Panneton0 said: Anyone managed to find how position rating influences the game in FM26? We've known for a while that having players playing their "natural" position (20) already leads to great gain w/r to playing them in an "accomplished" position (17). However, in FM26, players might play in 2 different positions IP/OOP.
As far as I've seen to this point, IP's position rating can get better solely by playing a player at this position. But OOP's position rating seems to stall. That appears to be true either by assigning training to "playing position" to IP and specifically putting their OOP position in their OOP individual position training. So that seems to point toward the OOP position being mostly irrelevant - even maybe ignored (in term of ability - not tactically).
Another thing about player position proficiency and how it should affect Genie Scout's ratings.
My understanding is that, according to the rating filter, each player gets a score for each position. This is the "general rating", when looking at one player's profil in GS. Then, the general rating is adjusted as a "positional rating" according to the player's position proficiency.
When chosing which player to play at a given position, "positional rating" is thus more relevant since it takes into consideration the position's proficiency. However, this can't seem to be configurable and only a GS inner calculation. We've seen somewhere that 1 point of proficiency has the similar impact on a player's performance than 1 point of pace "lost". E.g. A player with 17 speed and natural (20) is similar in performance than a player with 20 speed and accomplished (17). It's probably more complex than that, but it is the simplest way to compare.
Now, I'm not sure that this translates well into GS "positinal rating". For instance, let's look at 2 players in my team, contenders for playing WBL (for the sake of the discussion). I'm using the GS file in the OG post (zhf2yl)
Player A: General Rating = 45.0 WBL proficiency = 10 Positional Rating = 42.91 (So being only 10 proficient made him drop 2.09 pts) He is 45.0 positional rating for DR
Player B: General Rating = 42.6 WBL proficiency = 15 Positional Rating = 41.74 (So having 5 less than 20 proficiency made him drop 0.86 pts) He is 42.6 positional rating for DL
I feel like, even if GS shows player A as a better WBL, player B might be a better option. It seems to me that GS does not weight positional proficiency enough. My personal impression is that we should remove another 0.5 pt per proficiency below 20 to actually represent the player's efficiency.
That would make the "adjusted positional rating" like so: Player A: 37.91 Player B: 40.24 (He's now the best WBL between the two)
For reference, I have a player C with 1 in WBL proficiency: Player C: General Rating = 53.3 WBL proficiency = 1 Positional Rating = 42.7 (Just 10.6 pts less, even being totally ineffectual) Making him "theoretically" (without the adujsted positional rating) the best WBL even with 1 proficiency.
I'd like thoughts of smarter people than me on this.
Some visual (with another player) to complement my point. This guy is proficient as a DC, and can play somewhat as DR, DM and, to a lesser extent, WBR
Hi general rating (purely calculated through the attributes weighting) is similar everywhere (the weights are similar everywhere, except DC and ST where jumping reach has higher value in general)
Pretty much 41 across the board, and 42/43 DC/ST (the dude is huge)
Now, if we look at the actual position rating (the ones that appear if you set position ratings in your columns - it never shows the general rating), we see that the difference between his positional score as DC and as AMR is less than 10 points appart, which feels off. He should be very very low AMR, having 1 proficiency at that position.
Final thing, I never use the actual "role" rating since GS seem to add a layer of its own calculations on top of the user-defined weights. So I don't know how those relate to truly tested attributes.
been using Premier League 1.0 GS ratings... and this guy...
being rated at 64, seems unfair. He's a beast, only downside I see is his determination. If I follow these ratings, he won't make the bench in the Portuguese league, where I'm still dominating by far with a team with avg rating way lower than the best in the league.
Can someone clarify this Premier League 1.0 ratings? I was using Orion's and Bafici's rating's a while back, what is everyone's opinion on theese ratings?
being rated at 64, seems unfair. He's a beast, only downside I see is his determination. If I follow these ratings, he won't make the bench in the Portuguese league, where I'm still dominating by far with a team with avg rating way lower than the best in the league.
Can someone clarify this Premier League 1.0 ratings? I was using Orion's and Bafici's rating's a while back, what is everyone's opinion on theese ratings? Expand
It seems you have already realised the answer....... If a ratings system doesn't put Mbappe in the top 20 players or strikers, something is wrong? Ngolo Kante is a better right winger than Yamal(at his peak)? I dont think so.
btw the player you posted is ok. He'd tear up tier two leagues and do well in some top leagues. But he's not a champions league player for me. Yes he would while you're still building a team, but he's not top class.
being rated at 64, seems unfair. He's a beast, only downside I see is his determination. If I follow these ratings, he won't make the bench in the Portuguese league, where I'm still dominating by far with a team with avg rating way lower than the best in the league.
