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 Expand
Sorry to pile on with demands @GeorgeFloydOverdosed, but can you provide these weights as raw data? That is, I don't think Genie Scout runs on Linux but I'd be interested in seeing what you've come up with.
LightningFlik said: Sorry to pile on with demands @GeorgeFloydOverdosed, but can you provide these weights as raw data? That is, I don't think Genie Scout runs on Linux but I'd be interested in seeing what you've come up with.
I haven't done FM26 versions yet and it'll be a while before I do, I recommend just using the FM26 ratings file I did before and replacing the GK ratings with the new values in FM24 Blended. You could use these new files in FM26, but it would be a bit off (still much better than FM Genie Scout default).
I'm increasingly unsatisfied with the result as I've ran into further issues, but I've decided to just put these out there otherwise it'll never get done and it does seem to work better despite the issues.
I've had a dilemma about merging in some of my own findings. One example is that in my 1 CA player testing I found that concentration matters on CB/DL/DR, not other positions. Another is that extra finishing on CBs made no difference to goals scored, which means it's low weight on CBs for a reason. These findings are a part of my previous ratings file, so I wanted to include them again here. But I also figured that my data isn't as strongly evidenced as HarvestGreen's, and some of my conclusions could just simply be wrong. On the other hand, there were a number of different examples which can't all be wrong and it makes sense that different positions benefit from certain attributes to different degrees, so I don't think it's best just to use HarvestGreen's data flatly amongst all players. In the end I decided to just apply a simple -/+25% to a few attributes that I was quite sure had pronounced positional differences. I.e. dribbling 32 > 40, vision 5 > 7. So nothing too drastic, but this leaves me feeling like it is too arbitrary a change and yet it also doesn't go far enough probably. The only reassurance I have is that the actual results seem to be better, which you can see a sample of below.
Another issue I've had is with the new GK data. Initially I just plugged in HarvestGreen's new figures. But looking at the results, I get the impression something isn't quite right with the new data. And if you look at HarvestGreen's old GK data, which only had conceded goals as a measure but was also measuring 10>20 instead of 1>20, you can see there are contradictions. From my own 1 CA player tests, I found that acc & pace seemed best value around ~5-8 rather than 20. And if you look at actual players in the database, a bunch of the best have acc of just 8-10. So I think this is mainly a case of missing the data that shows where ~6-14 is sufficient, which we know some attributes such as work rate are like. So I made some appropriate adjustments. Definitely an improvement on my old ratings file here.
Here are some example results. Two important differences that stand out to me are that the GKs are significantly more correct in the new version (Pickford shouldn't be behind Forster!) and there are no longer 2 japanese players from Celtic in the top 10 ST list (they do have high acc/pace, but this seems an appropriate change). And clearly with Kane as no. 1 ST, FM Genie Scout default ratings are way off.
New (blended):
Pickford 69.53% Pope 67.67% Ramsdale 67.43% Steele 65.41%
Old:
Pope 69.74% Forster 65.89% Pickford 65.13% Ramsdale 65.00%
HarvestGreen (new GK data):
Pope 75.44% Pickford 73.89% Ramsdale 72.98% Butland 72.85%
Haaland is clear in FM 24. Surely it hasn't taken this much research to determine that? Mbappe is the best lw. Glad we've been finally able to clear up that FM genie scout default ratings are way off.
( edited 3 days, 23 hours ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#130
Link to the post:
keithb said: Haaland is clear in FM 24. Surely it hasn't taken this much research to determine that? Mbappe is the best lw. Glad we've been finally able to clear up that FM genie scout default ratings are way off. Expand
Just piggybacking off this to say that I haven't used the player names/clubs to calibrate my values. There's a good reason for this, and that is that in-game player ratings don't correspond exactly to actual performance.
You can see evidence of this in this OmegaLuke video, where technicals give substantially higher player ratings than physicals, even though physicals actually won all the games. Orion's coefficients, which use in-game player ratings to deduce the best attributes, I've found are outdone by HarvestGreen's data which assesses according to goals scored or games won.
So this is why I don't try and align the values to fit player ratings or the best players, as that would achieve the opposite of what I want to achieve, which is show players who punch above their weight in a way the in-game AI doesn't recognize.
But I think there is some value in comparing the results afterwards, just to make sure one isn't completely off-track. Regardless of rating, we know Haaland gets goals, so if he's not up there then there's something amiss.
Additionally I think it's notable how the starting data closely aligns with physicals matter and technicals don't. If you plug in HarvestGreen's data, it just so happens that the top players start in the top clubs in the game. That sounds as straightforward 2+2=4, except realize that this means that SI knows exactly how the attributes are skewed and disingenuous. If they believed what they tell you about how the game works, then we should see these initial players at top clubs failing to perform. In fact, I think perhaps this in-game rating bias towards technicals is to try and stop AI managers simply buying up completely lopsided physical beasts as the game goes on.
