I thought I could speed up the process by predicting which attributes matter and which don't, but it turns out I have to throw all my preconceptions out the window and just resort to good ol' trial and error.
A team of these (hiddens ~8-13; DC jump 17) achieves 4th-5th in the Premier League:
I wonder how many people even here actually realize that you can't win the Premier League unless you have all your players at 18+ pace/acc even when you're complimenting it with a few of the key attributes such as dribbling and concentration.
So for instance if I decrease stamina from '13' to '8', my team goes from 4th/5th to bottom half. You might think (as I did), just increase pace/acc to 16 to compensate. But actually in this case doing that does hardly anything. In fact, even if you increase them to 17, you still won't win, but you'll come a close 2nd.
Now if you have perfect hidden attributes then you can have 17.. 16.. even 15 pace/acc, you can win the Premier League no problem, but we're talking about what is realistic here.
Some things to note:
- 17 jump on DC (or some other player perhaps?) is necessary, big difference between 15 and 17 here. - Surprisingly it does not appear that Jumping Reach is an all-or-nothing attribute. There is a clear and important benefit to all players having moderate instead of low Jumping Reach. - Agility, work rate and composure are the least crucial of the remaining attributes, hence why I have lowered them to 10-11 with no adverse consequence for my team position - A lot of attributes are set at '8' because that's what you can roughly expect your minimums to be for a player once you're in the Premier League (even if it's a newgen you signed 3 years ago in League 2 say). This is to make the template as accurate to reality as possible, and yes '8' makes a difference to '1'. Of course players will often have a '3' in something, but you can either train this up or compensate for it in other ways and sometimes it just doesn't matter (i.e. set piece attributes). - Some essential attributes are at '8', but only because the required amount wasn't higher than '8'. This includes vision, finishing, strength for instance.
Now I have tried using HarvestGreen, Orion, my own, etc. data to try and optimize for positional differences. But everything I tried just made the result worse, even gentle adjustments. So I am now faced with 2 options, after being satisfied I've whittled it down to the essential attributes as a whole:
a) Do dozens or hundreds of positional trial and error changes, or b) Give up on it and just go forward with what I have so far
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced to choose (b). I can always return to positional refinement later. Keep in mind I've already tested a lot of different things, and I know from my 1 CA testing that certain attributes are simply universal (i.e. pace, acc, drib is as essential for DC as it is for AMR).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: A team of these (hiddens ~8-13; DC jump 17) achieves 4th-5th in the Premier League: Expand
This is surprising to me. I looked at how effective a player like this would be using your blended weights and they don't appear to be anywhere near good enough to achieve a top-four finish.
I created a player using the same attribute values you listed (see screenshot) and calculated his rating at all outfield positions (I gave him 17 jumping reach when calculating centre-back rating). Here's what I got:
| Position | Rating | |----|---------| | FB | 74.4% | | CB | 76.98% | | WB | 73.97% | | DM | 67.56% | | W | 65.42% | | MC | 68.73% | | AM | 69.26% | | ST | 62.37% |
Don't give too much thought to the actual values because my weights are arbitrary but here's the rating of Newcastle's best XI on May 4th, 2025 in my current save (the season is over, they've finished in 4th place):
| Player | Position | Rating | |----|--------|--------| | Nick Pope | GK | 75.65% | | Ferdi Kadıoğlu | DL | 85.35% | | Gianluca Mancini | DC | 77.97% | | Sven Botman | DC | 78.32% | | Tino Livramento | DR | 78.93% | | Alexander Isak | ML | 79.31% | | Joe Willock | MC | 74.17% | | Sandro Tonali | MC | 76.27% | | Joelinton | MR | 74.78% | | Bryan Mbeumo | ST | 69.2% | | Anthony Gordon | ST | 68.2% |
The low-CA player you posted is at least 3-4% worse off than this real team that finished 4th in my game (in 5th place was an even stronger Manchester United). If I make Newcastle play with a defensive midfielder, it picks Tonali and Willock who score 74% each.
If you holidayed with a tactic which isn't considered overpowered, I see this as a bit of an indictment of the weights we've been talking about.
Of course, if you've crunched the numbers yourself and actually find your team is considered much stronger than your closest competition (ideally without the use of Genie Scout thumbing the scale mysteriously) then I'll hold my hands up. This has left me confused though.
EDIT: It strikes me that this might be what you meant when you wrote this:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Now I have tried using HarvestGreen, Orion, my own, etc. data to try and optimize for positional differences. But everything I tried just made the result worse, even gentle adjustments. Expand
captain3 said: Someone can send me that print screens for the attributes weights for each role for the FM26 file? I can't upload on my GS
I dm'd them to you
captain3 said: Someone can send me that print screens for the attributes weights for each role for the FM26 file? I can't upload on my GS
1. Put file in Genie scout rating folder
2. open GS, klik rating, choose your rating rx5m3t
3. load player on GS, you will see every player rating
I thought I could speed up the process by predicting which attributes matter and which don't, but it turns out I have to throw all my preconceptions out the window and just resort to good ol' trial and error.