Can someone clarify this Premier League 1.0 ratings? I was using Orion's and Bafici's rating's a while back, what is everyone's opinion on theese ratings? Expand I'll have a look into it a bit later, but two things are obvious to me here:
1) That is a near perfect player, if you compare his attributes to what I've found to be the ideal set of attributes. The only thing lacking is jumping reach, which is quite important.
2) The Premier League 1.0 GS rating file does not weight hidden & personality attributes, because Genie Scout is too bugged to include them. I haven't given up on this forever, but at the moment there's no viable solution. Your player has ridiculously perfect hiddens & personality, even temperament is very close to its optimal of 10 rather than 20. I daresay this is actually this is the main reason the rating is inaccurate rather than the excellent distribution of visible attributes.
You could make the argument that hiddens & personality should be weighted at least somewhat, even if it messes the ratings up a bit, because a 4% error might be better than a 8% error say. But a player with those hiddens & personality is extremely atypical.. so if we did this it might end up that yes, your player becomes 4% more accurate rating, but 90% of players become ~1-2% less accurate say. I'm sure it could be tweaked a little, but I don't think it's obvious what that tweak would be.
This pretence that something is up with genie scout when the ratings severely undervalue speed is embarrassing. You could literally change speed to 100 for both and it would increase the players score a fair bit.
He's not even close to the near perfect player. He will do well for his CA because he's 18/18 speed. Near perfect would see a big increase in dribbling, anticipation and agility and balance. The player also doesn't need jumping reach. Some of the best 10's and wingers ive ever had were under 5 for jumping reach.
Not including his hidden attributes has nothing to do with the score and its deceitful to claim it is. Its also funny. You've still never answered why Mbappe scores so poorly using Premier league 1.0 ratings. But you always avoid questions and go full lockjaw.
keithb said: This pretence that something is up with genie scout when the ratings severely undervalue speed is embarrassing. You could literally change speed to 100 for both and it would increase the players score a fair bit.
He's not even close to the near perfect player. He will do well for his CA because he's 18/18 speed. Near perfect would see a big increase in dribbling, anticipation and agility and balance. The player also doesn't need jumping reach. Some of the best 10's and wingers ive ever had were under 5 for jumping reach.
Not including his hidden attributes has nothing to do with the score and its deceitful to claim it is. Its also funny. You've still never answered why Mbappe scores so poorly using Premier league 1.0 ratings. But you always avoid questions and go full lockjaw. Expand There are 14 players in the starting database that have 18 pace/18 acc/14 drib or higher.
I've done testing previously, and have posted about it, that jumping reach is not just necessary in high amounts for certain players - it is an important attribute for all players, and even going from say 8 to 12.
You are also wrong in your claim on the previous page that players age 18 or less benefit from loans. You seem to just reflexively claim the opposite of anything I say. Here is the data from EBFM on the matter:
We see here that for players age 18 or less:
Training with no matches = +17 CA Matches but no training = +13 CA Matches & training = +19 CA
By contrast for a player age 21:
Training with no matches = +1 CA Matches but no training = +4.5 CA Matches & training = +9 CA
Now factor in the following:
1) Your team (likely) has better training facilities, staff, and most importantly, uses a top training schedule 2) Your player age 18 or less is more likely to be inadequate to play in a decent division and either will be hard-capped by the low division rep, or simply not start games
And even if the planets did align, it would only be for ~10% extra growth. By contrast, a player age 21 simply doesn't grow without competitive matches. For a player age 20 it remains possible that keeping them at the club in the reserves is better than loaning them out (training no match vs. match no training).
keithb said: Any word on why Mbappe scores so low? Expand I've answered this before here, here, and here.
Someone else also tried to inform you here, to which you responded that the bottom line for you is your motivation to 'blame the person who made the file'.
This is why I will not be responding to any more Mbappe rubbish from you.
Someone else also tried to inform you here, to which you responded that the bottom line for you is your motivation to 'blame the person who made the file'.
This is why I will not be responding to any more Mbappe rubbish from you. Expand
hahaha. Classic Bozo. So no answer then. What I said is true. Your ratings are awful as some people are starting to realise.....
Maybe Im just very lucky to I can get Mbappe to be the best fast striker in GS and you cant?
Whats also funny is we know, at least you should, that someone pointed out the ratings were wrong using the old file you posted. But that was because you didn't understand how to use hidden attributes in GS. It has no relevance at all to your premier league garbage file. Does it?
Not sure what the point of that attitude is, but anyways.
I agree that speed and acceleration might be underweighted in the premier league GS file. Jumping reach having high weight is an interesting take, but can you remind me why it has actually higher weight that pace/acc? I feel like nothing should be higher, according to actual testing. Not saying that it's a bad idea, but I wonder the rational behind that choice.