I can think of a reasonable counter-argument or two to the above, but there is also some circumstantial evidence as I see it. If you use Genie Scout default ratings, 7 out of 9 top players (one of each position) are white. If you use HarvestGreen's data it changes to 7 out of 9 being black. Either SI still has a racism problem where black people are portrayed as mentally/technically poor physical beasts, or this is intentional. Or both.
LightningFlik said: Sorry to pile on with demands @GeorgeFloydOverdosed, but can you provide these weights as raw data? That is, I don't think Genie Scout runs on Linux but I'd be interested in seeing what you've come up with.
(No rush, whenever you have time). Expand OpticFawn said: Yes please, I want to use on personal tool pls Expand Here are the values for FM24 blended.
I forgot to say that 'sweeper' position is intended to be my attempt at a tutor rating, and for Target Striker I've simply upped jumping reach to 100, as high pace/acc ST is simply better than a slow target man and I'm not sure if heading or whatnot affects the target man's performance (jumping reach certainly matters).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Just piggybacking off this to say that I haven't used the player names/clubs to calibrate my values. There's a good reason for this, and that is that in-game player ratings don't correspond exactly to actual performance.
You can see evidence of this in this OmegaLuke video, where technicals give substantially higher player ratings than physicals, even though physicals actually won all the games. Orion's coefficients, which use in-game player ratings to deduce the best attributes, I've found are outdone by HarvestGreen's data which assesses according to goals scored or games won.
So this is why I don't try and align the values to fit player ratings or the best players, as that would achieve the opposite of what I want to achieve, which is show players who punch above their weight in a way the in-game AI doesn't recognize.
But I think there is some value in comparing the results afterwards, just to make sure one isn't completely off-track. Regardless of rating, we know Haaland gets goals, so if he's not up there then there's something amiss.
Additionally I think it's notable how the starting data closely aligns with physicals matter and technicals don't. If you plug in HarvestGreen's data, it just so happens that the top players start in the top clubs in the game. That sounds as straightforward 2+2=4, except realize that this means that SI knows exactly how the attributes are skewed and disingenuous. If they believed what they tell you about how the game works, then we should see these initial players at top clubs failing to perform. In fact, I think perhaps this in-game rating bias towards technicals is to try and stop AI managers simply buying up completely lopsided physical beasts as the game goes on.
I can think of a reasonable counter-argument or two to the above, but there is also some circumstantial evidence as I see it. If you use Genie Scout default ratings, 7 out of 9 top players (one of each position) are white. If you use HarvestGreen's data it changes to 7 out of 9 being black. Either SI still has a racism problem where black people are portrayed as mentally/technically poor physical beasts, or this is intentional. Or both.
I forgot to say that 'sweeper' position is intended to be my attempt at a tutor rating, and for Target Striker I've simply upped jumping reach to 100, as high pace/acc ST is simply better than a slow target man and I'm not sure if heading or whatnot affects the target man's performance (jumping reach certainly matters). Expand
What are you on about?? You seem to be discovering a lot of things years after most people knew that already. Whats next? the sun is hot?
OpticFawn said: using blended or pure? Expand blended For example, this player: I signed him for 800 thousand at the age of 24, and so far he has been incredible
keithb said: What are you on about?? You seem to be discovering a lot of things years after most people knew that already. Whats next? the sun is hot? Expand Oh I didn't realize you're the guy who is obsessed with me. It's been half a year and you're still going on like this. I wanted to communicate to others the points I made anyway.
BaZuKa said: Ok this new file is Giga Broken Season 3 almost won everything with a low-tier club from Portugal Expand The first line sunk me for a moment there. It's good to hear it's working well for you, I don't actually know how well in reality these files are going to go.
I keep forgetting to mention things. I used HarvestGreen's 6 > 18 attribute data mainly this time, as using 1-20 overvalues things like pressure and work rate. I figure in cases where pressure or work rate is very low, you can either just filter out those players or train/tutor them up a bit if you do buy them. And getting '20' is less likely as well as more CA-inefficient, so that's another reason I favor the 6>18 measure.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Oh I didn't realize you're the guy who is obsessed with me. It's been half a year and you're still going on like this. I wanted to communicate to others the points I made anyway.
The first line sunk me for a moment there. It's good to hear it's working well for you, I don't actually know how well in reality these files are going to go.
I keep forgetting to mention things. I used HarvestGreen's 6 > 18 attribute data mainly this time, as using 1-20 overvalues things like pressure and work rate. I figure in cases where pressure or work rate is very low, you can either just filter out those players or train/tutor them up a bit if you do buy them. And getting '20' is less likely as well as more CA-inefficient, so that's another reason I favor the 6>18 measure. Expand
Again, what? Your replies are incoherent. Half a year? Obsessed? Still going on? You either waffle on with stuff that makes no sense, or in this instance throw a few words out at me.
