youth/optimization, a set of values for age26+/team selection/pure performance (which will be very closely aligned with HarvestGreen's findings), and then a blend of the two - which will be the file I recommend to use as switching between files is tedious. Is a 50/50 blend the best? Probably not, but it's the best I can do so far. I have checked in genie scout the actual results of these new values, and it seems to be working as it should - the best players are those from Man City, Barcelona, Real Madrid, etc. as you'd expect. I've looked for outliers that have changed positions the most, and overall I'd say the margin of error could be something like -/+3% genie scout rating, which I think is satisfactory.
Here's an example to give you an idea about things:
Default Genie Scout - Kane 91.47%, Haaland 90.95%, Mbappe 88.30%
Orion's Coefficients (not my file) - Haaland 88.01%, Mbappe 86.31%, Kane 81.63%
My existing file - Mbappe 77.59%, Haaland 77.25%, Kane 67.35%
New file (youth/optimization) - Mbappe 79.73%, Haaland 75.69%, Kane 65.64%
New file (age26+/pure performance) - Haaland 95.34%, Mbappe 93.59%, Kane 82.21%
New file (blended) - Mbappe 85.33%, Haaland 83.74%, Kane 72.46%
Ignore the numbers themselves, it's about how relative they are to each other