Also, any pointers on how (according to your file, or of general understanding of positional proficiency) we should interpret GS ratings of sub-20 position for a player as per my messages before the interruption?
keithb said: Whats also funny is we know, at least you should, that someone pointed out the ratings were wrong using the old file you posted. But that was because you didn't understand how to use hidden attributes in GS. It has no relevance at all to your premier league garbage file. Does it? Expand Just to be clear, the process is:
test attributes in isolation + hundreds of possible attribute combinations over thousands of games > record best performing combination of attributes > translate to Genie Scout weightings
not GS weightings > GS Ratings > record winning combination of attributes
So you are confused when you believe my ranking of Mbappe is tied to how well I understand Genie Scout's formulae for hidden attributes.
The translation into weightings works accurately for FM26 scoring system, it is specifically a Genie Scout problem. What FM26 scoring system lacks is the ability to weight hidden attributes.
It is also not a matter of just work out what formula Genie Scout is using and then take that into account. Say it was that personality attributes are weighted at 50% of visible attributes. Ok, then we could just put 80 for pressure instead of 40. It is complicated, and perhaps even completely unworkable. The best way to use Genie Scout right now is to weight the visible attributes, and put filters on the hiddens.
Panneton0 said: Not sure what the point of that attitude is, but anyways.
I agree that speed and acceleration might be underweighted in the premier league GS file. Jumping reach having high weight is an interesting take, but can you remind me why it has actually higher weight that pace/acc? I feel like nothing should be higher, according to actual testing. Not saying that it's a bad idea, but I wonder the rational behind that choice.
Also, any pointers on how (according to your file, or of general understanding of positional proficiency) we should interpret GS ratings of sub-20 position for a player as per my messages before the interruption? Expand The reason why pace/acc is now seemingly under-weighted is because it is expected that you will train these up using the quickness focus in training. I have based the adjustment on real training results, not just the optimal possible. They still remain the highest weighted attributes.
Jumping Reach is only weighted higher in 2 positions, DC and ST target man, but generally it is up there with pace and acc. I can't remember all the nuances around it, but here are the key ones I can recall:
1) Jumping Reach is critical on DC and has a high minimum requirement. Something like the difference between 17 and 13 is 5th > Relegated say (you can probably find these results somewhere earlier in the thread). 2) It's not that you just need one or two tall players to do the job, and that having your MC be a bit taller makes no difference. Increases even at mid levels across the team result in significantly better performance. 3) Jumping Reach is harder to train than pace/acc, at least when we assume quickness focus is being used.
I read your post on position proficiency, but don't have anything to contribute to it really. I do make sure to search for players with only green position proficiency in Genie Scout. I've dabbled with position proficiency in various ways, but I don't think to find performance level at 1 proficiency say, and I'm too hazy on it now anyway.
What I will say is that I think certain dual positions that have no CA penalty (i.e. AML/AMR) are beneficial in a practical sense.
I vaguely recall experimenting with playing optimal players out of position to try and cut the CA cost and that it failed miserably. So it does have a big impact.
As I was thinking about this, it was lurking at the back of my mind that I'm sure someone had tested proficiency and I had seen the results once. It took a while, but I think I've found what I was recalling. HarvestGreen tested it:
He also did FM26 OOP proficiency and found the win rate difference between 4 OOP proficiency and 20 OOP proficiency to be 40.9% > 46.4%. Link to thread.
OK, thanks for the info on the weighting choices in your GS file! That's enlightening and actually makes me understand better why seemingly best players are rated lower. And thanks for the infos on position proficiency.
So it is not a rating file that truly shows the "statistically best" player, but the "statistically most promising, considering pace/acc will be trained later". For instance, Haaland is way above Mbappe because Haaland could gain the 1-2 pace/acc that Mbappe has on him, while Mbappe could never gain the 10 jumping reach that Haaland has on him, even with perfect CA reallocation through Harvest's training regime.
So if I'm using the file to figure out the "best XI" of my team for a given tactic at a given date, your earlier "FM26 GS file" would make more sense, but for long-game recruiting purposes / understanding best promising youngster from my academy, your new "Premier League 1.0" file is prbly better?
Panneton0 said: So it is not a rating file that truly shows the "statistically best" player, but the "statistically most promising, considering pace/acc will be trained later". For instance, Haaland is way above Mbappe because Haaland could gain the 1-2 pace/acc that Mbappe has on him, while Mbappe could never gain the 10 jumping reach that Haaland has on him, even with perfect CA reallocation through Harvest's training regime.
So if I'm using the file to figure out the "best XI" of my team for a given tactic at a given date, your earlier "FM26 GS file" would make more sense, but for long-game recruiting purposes / understanding best promising youngster from my academy, your new "Premier League 1.0" file is prbly better? Expand I had to go back over my posts and have a few puffs of the pipe on this one.
I misremembered the reasoning for pace/acc being low. I've been away from it all for about a month.
The goal I had started with in my 3rd iteration was this: Get the pace/acc requirement as low as possible, because getting a full team of 18 pace/acc players your first season in the Premier League isn't realistic. It turned out that ~14-15 was feasible in combination with certain levels of other attributes - it wouldn't win the Premier League, but it would guarantee avoiding relegation and even potentially achieve a continental qualification finish.