I was merely questioning why it's taken you this long to determine several things we knew Long time ago. I have noticed multiple times you've declared other people's work and findings wrong, only to later retract and say you made a mistake. You're cosplaying being an elite tester for football manager, but you're sloppy at best.
I only came on to see if strikerless was still meta in 26. But the forum is so full of your posts I had a peek for a laugh. I see above you've mentioned certain attributes are more important for different positions. Is this true?
Guys im new to gennie scout so i have a question: I have a guy for DM position with 70 rating in general for DM position and 69 for volante role which im using in my tactic and a guy with 68 general rating for DM position but 71 for Volante role: so which rating is more important general or role?? I hope this make sense
You can shut your mouth please When you're there doing nothing, don't criticize the work of other people, you obsessed We need people like george and haverstgrenn who move, who do a lot of testing and who take a lot of their time to write and explain to us the interpretation of their research, not obsessed people like you, you obsessed, leave us in peace, the obsessed.
Ndour17 said: You can shut your mouth please When you're there doing nothing, don't criticize the work of other people, you obsessed We need people like george and haverstgrenn who move, who do a lot of testing and who take a lot of their time to write and explain to us the interpretation of their research, not obsessed people like you, you obsessed, leave us in peace, the obsessed. Expand
You seem very angry? Are you ok?
Harvest green is excellent, I've only said positive things about them. They genuinely made new and meaningful discoveries. Other people come and go from the forum. There was a guy two years ago who was vile, bullying people and had a huge ego. He left when people weren't giving him enough attention, or the amount he thought his worked deserved. George isn't that bad, but its been funny to see him say other people's work is wrong and then have to retract multiple times. Maybe dont be so brash in the first place?
You could have got obsessed in one more time at least I feel? Aim for seven times in future.
keithb said: Again, what? Your replies are incoherent. Half a year? Obsessed? Still going on? You either waffle on with stuff that makes no sense, or in this instance throw a few words out at me.
I was merely questioning why it's taken you this long to determine several things we knew Long time ago. I have noticed multiple times you've declared other people's work and findings wrong, only to later retract and say you made a mistake. You're cosplaying being an elite tester for football manager, but you're sloppy at best.
I only came on to see if strikerless was still meta in 26. But the forum is so full of your posts I had a peek for a laugh. I see above you've mentioned certain attributes are more important for different positions. Is this true? Expand If you look at your posts page, your last post before the one in this thread was in February saying to me:
keithb said: What a load of shit😂. Do you think we're five years old?! Exposing the truths about football manager has nothing to do with your username.
Clearly you're desperate to be someone in the community, but all you're mainly doing is regurgitating other people's work. Well done. Bravo. You're a nobody. But at least you've got that username, really sticking it to SI!! Expand And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
White Europe said: Guys im new to gennie scout so i have a question: I have a guy for DM position with 70 rating in general for DM position and 69 for volante role which im using in my tactic and a guy with 68 general rating for DM position but 71 for Volante role: so which rating is more important general or role?? I hope this make sense Expand Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you look at your posts page, your last post before the one in this thread was in February saying to me:
And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big. Expand
Ok great 👍, thanks for answer, just wondered if I want to use other style than gegenpress, or just create my own tiki taka tactic is those ratings still helpful? Or they just to support meta gegenpress tactics?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you look at your posts page, your last post before the one in this thread was in February saying to me:
And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big. Expand
Hmmm im sure I made other posts as well? Between our first interaction and now? In tactics maybe? Im obsessed with tactics? FM26 is trash and I refunded a long time ago, so I dont post much. But it seems I still post more in tactics than I do replying to you?
You dont answer questions I've put to you and ignore plenty of points I make also. I will say again multiple times you have boldly declared other's work and findings to be wrong, only at a later date to retract and say you were wrong. Once is fine, maybe even twice. But you were prolific. Maybe dont be so brash?
keithb said: its been funny to see him say other people's work is wrong and then have to retract multiple times. Expand You keep saying this so I assume you must actually believe it to be true. I feel like I have to address it even though it's unsubstantiated, because people aren't going to be digging up my posts to check for themselves and they might just assume you're half correct.
I have never said the work of HarvestGreen or EBFM is wrong, except on some niche aspects. For Instance, I think EBFM is wrong specifically about youth facilities making a minor contribution to PA, probably because he used average instead of median as measurement. And I think he is wrong on his 'draft hypothesis' for youth recruitment (though even he wasn't 100% on this theory). But apart from these two things, I don't think I disagree about anything EBFM presented.
With HarvestGreen I think I've only ever disagreed on certain things open to interpretation. For instance I favor a different training schedule to him, but this is because he weights attributes differently in his thinking, i.e. just how negatively should 'decisions' growth be weighted.