A team of these (hiddens ~8-13; DC jump 17) achieves 4th-5th in the Premier League:
I wonder how many people even here actually realize that you can't win the Premier League unless you have all your players at 18+ pace/acc even when you're complimenting it with a few of the key attributes such as dribbling and concentration.
So for instance if I decrease stamina from '13' to '8', my team goes from 4th/5th to bottom half. You might think (as I did), just increase pace/acc to 16 to compensate. But actually in this case doing that does hardly anything. In fact, even if you increase them to 17, you still won't win, but you'll come a close 2nd.
Now if you have perfect hidden attributes then you can have 17.. 16.. even 15 pace/acc, you can win the Premier League no problem, but we're talking about what is realistic here.
Some things to note:
- 17 jump on DC (or some other player perhaps?) is necessary, big difference between 15 and 17 here.
- Surprisingly it does not appear that Jumping Reach is an all-or-nothing attribute. There is a clear and important benefit to all players having moderate instead of low Jumping Reach.
- Agility, work rate and composure are the least crucial of the remaining attributes, hence why I have lowered them to 10-11 with no adverse consequence for my team position
- A lot of attributes are set at '8' because that's what you can roughly expect your minimums to be for a player once you're in the Premier League (even if it's a newgen you signed 3 years ago in League 2 say). This is to make the template as accurate to reality as possible, and yes '8' makes a difference to '1'. Of course players will often have a '3' in something, but you can either train this up or compensate for it in other ways and sometimes it just doesn't matter (i.e. set piece attributes).
- Some essential attributes are at '8', but only because the required amount wasn't higher than '8'. This includes vision, finishing, strength for instance.
Now I have tried using HarvestGreen, Orion, my own, etc. data to try and optimize for positional differences. But everything I tried just made the result worse, even gentle adjustments. So I am now faced with 2 options, after being satisfied I've whittled it down to the essential attributes as a whole:
a) Do dozens or hundreds of positional trial and error changes, or
b) Give up on it and just go forward with what I have so far
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced to choose (b). I can always return to positional refinement later. Keep in mind I've already tested a lot of different things, and I know from my 1 CA testing that certain attributes are simply universal (i.e. pace, acc, drib is as essential for DC as it is for AMR).
In my GS I can't filter by division since all the players belong to "Jupiter Pro League". Does anyone have this problem?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: A team of these (hiddens ~8-13; DC jump 17) achieves 4th-5th in the Premier League:
This is surprising to me. I looked at how effective a player like this would be using your blended weights and they don't appear to be anywhere near good enough to achieve a top-four finish.
I created a player using the same attribute values you listed (see screenshot) and calculated his rating at all outfield positions (I gave him 17 jumping reach when calculating centre-back rating). Here's what I got:
| Position | Rating |
|----|---------|
| FB | 74.4% |
| CB | 76.98% |
| WB | 73.97% |
| DM | 67.56% |
| W | 65.42% |
| MC | 68.73% |
| AM | 69.26% |
| ST | 62.37% |
Don't give too much thought to the actual values because my weights are arbitrary but here's the rating of Newcastle's best XI on May 4th, 2025 in my current save (the season is over, they've finished in 4th place):
| Player | Position | Rating |
|----|--------|--------|
| Nick Pope | GK | 75.65% |
| Ferdi Kadıoğlu | DL | 85.35% |
| Gianluca Mancini | DC | 77.97% |
| Sven Botman | DC | 78.32% |
| Tino Livramento | DR | 78.93% |
| Alexander Isak | ML | 79.31% |
| Joe Willock | MC | 74.17% |
| Sandro Tonali | MC | 76.27% |
| Joelinton | MR | 74.78% |
| Bryan Mbeumo | ST | 69.2% |
| Anthony Gordon | ST | 68.2% |
The low-CA player you posted is at least 3-4% worse off than this real team that finished 4th in my game (in 5th place was an even stronger Manchester United). If I make Newcastle play with a defensive midfielder, it picks Tonali and Willock who score 74% each.
If you holidayed with a tactic which isn't considered overpowered, I see this as a bit of an indictment of the weights we've been talking about.
Of course, if you've crunched the numbers yourself and actually find your team is considered much stronger than your closest competition (ideally without the use of Genie Scout thumbing the scale mysteriously) then I'll hold my hands up. This has left me confused though.
EDIT: It strikes me that this might be what you meant when you wrote this:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Now I have tried using HarvestGreen, Orion, my own, etc. data to try and optimize for positional differences. But everything I tried just made the result worse, even gentle adjustments.