Now it's true that I also adjusted the values for training later, however pace/acc remained at 15. And yes, the idea is to train them to ~18, but this is beyond what is strictly necessary to place highly. The idea is that growing pace/acc to 18+ will ensure finishing 1st in the 2nd season onwards.
The history of this can get very confusing, but I think this timeline makes it pretty simple:
Dec 15th - First GS ratings file released. May 7th - 'FM24 Pure Performance' is released. This is the "best XI" ratings file you have in mind. It is mostly based on HarvestGreen's data. May 14th - LightningFlik posts the discrepancy that leads me to finding Genie Scout is bugged. June 12th - 'Premier League 1.0' is released, which is mostly based on my own testing. June 21st - 'Premier League 1.0' tested in comparison to 'FM24 Pure Performance', with the latter edited to avoid causing the GS bugs. Position results were 7.333 and 6.5 respectively, with Orion's weights as a control being 13.166. I had also created another version of 'Premier League 1.0' which refined it according to the essentiality of the attributes and its result was 8.333. I think I planned for it to become 'Premier League 1.1' but either the result dissuaded me or I forgot about it and took a break.
So I recommend just using the 'Premier League 1.0' file.
test attributes in isolation + hundreds of possible attribute combinations over thousands of games > record best performing combination of attributes > translate to Genie Scout weightings
not GS weightings > GS Ratings > record winning combination of attributes
So you are confused when you believe my ranking of Mbappe is tied to how well I understand Genie Scout's formulae for hidden attributes.
The translation into weightings works accurately for FM26 scoring system, it is specifically a Genie Scout problem. What FM26 scoring system lacks is the ability to weight hidden attributes.
It is also not a matter of just work out what formula Genie Scout is using and then take that into account. Say it was that personality attributes are weighted at 50% of visible attributes. Ok, then we could just put 80 for pressure instead of 40. It is complicated, and perhaps even completely unworkable. The best way to use Genie Scout right now is to weight the visible attributes, and put filters on the hiddens. Expand
Bozo, bozo, bozo. I'm not confused haha. Previously, prior to your latest ratings, someone posted to say GS was doing something to skew the ratings. You linked their post in the last reply to me. But we know that was because you were entering scores for the hidden attributes. Now in premier league 1 that isn't the case. So why did you quote their post?
So the reason Mbappe scores so lowly is because of your testing. But anyone knows Mbappe is the best fast striker and certainly better than all the other strikers you rank above him. No one is choosing the many strikers you rate above him. He is only beaten by Haaland.
You severely undervalue speed and that's why he scores so lowly. It's your ratings, it has nothing to do with GS. I hope that clears up your confusion. You also overrate many attributes. You can literally set fast striker to 100/100 speed, 70 dribbling, 50 anticipation, 40 balance, 30 agility and works rate, 40 finishing and that's about it. Mbappe will be the top fast striker. Jumping reach should be 0. I'm sure I've missed one or two but that's about it.
1) That is a near perfect player, if you compare his attributes to what I've found to be the ideal set of attributes. The only thing lacking is jumping reach, which is quite important.
2) The Premier League 1.0 GS rating file does not weight hidden & personality attributes, because Genie Scout is too bugged to include them. I haven't given up on this forever, but at the moment there's no viable solution. Your player has ridiculously perfect hiddens & personality, even temperament is very close to its optimal of 10 rather than 20. I daresay this is actually this is the main reason the rating is inaccurate rather than the excellent distribution of visible attributes.
You could make the argument that hiddens & personality should be weighted at least somewhat, even if it messes the ratings up a bit, because a 4% error might be better than a 8% error say. But a player with those hiddens & personality is extremely atypical.. so if we did this it might end up that yes, your player becomes 4% more accurate rating, but 90% of players become ~1-2% less accurate say. I'm sure it could be tweaked a little, but I don't think it's obvious what that tweak would be. Expand
I like to play without real players, and this is my second time finding this absolutely insane players. On a different save I had a german CF with perfect personality and unbelievable physicals, only downside was finishing. At the time I decided to train him to be a Right Back because of the ratings I was using.
What I'm saying is since finding about meta attributes I still haven't recovered from the shock. And although I may not totally agree with some of you ratings for GS Premier League v1.0 it is one of the best I could find so far. Atm I'm using 3 different rating systems and choosing my players by averaging from the 3
Panneton0 said: Anyone managed to find how position rating influences the game in FM26? We've known for a while that having players playing their "natural" position (20) already leads to great gain w/r to playing them in an "accomplished" position (17). However, in FM26, players might play in 2 different positions IP/OOP.