I've pushed back against people on a few things. One was about player fitness. Another was about player personality attributes being random or not.
There are more I've forgotten, but the player personality one is one I ended up conceding on. It turned out player personality attributes are not just random, and that wasn't someone's 'work' it was just a claim made that I subsequently tested and changed my mind on. But I really can't think of anything more substantial than that I've had to retract.
White Europe said: Ok great 👍, thanks for answer, just wondered if I want to use other style than gegenpress, or just create my own tiki taka tactic is those ratings still helpful? Or they just to support meta gegenpress tactics? Expand Whatever tactic you use, the ratings will work well.
The values are necessarily quite a bit airy fairy anyway. The main thing it's doing is that it's prioritizing key attributes that are universally good such as pace, acc, dribbling, work rate, pressure, and so forth. But then when it comes to something like 'long shots' say, maybe that deserves a 1% weighting or maybe it's 11%.. but this is only going to move the overall needle a fraction of a percent anyway. But then if you add up all these little errors together, that might end up being an error of ~3%.
A simple change you could do to tailor it more to other tactics I guess is to simply reduce the pace/acc weighting by ~10-20%. I think that was the gist of the main difference I saw in HarvestGreen's findings of tactic differences.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You keep saying this so I assume you must actually believe it to be true. I feel like I have to address it even though it's unsubstantiated, because people aren't going to be digging up my posts to check for themselves and they might just assume you're half correct.
I have never said the work of HarvestGreen or EBFM is wrong, except on some niche aspects. For Instance, I think EBFM is wrong specifically about youth facilities making a minor contribution to PA, probably because he used average instead of median as measurement. And I think he is wrong on his 'draft hypothesis' for youth recruitment (though even he wasn't 100% on this theory). But apart from these two things, I don't think I disagree about anything EBFM presented.
With HarvestGreen I think I've only ever disagreed on certain things open to interpretation. For instance I favor a different training schedule to him, but this is because he weights attributes differently in his thinking, i.e. just how negatively should 'decisions' growth be weighted.
I've pushed back against people on a few things. One was about player fitness. Another was about player personality attributes being random or not.
There are more I've forgotten, but the player personality one is one I ended up conceding on. It turned out player personality attributes are not just random, and that wasn't someone's 'work' it was just a claim made that I subsequently tested and changed my mind on. But I really can't think of anything more substantial than that I've had to retract.
Whatever tactic you use, the ratings will work well.
The values are necessarily quite a bit airy fairy anyway. The main thing it's doing is that it's prioritizing key attributes that are universally good such as pace, acc, dribbling, work rate, pressure, and so forth. But then when it comes to something like 'long shots' say, maybe that deserves a 1% weighting or maybe it's 11%.. but this is only going to move the overall needle a fraction of a percent anyway. But then if you add up all these little errors together, that might end up being an error of ~3%.
A simple change you could do to tailor it more to other tactics I guess is to simply reduce the pace/acc weighting by ~10-20%. I think that was the gist of the main difference I saw in HarvestGreen's findings of tactic differences. Expand
Thanks, appreciate your answers and your work, good man 👍
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed goat
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed Excellent work! Are the 3 ratingsfiles ready to share with us?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 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
Where are these files?
Sorry to pile on with demands @GeorgeFloydOverdosed, but can you provide these weights as raw data? That is, I don't think Genie Scout runs on Linux but I'd be interested in seeing what you've come up with.
(No rush, whenever you have time).
LightningFlik said: Sorry to pile on with demands @GeorgeFloydOverdosed, but can you provide these weights as raw data? That is, I don't think Genie Scout runs on Linux but I'd be interested in seeing what you've come up with.
(No rush, whenever you have time).
Yes please, I want to use on personal tool pls
FM24 Youth/CA efficient:
https://files.catbox.moe/owbw3u.grf
FM24 Age 26+/Pure performance:
https://files.catbox.moe/8wskjk.grf
FM24 Blended (recommended):
https://files.catbox.moe/f8hmj7.grf
I haven't done FM26 versions yet and it'll be a while before I do, I recommend just using the FM26 ratings file I did before and replacing the GK ratings with the new values in FM24 Blended. You could use these new files in FM26, but it would be a bit off (still much better than FM Genie Scout default).
I'm increasingly unsatisfied with the result as I've ran into further issues, but I've decided to just put these out there otherwise it'll never get done and it does seem to work better despite the issues.