As far as I've seen to this point, IP's position rating can get better solely by playing a player at this position. But OOP's position rating seems to stall. That appears to be true either by assigning training to "playing position" to IP and specifically putting their OOP position in their OOP individual position training. So that seems to point toward the OOP position being mostly irrelevant - even maybe ignored (in term of ability - not tactically).
This is based on global feeling, but haven't tested it thoroughly. If anyone already have an insight on the new system's position rating influence / how IP/OOP positions influence a player's position rating, I'd love to hear about it.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/18292-the-impact-of-oop-position-proficiency-on-the-result-fm26/
Yarema said: https://fm-arena.com/thread/18292-the-impact-of-oop-position-proficiency-on-the-result-fm26/
Thanks Yarema! I hadn't seen this post, much appreciated!
Another thing about player position proficiency and how it should affect Genie Scout's ratings.
My understanding is that, according to the rating filter, each player gets a score for each position.
This is the "general rating", when looking at one player's profil in GS. Then, the general rating is adjusted as a "positional rating" according to the player's position proficiency.
When chosing which player to play at a given position, "positional rating" is thus more relevant since it takes into consideration the position's proficiency. However, this can't seem to be configurable and only a GS inner calculation. We've seen somewhere that 1 point of proficiency has the similar impact on a player's performance than 1 point of pace "lost". E.g. A player with 17 speed and natural (20) is similar in performance than a player with 20 speed and accomplished (17). It's probably more complex than that, but it is the simplest way to compare.
Now, I'm not sure that this translates well into GS "positinal rating". For instance, let's look at 2 players in my team, contenders for playing WBL (for the sake of the discussion). I'm using the GS file in the OG post (zhf2yl)
Player A:
General Rating = 45.0
WBL proficiency = 10
Positional Rating = 42.91 (So being only 10 proficient made him drop 2.09 pts)
He is 45.0 positional rating for DR
Player B:
General Rating = 42.6
WBL proficiency = 15
Positional Rating = 41.74 (So having 5 less than 20 proficiency made him drop 0.86 pts)
He is 42.6 positional rating for DL
I feel like, even if GS shows player A as a better WBL, player B might be a better option. It seems to me that GS does not weight positional proficiency enough. My personal impression is that we should remove another 0.5 pt per proficiency below 20 to actually represent the player's efficiency.
That would make the "adjusted positional rating" like so:
Player A: 37.91
Player B: 40.24 (He's now the best WBL between the two)
For reference, I have a player C with 1 in WBL proficiency:
Player C:
General Rating = 53.3
WBL proficiency = 1
Positional Rating = 42.7 (Just 10.6 pts less, even being totally ineffectual)
Making him "theoretically" (without the adujsted positional rating) the best WBL even with 1 proficiency.
I'd like thoughts of smarter people than me on this.
Some visual (with another player) to complement my point.
This guy is proficient as a DC, and can play somewhat as DR, DM and, to a lesser extent, WBR
Hi general rating (purely calculated through the attributes weighting) is similar everywhere (the weights are similar everywhere, except DC and ST where jumping reach has higher value in general)
Pretty much 41 across the board, and 42/43 DC/ST (the dude is huge)
Now, if we look at the actual position rating (the ones that appear if you set position ratings in your columns - it never shows the general rating), we see that the difference between his positional score as DC and as AMR is less than 10 points appart, which feels off. He should be very very low AMR, having 1 proficiency at that position.
Final thing, I never use the actual "role" rating since GS seem to add a layer of its own calculations on top of the user-defined weights. So I don't know how those relate to truly tested attributes.
been using Premier League 1.0 GS ratings... and this guy...
being rated at 64, seems unfair. He's a beast, only downside I see is his determination. If I follow these ratings, he won't make the bench in the Portuguese league, where I'm still dominating by far with a team with avg rating way lower than the best in the league.
Can someone clarify this Premier League 1.0 ratings? I was using Orion's and Bafici's rating's a while back, what is everyone's opinion on theese ratings?
BrushlessPlaymaker said: been using Premier League 1.0 GS ratings... and this guy...
being rated at 64, seems unfair. He's a beast, only downside I see is his determination. If I follow these ratings, he won't make the bench in the Portuguese league, where I'm still dominating by far with a team with avg rating way lower than the best in the league.
Can someone clarify this Premier League 1.0 ratings? I was using Orion's and Bafici's rating's a while back, what is everyone's opinion on theese ratings?
It seems you have already realised the answer....... If a ratings system doesn't put Mbappe in the top 20 players or strikers, something is wrong? Ngolo Kante is a better right winger than Yamal(at his peak)? I dont think so.
btw the player you posted is ok. He'd tear up tier two leagues and do well in some top leagues. But he's not a champions league player for me. Yes he would while you're still building a team, but he's not top class.
BrushlessPlaymaker said: been using Premier League 1.0 GS ratings... and this guy...
being rated at 64, seems unfair. He's a beast, only downside I see is his determination. If I follow these ratings, he won't make the bench in the Portuguese league, where I'm still dominating by far with a team with avg rating way lower than the best in the league.
Can someone clarify this Premier League 1.0 ratings? I was using Orion's and Bafici's rating's a while back, what is everyone's opinion on theese ratings?
I'll have a look into it a bit later, but two things are obvious to me here:
1) That is a near perfect player, if you compare his attributes to what I've found to be the ideal set of attributes. The only thing lacking is jumping reach, which is quite important.
2) The Premier League 1.0 GS rating file does not weight hidden & personality attributes, because Genie Scout is too bugged to include them. I haven't given up on this forever, but at the moment there's no viable solution. Your player has ridiculously perfect hiddens & personality, even temperament is very close to its optimal of 10 rather than 20. I daresay this is actually this is the main reason the rating is inaccurate rather than the excellent distribution of visible attributes.
You could make the argument that hiddens & personality should be weighted at least somewhat, even if it messes the ratings up a bit, because a 4% error might be better than a 8% error say. But a player with those hiddens & personality is extremely atypical.. so if we did this it might end up that yes, your player becomes 4% more accurate rating, but 90% of players become ~1-2% less accurate say. I'm sure it could be tweaked a little, but I don't think it's obvious what that tweak would be.
This pretence that something is up with genie scout when the ratings severely undervalue speed is embarrassing. You could literally change speed to 100 for both and it would increase the players score a fair bit.
He's not even close to the near perfect player. He will do well for his CA because he's 18/18 speed. Near perfect would see a big increase in dribbling, anticipation and agility and balance. The player also doesn't need jumping reach. Some of the best 10's and wingers ive ever had were under 5 for jumping reach.
Not including his hidden attributes has nothing to do with the score and its deceitful to claim it is. Its also funny. You've still never answered why Mbappe scores so poorly using Premier league 1.0 ratings. But you always avoid questions and go full lockjaw.
keithb said: This pretence that something is up with genie scout when the ratings severely undervalue speed is embarrassing. You could literally change speed to 100 for both and it would increase the players score a fair bit.
He's not even close to the near perfect player. He will do well for his CA because he's 18/18 speed. Near perfect would see a big increase in dribbling, anticipation and agility and balance. The player also doesn't need jumping reach. Some of the best 10's and wingers ive ever had were under 5 for jumping reach.
Not including his hidden attributes has nothing to do with the score and its deceitful to claim it is. Its also funny. You've still never answered why Mbappe scores so poorly using Premier league 1.0 ratings. But you always avoid questions and go full lockjaw.
There are 14 players in the starting database that have 18 pace/18 acc/14 drib or higher.
I've done testing previously, and have posted about it, that jumping reach is not just necessary in high amounts for certain players - it is an important attribute for all players, and even going from say 8 to 12.
You are also wrong in your claim on the previous page that players age 18 or less benefit from loans. You seem to just reflexively claim the opposite of anything I say. Here is the data from EBFM on the matter:
We see here that for players age 18 or less:
Training with no matches = +17 CA
Matches but no training = +13 CA
Matches & training = +19 CA
By contrast for a player age 21:
Training with no matches = +1 CA
Matches but no training = +4.5 CA
Matches & training = +9 CA
Now factor in the following:
1) Your team (likely) has better training facilities, staff, and most importantly, uses a top training schedule
2) Your player age 18 or less is more likely to be inadequate to play in a decent division and either will be hard-capped by the low division rep, or simply not start games
And even if the planets did align, it would only be for ~10% extra growth. By contrast, a player age 21 simply doesn't grow without competitive matches. For a player age 20 it remains possible that keeping them at the club in the reserves is better than loaning them out (training no match vs. match no training).
Any word on why Mbappe scores so low?
keithb said: Any word on why Mbappe scores so low?
I've answered this before here, here, and here.
Someone else also tried to inform you here, to which you responded that the bottom line for you is your motivation to 'blame the person who made the file'.
This is why I will not be responding to any more Mbappe rubbish from you.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I've answered this before here, here, and here.
Someone else also tried to inform you here, to which you responded that the bottom line for you is your motivation to 'blame the person who made the file'.
This is why I will not be responding to any more Mbappe rubbish from you.
hahaha. Classic Bozo. So no answer then. What I said is true. Your ratings are awful as some people are starting to realise.....
Maybe Im just very lucky to I can get Mbappe to be the best fast striker in GS and you cant?
Whats also funny is we know, at least you should, that someone pointed out the ratings were wrong using the old file you posted. But that was because you didn't understand how to use hidden attributes in GS. It has no relevance at all to your premier league garbage file. Does it?
Not sure what the point of that attitude is, but anyways.
I agree that speed and acceleration might be underweighted in the premier league GS file. Jumping reach having high weight is an interesting take, but can you remind me why it has actually higher weight that pace/acc? I feel like nothing should be higher, according to actual testing. Not saying that it's a bad idea, but I wonder the rational behind that choice.