I've had a dilemma about merging in some of my own findings. One example is that in my 1 CA player testing I found that concentration matters on CB/DL/DR, not other positions. Another is that extra finishing on CBs made no difference to goals scored, which means it's low weight on CBs for a reason. These findings are a part of my previous ratings file, so I wanted to include them again here. But I also figured that my data isn't as strongly evidenced as HarvestGreen's, and some of my conclusions could just simply be wrong. On the other hand, there were a number of different examples which can't all be wrong and it makes sense that different positions benefit from certain attributes to different degrees, so I don't think it's best just to use HarvestGreen's data flatly amongst all players. In the end I decided to just apply a simple -/+25% to a few attributes that I was quite sure had pronounced positional differences. I.e. dribbling 32 > 40, vision 5 > 7. So nothing too drastic, but this leaves me feeling like it is too arbitrary a change and yet it also doesn't go far enough probably. The only reassurance I have is that the actual results seem to be better, which you can see a sample of below.
Another issue I've had is with the new GK data. Initially I just plugged in HarvestGreen's new figures. But looking at the results, I get the impression something isn't quite right with the new data. And if you look at HarvestGreen's old GK data, which only had conceded goals as a measure but was also measuring 10>20 instead of 1>20, you can see there are contradictions. From my own 1 CA player tests, I found that acc & pace seemed best value around ~5-8 rather than 20. And if you look at actual players in the database, a bunch of the best have acc of just 8-10. So I think this is mainly a case of missing the data that shows where ~6-14 is sufficient, which we know some attributes such as work rate are like. So I made some appropriate adjustments. Definitely an improvement on my old ratings file here.
Here are some example results. Two important differences that stand out to me are that the GKs are significantly more correct in the new version (Pickford shouldn't be behind Forster!) and there are no longer 2 japanese players from Celtic in the top 10 ST list (they do have high acc/pace, but this seems an appropriate change). And clearly with Kane as no. 1 ST, FM Genie Scout default ratings are way off.
New (blended):
Pickford 69.53%
Pope 67.67%
Ramsdale 67.43%
Steele 65.41%
Old:
Pope 69.74%
Forster 65.89%
Pickford 65.13%
Ramsdale 65.00%
HarvestGreen (new GK data):
Pope 75.44%
Pickford 73.89%
Ramsdale 72.98%
Butland 72.85%
Actual England selected:
Pickford
Pope
Ramsdale
HarvestGreen data:
Haaland 95.34% (Man City)
Mbappe 93.59% (PSG)
Osimhen 93.39% (Napoli)
Vinicius 92.70% (R.Madrid)
Thuram 90.54% (Inter)
Nunez 89.32% (Liverpool)
Isak 88.71% (Newcastle)
Moffi 88.48% (Nice)
Martinez 88.32% (Inter)
Jesus 88.28% (Arsenal)
New (performance):
Haaland 95.25% (Man City)
Mbappe 93.68% (PSG)
Osimhen 93.65% (Napoli)
Vinicius 92.47% (R.Madrid)
Thuram 90.43% (Inter)
Nunez 89.29% (Liverpool)
Moffi 88.57% (Nice)
Isak 88.52% (Newcastle)
Lukaku 87.99% (Roma)
Maritnez 87.51% (Inter)
New (blended):
Mbappe 84.94% (PSG)
Vinicius 83.95% (R.Madrid)
Haaland 82.94% (Man City)
Osimhen 82.80% (Napoli)
Thuram 80.15% (Inter)
Nunez 80.14% (Liverpool)
Jesus 79.15% (Arsenal)
Isak 79.09% (Newcastle)
Messi 78.83% (Inter Miami)
Martinez 78.65% (Inter)
Old:
Mbappe 77.59% (PSG)
Haaland 77.25% (Man City)
Salah 76.89% (Liverpool)
Vinicius 76.86% (R.Madrid)
Martinez 75.23% (Inter)
Son 73.80% (Tottenham)
Furuhashi 73.10% (Celtic)
Nunez 73.08% (Liverpool)
Maeda 72.92% (Celtic)
Osimhen 72.65% (Napoli)
Default Genie Scout:
Kane 91.47%
Haaland 90.95%
Messi 90.03%
Lewandowski 88.43%
Mbappe 88.30%
Benzema 87.21%
Salah 86.97%
Son 86.51%
Martinez 85.91%
Vinicius 85.71%
amazing! thank you!
can anyone send the data for the positions, I have a mac cant use genie scout
Haaland is clear in FM 24. Surely it hasn't taken this much research to determine that? Mbappe is the best lw. Glad we've been finally able to clear up that FM genie scout default ratings are way off.
keithb said: Haaland is clear in FM 24. Surely it hasn't taken this much research to determine that? Mbappe is the best lw. Glad we've been finally able to clear up that FM genie scout default ratings are way off.
Just piggybacking off this to say that I haven't used the player names/clubs to calibrate my values. There's a good reason for this, and that is that in-game player ratings don't correspond exactly to actual performance.