Also, any pointers on how (according to your file, or of general understanding of positional proficiency) we should interpret GS ratings of sub-20 position for a player as per my messages before the interruption?
keithb said: Whats also funny is we know, at least you should, that someone pointed out the ratings were wrong using the old file you posted. But that was because you didn't understand how to use hidden attributes in GS. It has no relevance at all to your premier league garbage file. Does it?
Just to be clear, the process is:
test attributes in isolation + hundreds of possible attribute combinations over thousands of games > record best performing combination of attributes > translate to Genie Scout weightings
not GS weightings > GS Ratings > record winning combination of attributes
So you are confused when you believe my ranking of Mbappe is tied to how well I understand Genie Scout's formulae for hidden attributes.
The translation into weightings works accurately for FM26 scoring system, it is specifically a Genie Scout problem. What FM26 scoring system lacks is the ability to weight hidden attributes.
It is also not a matter of just work out what formula Genie Scout is using and then take that into account. Say it was that personality attributes are weighted at 50% of visible attributes. Ok, then we could just put 80 for pressure instead of 40. It is complicated, and perhaps even completely unworkable. The best way to use Genie Scout right now is to weight the visible attributes, and put filters on the hiddens.
Panneton0 said: Not sure what the point of that attitude is, but anyways.
I agree that speed and acceleration might be underweighted in the premier league GS file. Jumping reach having high weight is an interesting take, but can you remind me why it has actually higher weight that pace/acc? I feel like nothing should be higher, according to actual testing. Not saying that it's a bad idea, but I wonder the rational behind that choice.
Also, any pointers on how (according to your file, or of general understanding of positional proficiency) we should interpret GS ratings of sub-20 position for a player as per my messages before the interruption?
The reason why pace/acc is now seemingly under-weighted is because it is expected that you will train these up using the quickness focus in training. I have based the adjustment on real training results, not just the optimal possible. They still remain the highest weighted attributes.
Jumping Reach is only weighted higher in 2 positions, DC and ST target man, but generally it is up there with pace and acc. I can't remember all the nuances around it, but here are the key ones I can recall:
1) Jumping Reach is critical on DC and has a high minimum requirement. Something like the difference between 17 and 13 is 5th > Relegated say (you can probably find these results somewhere earlier in the thread).
2) It's not that you just need one or two tall players to do the job, and that having your MC be a bit taller makes no difference. Increases even at mid levels across the team result in significantly better performance.
3) Jumping Reach is harder to train than pace/acc, at least when we assume quickness focus is being used.
I read your post on position proficiency, but don't have anything to contribute to it really. I do make sure to search for players with only green position proficiency in Genie Scout. I've dabbled with position proficiency in various ways, but I don't think to find performance level at 1 proficiency say, and I'm too hazy on it now anyway.
What I will say is that I think certain dual positions that have no CA penalty (i.e. AML/AMR) are beneficial in a practical sense.
I vaguely recall experimenting with playing optimal players out of position to try and cut the CA cost and that it failed miserably. So it does have a big impact.
As I was thinking about this, it was lurking at the back of my mind that I'm sure someone had tested proficiency and I had seen the results once. It took a while, but I think I've found what I was recalling. HarvestGreen tested it:
He also did FM26 OOP proficiency and found the win rate difference between 4 OOP proficiency and 20 OOP proficiency to be 40.9% > 46.4%. Link to thread.
OK, thanks for the info on the weighting choices in your GS file! That's enlightening and actually makes me understand better why seemingly best players are rated lower. And thanks for the infos on position proficiency.
So it is not a rating file that truly shows the "statistically best" player, but the "statistically most promising, considering pace/acc will be trained later". For instance, Haaland is way above Mbappe because Haaland could gain the 1-2 pace/acc that Mbappe has on him, while Mbappe could never gain the 10 jumping reach that Haaland has on him, even with perfect CA reallocation through Harvest's training regime.
So if I'm using the file to figure out the "best XI" of my team for a given tactic at a given date, your earlier "FM26 GS file" would make more sense, but for long-game recruiting purposes / understanding best promising youngster from my academy, your new "Premier League 1.0" file is prbly better?
Panneton0 said: So it is not a rating file that truly shows the "statistically best" player, but the "statistically most promising, considering pace/acc will be trained later". For instance, Haaland is way above Mbappe because Haaland could gain the 1-2 pace/acc that Mbappe has on him, while Mbappe could never gain the 10 jumping reach that Haaland has on him, even with perfect CA reallocation through Harvest's training regime.
So if I'm using the file to figure out the "best XI" of my team for a given tactic at a given date, your earlier "FM26 GS file" would make more sense, but for long-game recruiting purposes / understanding best promising youngster from my academy, your new "Premier League 1.0" file is prbly better?
I had to go back over my posts and have a few puffs of the pipe on this one.