You can see evidence of this in this OmegaLuke video, where technicals give substantially higher player ratings than physicals, even though physicals actually won all the games. Orion's coefficients, which use in-game player ratings to deduce the best attributes, I've found are outdone by HarvestGreen's data which assesses according to goals scored or games won.
So this is why I don't try and align the values to fit player ratings or the best players, as that would achieve the opposite of what I want to achieve, which is show players who punch above their weight in a way the in-game AI doesn't recognize.
But I think there is some value in comparing the results afterwards, just to make sure one isn't completely off-track. Regardless of rating, we know Haaland gets goals, so if he's not up there then there's something amiss.
Additionally I think it's notable how the starting data closely aligns with physicals matter and technicals don't. If you plug in HarvestGreen's data, it just so happens that the top players start in the top clubs in the game. That sounds as straightforward 2+2=4, except realize that this means that SI knows exactly how the attributes are skewed and disingenuous. If they believed what they tell you about how the game works, then we should see these initial players at top clubs failing to perform. In fact, I think perhaps this in-game rating bias towards technicals is to try and stop AI managers simply buying up completely lopsided physical beasts as the game goes on.
I can think of a reasonable counter-argument or two to the above, but there is also some circumstantial evidence as I see it. If you use Genie Scout default ratings, 7 out of 9 top players (one of each position) are white. If you use HarvestGreen's data it changes to 7 out of 9 being black. Either SI still has a racism problem where black people are portrayed as mentally/technically poor physical beasts, or this is intentional. Or both.
LightningFlik said: Sorry to pile on with demands @GeorgeFloydOverdosed, but can you provide these weights as raw data? That is, I don't think Genie Scout runs on Linux but I'd be interested in seeing what you've come up with.
(No rush, whenever you have time).
OpticFawn said: Yes please, I want to use on personal tool pls
Here are the values for FM24 blended.
I forgot to say that 'sweeper' position is intended to be my attempt at a tutor rating, and for Target Striker I've simply upped jumping reach to 100, as high pace/acc ST is simply better than a slow target man and I'm not sure if heading or whatnot affects the target man's performance (jumping reach certainly matters).
Thank you very much.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Just piggybacking off this to say that I haven't used the player names/clubs to calibrate my values. There's a good reason for this, and that is that in-game player ratings don't correspond exactly to actual performance.
You can see evidence of this in this OmegaLuke video, where technicals give substantially higher player ratings than physicals, even though physicals actually won all the games. Orion's coefficients, which use in-game player ratings to deduce the best attributes, I've found are outdone by HarvestGreen's data which assesses according to goals scored or games won.
So this is why I don't try and align the values to fit player ratings or the best players, as that would achieve the opposite of what I want to achieve, which is show players who punch above their weight in a way the in-game AI doesn't recognize.
But I think there is some value in comparing the results afterwards, just to make sure one isn't completely off-track. Regardless of rating, we know Haaland gets goals, so if he's not up there then there's something amiss.
Additionally I think it's notable how the starting data closely aligns with physicals matter and technicals don't. If you plug in HarvestGreen's data, it just so happens that the top players start in the top clubs in the game. That sounds as straightforward 2+2=4, except realize that this means that SI knows exactly how the attributes are skewed and disingenuous. If they believed what they tell you about how the game works, then we should see these initial players at top clubs failing to perform. In fact, I think perhaps this in-game rating bias towards technicals is to try and stop AI managers simply buying up completely lopsided physical beasts as the game goes on.
I can think of a reasonable counter-argument or two to the above, but there is also some circumstantial evidence as I see it. If you use Genie Scout default ratings, 7 out of 9 top players (one of each position) are white. If you use HarvestGreen's data it changes to 7 out of 9 being black. Either SI still has a racism problem where black people are portrayed as mentally/technically poor physical beasts, or this is intentional. Or both.
Here are the values for FM24 blended.
I forgot to say that 'sweeper' position is intended to be my attempt at a tutor rating, and for Target Striker I've simply upped jumping reach to 100, as high pace/acc ST is simply better than a slow target man and I'm not sure if heading or whatnot affects the target man's performance (jumping reach certainly matters).
What are you on about?? You seem to be discovering a lot of things years after most people knew that already. Whats next? the sun is hot?
Ok this new file is Giga Broken
Season 3 almost won everything with a low-tier club from Portugal
BaZuKa said: Ok this new file is Giga Broken
Season 3 almost won everything with a low-tier club from Portugal
using blended or pure?
OpticFawn said: using blended or pure?
blended
For example, this player: I signed him for 800 thousand at the age of 24, and so far he has been incredible
keithb said: What are you on about?? You seem to be discovering a lot of things years after most people knew that already. Whats next? the sun is hot?
Oh I didn't realize you're the guy who is obsessed with me. It's been half a year and you're still going on like this. I wanted to communicate to others the points I made anyway.
BaZuKa said: Ok this new file is Giga Broken
Season 3 almost won everything with a low-tier club from Portugal
The first line sunk me for a moment there. It's good to hear it's working well for you, I don't actually know how well in reality these files are going to go.
I keep forgetting to mention things. I used HarvestGreen's 6 > 18 attribute data mainly this time, as using 1-20 overvalues things like pressure and work rate. I figure in cases where pressure or work rate is very low, you can either just filter out those players or train/tutor them up a bit if you do buy them. And getting '20' is less likely as well as more CA-inefficient, so that's another reason I favor the 6>18 measure.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Oh I didn't realize you're the guy who is obsessed with me. It's been half a year and you're still going on like this. I wanted to communicate to others the points I made anyway.
The first line sunk me for a moment there. It's good to hear it's working well for you, I don't actually know how well in reality these files are going to go.
I keep forgetting to mention things. I used HarvestGreen's 6 > 18 attribute data mainly this time, as using 1-20 overvalues things like pressure and work rate. I figure in cases where pressure or work rate is very low, you can either just filter out those players or train/tutor them up a bit if you do buy them. And getting '20' is less likely as well as more CA-inefficient, so that's another reason I favor the 6>18 measure.
Again, what? Your replies are incoherent. Half a year? Obsessed? Still going on? You either waffle on with stuff that makes no sense, or in this instance throw a few words out at me.
I was merely questioning why it's taken you this long to determine several things we knew Long time ago. I have noticed multiple times you've declared other people's work and findings wrong, only to later retract and say you made a mistake. You're cosplaying being an elite tester for football manager, but you're sloppy at best.
I only came on to see if strikerless was still meta in 26. But the forum is so full of your posts I had a peek for a laugh. I see above you've mentioned certain attributes are more important for different positions. Is this true?
Guys im new to gennie scout so i have a question:
I have a guy for DM position with 70 rating in general for DM position and 69 for volante role which im using in my tactic and a guy with 68 general rating for DM position but 71 for Volante role: so which rating is more important general or role?? I hope this make sense
You can shut your mouth please
When you're there doing nothing, don't criticize the work of other people, you obsessed
We need people like george and haverstgrenn who move, who do a lot of testing and who take a lot of their time to write and explain to us the interpretation of their research, not obsessed people like you, you obsessed, leave us in peace, the obsessed.
Ndour17 said: You can shut your mouth please
When you're there doing nothing, don't criticize the work of other people, you obsessed
We need people like george and haverstgrenn who move, who do a lot of testing and who take a lot of their time to write and explain to us the interpretation of their research, not obsessed people like you, you obsessed, leave us in peace, the obsessed.
You seem very angry? Are you ok?
Harvest green is excellent, I've only said positive things about them. They genuinely made new and meaningful discoveries. Other people come and go from the forum. There was a guy two years ago who was vile, bullying people and had a huge ego. He left when people weren't giving him enough attention, or the amount he thought his worked deserved. George isn't that bad, but its been funny to see him say other people's work is wrong and then have to retract multiple times. Maybe dont be so brash in the first place?
You could have got obsessed in one more time at least I feel? Aim for seven times in future.
keithb said: Again, what? Your replies are incoherent. Half a year? Obsessed? Still going on? You either waffle on with stuff that makes no sense, or in this instance throw a few words out at me.
I was merely questioning why it's taken you this long to determine several things we knew Long time ago. I have noticed multiple times you've declared other people's work and findings wrong, only to later retract and say you made a mistake. You're cosplaying being an elite tester for football manager, but you're sloppy at best.
I only came on to see if strikerless was still meta in 26. But the forum is so full of your posts I had a peek for a laugh. I see above you've mentioned certain attributes are more important for different positions. Is this true?
If you look at your posts page, your last post before the one in this thread was in February saying to me:
keithb said: What a load of shit😂. Do you think we're five years old?! Exposing the truths about football manager has nothing to do with your username.
Clearly you're desperate to be someone in the community, but all you're mainly doing is regurgitating other people's work. Well done. Bravo. You're a nobody. But at least you've got that username, really sticking it to SI!!
And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
White Europe said: Guys im new to gennie scout so i have a question:
I have a guy for DM position with 70 rating in general for DM position and 69 for volante role which im using in my tactic and a guy with 68 general rating for DM position but 71 for Volante role: so which rating is more important general or role?? I hope this make sense
Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you look at your posts page, your last post before the one in this thread was in February saying to me:
And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big.
Ok great 👍, thanks for answer, just wondered if I want to use other style than gegenpress, or just create my own tiki taka tactic is those ratings still helpful? Or they just to support meta gegenpress tactics?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you look at your posts page, your last post before the one in this thread was in February saying to me:
And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big.
Hmmm im sure I made other posts as well? Between our first interaction and now? In tactics maybe? Im obsessed with tactics? FM26 is trash and I refunded a long time ago, so I dont post much. But it seems I still post more in tactics than I do replying to you?