I misremembered the reasoning for pace/acc being low. I've been away from it all for about a month.
The goal I had started with in my 3rd iteration was this: Get the pace/acc requirement as low as possible, because getting a full team of 18 pace/acc players your first season in the Premier League isn't realistic. It turned out that ~14-15 was feasible in combination with certain levels of other attributes - it wouldn't win the Premier League, but it would guarantee avoiding relegation and even potentially achieve a continental qualification finish.
Now it's true that I also adjusted the values for training later, however pace/acc remained at 15. And yes, the idea is to train them to ~18, but this is beyond what is strictly necessary to place highly. The idea is that growing pace/acc to 18+ will ensure finishing 1st in the 2nd season onwards.
The history of this can get very confusing, but I think this timeline makes it pretty simple:
Dec 15th - First GS ratings file released.
May 7th - 'FM24 Pure Performance' is released. This is the "best XI" ratings file you have in mind. It is mostly based on HarvestGreen's data.
May 14th - LightningFlik posts the discrepancy that leads me to finding Genie Scout is bugged.
June 12th - 'Premier League 1.0' is released, which is mostly based on my own testing.
June 21st - 'Premier League 1.0' tested in comparison to 'FM24 Pure Performance', with the latter edited to avoid causing the GS bugs. Position results were 7.333 and 6.5 respectively, with Orion's weights as a control being 13.166. I had also created another version of 'Premier League 1.0' which refined it according to the essentiality of the attributes and its result was 8.333. I think I planned for it to become 'Premier League 1.1' but either the result dissuaded me or I forgot about it and took a break.
So I recommend just using the 'Premier League 1.0' file.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Just to be clear, the process is:
test attributes in isolation + hundreds of possible attribute combinations over thousands of games > record best performing combination of attributes > translate to Genie Scout weightings
not GS weightings > GS Ratings > record winning combination of attributes
So you are confused when you believe my ranking of Mbappe is tied to how well I understand Genie Scout's formulae for hidden attributes.
The translation into weightings works accurately for FM26 scoring system, it is specifically a Genie Scout problem. What FM26 scoring system lacks is the ability to weight hidden attributes.
It is also not a matter of just work out what formula Genie Scout is using and then take that into account. Say it was that personality attributes are weighted at 50% of visible attributes. Ok, then we could just put 80 for pressure instead of 40. It is complicated, and perhaps even completely unworkable. The best way to use Genie Scout right now is to weight the visible attributes, and put filters on the hiddens.
Bozo, bozo, bozo. I'm not confused haha. Previously, prior to your latest ratings, someone posted to say GS was doing something to skew the ratings. You linked their post in the last reply to me. But we know that was because you were entering scores for the hidden attributes. Now in premier league 1 that isn't the case. So why did you quote their post?
So the reason Mbappe scores so lowly is because of your testing. But anyone knows Mbappe is the best fast striker and certainly better than all the other strikers you rank above him. No one is choosing the many strikers you rate above him. He is only beaten by Haaland.
You severely undervalue speed and that's why he scores so lowly. It's your ratings, it has nothing to do with GS. I hope that clears up your confusion. You also overrate many attributes. You can literally set fast striker to 100/100 speed, 70 dribbling, 50 anticipation, 40 balance, 30 agility and works rate, 40 finishing and that's about it. Mbappe will be the top fast striker. Jumping reach should be 0. I'm sure I've missed one or two but that's about it.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I'll have a look into it a bit later, but two things are obvious to me here:
1) That is a near perfect player, if you compare his attributes to what I've found to be the ideal set of attributes. The only thing lacking is jumping reach, which is quite important.
2) The Premier League 1.0 GS rating file does not weight hidden & personality attributes, because Genie Scout is too bugged to include them. I haven't given up on this forever, but at the moment there's no viable solution. Your player has ridiculously perfect hiddens & personality, even temperament is very close to its optimal of 10 rather than 20. I daresay this is actually this is the main reason the rating is inaccurate rather than the excellent distribution of visible attributes.
You could make the argument that hiddens & personality should be weighted at least somewhat, even if it messes the ratings up a bit, because a 4% error might be better than a 8% error say. But a player with those hiddens & personality is extremely atypical.. so if we did this it might end up that yes, your player becomes 4% more accurate rating, but 90% of players become ~1-2% less accurate say. I'm sure it could be tweaked a little, but I don't think it's obvious what that tweak would be.
I like to play without real players, and this is my second time finding this absolutely insane players. On a different save I had a german CF with perfect personality and unbelievable physicals, only downside was finishing. At the time I decided to train him to be a Right Back because of the ratings I was using.
What I'm saying is since finding about meta attributes I still haven't recovered from the shock. And although I may not totally agree with some of you ratings for GS Premier League v1.0 it is one of the best I could find so far. Atm I'm using 3 different rating systems and choosing my players by averaging from the 3