You dont answer questions I've put to you and ignore plenty of points I make also. I will say again multiple times you have boldly declared other's work and findings to be wrong, only at a later date to retract and say you were wrong. Once is fine, maybe even twice. But you were prolific. Maybe dont be so brash?
keithb said: its been funny to see him say other people's work is wrong and then have to retract multiple times.
You keep saying this so I assume you must actually believe it to be true. I feel like I have to address it even though it's unsubstantiated, because people aren't going to be digging up my posts to check for themselves and they might just assume you're half correct.
I have never said the work of HarvestGreen or EBFM is wrong, except on some niche aspects. For Instance, I think EBFM is wrong specifically about youth facilities making a minor contribution to PA, probably because he used average instead of median as measurement. And I think he is wrong on his 'draft hypothesis' for youth recruitment (though even he wasn't 100% on this theory). But apart from these two things, I don't think I disagree about anything EBFM presented.
With HarvestGreen I think I've only ever disagreed on certain things open to interpretation. For instance I favor a different training schedule to him, but this is because he weights attributes differently in his thinking, i.e. just how negatively should 'decisions' growth be weighted.
I've pushed back against people on a few things. One was about player fitness. Another was about player personality attributes being random or not.
There are more I've forgotten, but the player personality one is one I ended up conceding on. It turned out player personality attributes are not just random, and that wasn't someone's 'work' it was just a claim made that I subsequently tested and changed my mind on. But I really can't think of anything more substantial than that I've had to retract.
White Europe said: Ok great 👍, thanks for answer, just wondered if I want to use other style than gegenpress, or just create my own tiki taka tactic is those ratings still helpful? Or they just to support meta gegenpress tactics?
Whatever tactic you use, the ratings will work well.
The values are necessarily quite a bit airy fairy anyway. The main thing it's doing is that it's prioritizing key attributes that are universally good such as pace, acc, dribbling, work rate, pressure, and so forth. But then when it comes to something like 'long shots' say, maybe that deserves a 1% weighting or maybe it's 11%.. but this is only going to move the overall needle a fraction of a percent anyway. But then if you add up all these little errors together, that might end up being an error of ~3%.
A simple change you could do to tailor it more to other tactics I guess is to simply reduce the pace/acc weighting by ~10-20%. I think that was the gist of the main difference I saw in HarvestGreen's findings of tactic differences.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You keep saying this so I assume you must actually believe it to be true. I feel like I have to address it even though it's unsubstantiated, because people aren't going to be digging up my posts to check for themselves and they might just assume you're half correct.
I have never said the work of HarvestGreen or EBFM is wrong, except on some niche aspects. For Instance, I think EBFM is wrong specifically about youth facilities making a minor contribution to PA, probably because he used average instead of median as measurement. And I think he is wrong on his 'draft hypothesis' for youth recruitment (though even he wasn't 100% on this theory). But apart from these two things, I don't think I disagree about anything EBFM presented.
With HarvestGreen I think I've only ever disagreed on certain things open to interpretation. For instance I favor a different training schedule to him, but this is because he weights attributes differently in his thinking, i.e. just how negatively should 'decisions' growth be weighted.
I've pushed back against people on a few things. One was about player fitness. Another was about player personality attributes being random or not.
There are more I've forgotten, but the player personality one is one I ended up conceding on. It turned out player personality attributes are not just random, and that wasn't someone's 'work' it was just a claim made that I subsequently tested and changed my mind on. But I really can't think of anything more substantial than that I've had to retract.
Whatever tactic you use, the ratings will work well.
The values are necessarily quite a bit airy fairy anyway. The main thing it's doing is that it's prioritizing key attributes that are universally good such as pace, acc, dribbling, work rate, pressure, and so forth. But then when it comes to something like 'long shots' say, maybe that deserves a 1% weighting or maybe it's 11%.. but this is only going to move the overall needle a fraction of a percent anyway. But then if you add up all these little errors together, that might end up being an error of ~3%.
A simple change you could do to tailor it more to other tactics I guess is to simply reduce the pace/acc weighting by ~10-20%. I think that was the gist of the main difference I saw in HarvestGreen's findings of tactic differences.
Thanks, appreciate your answers and your work, good man 👍
won league with Alaves in first season following your GS ratings
White Europe said: won league with Alaves in first season following your GS ratings
FM24 Genie Scout ratings file:
https://files.catbox.moe/hrvdl8.grf
FM26 Genie Scout Ratings file:
https://files.catbox.moe/r5xm3t.grf
Do you use this 2026 version?
dakka said: Do you use this 2026 version?
No, im playing FM24
Using the blended file for the GS ratings and can someone explain me why Martim is better than Baio?
Based on the physical side always assumed it would be the other way around.