bf3metro said: Hi, first of all, thank you so much for your incredibly detailed reply. I hope I'm not bothering you, but I have a couple more questions that could really help improve my experience with the game.
Regarding the Premier League 1.0 ratings, I feel like the goalkeeper ratings are a bit off. Quite often, average or even poor goalkeepers end up with very high percentages. In fact, the highest-rated player in my save is a goalkeeper with only 9 Reflexes who conceded 58 goals during the season. Do you think there's any way to improve the goalkeeper ratings in the file?
You also mentioned the Genie Scout bug regarding hidden attributes. In your original FM26 ratings file, hidden attributes are taken into account. I'm completely willing to modify the Premier League 1.0 ratings file to include only the hidden attributes, but do you know what weights or values they should be given? Would it simply make sense to import the hidden attribute weights from the original FM26 ratings file into the Premier League 1.0 file?
Thanks again in advance for your reply. What you're doing is genuinely impressive, and I really appreciate the amount of work you've put into it. I'll definitely continue supporting your work in the future. Expand For reference, these are the optimal minimum set of attributes for GK derived from testing:
The proper version has 8s instead of 1s, but this makes it clearer what attributes matter and which don't.
I've had a double check and it seems to be working as intended. The top rated GKs are the ones you'd expect to be (1st GKs from the very top clubs), and if I filter for current rep 5000< or 3000< then the top players even if low in value or have weird looking distribution of attributes nonetheless are getting high ratings and are getting picked up by higher clubs which are strong indications it's on the right track.
Some examples:
Keep in mind that a GK alone is not going to stop goals. The results depend largely on the rest of your team. HarvestGreen concluded that a GK is worth 20% of an outfield player. My impression is that it's quite a bit more than that, but a GK alone certainly won't save a bad team. What I assess by is the improvement or drop in league position.
In regards to Hidden Attributes in Genie Scout, the problem is not that I can't work out what weighting to give them - you can find those weightings here. The problem is that GS does not calculate using those weightings correctly. It uses some complex formula that makes setting them accurately difficult if not impossible. Think of it as two curves that don't match up and therefore can't be integrated together even if you work out what those curves exactly are, this is the challenge I'm facing. The band-aid solution right now is to combine the weights with a basic filter for hiddens (i.e. min 8 pro, pressure, etc.).
Now if you use FM26 you may be in luck because there is now a program that can do what we're looking for. See my post below this.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: are getting picked up by higher clubs which are strong indications it's on the right track. Expand
You really need to stop typing this stuff out. The AI is horrendous at squad building and buying the right players. It is based off ca/pa, reputation and other things. Not the attributes needed for the match engine. A team will have three keepers and they're all shit. Or they will play the worst one of the three. Just like when you do quick pick and your assistant picks some of your worst players to start.
Using one of the biggest faults in the game to validate your testing again shows how bad your knowledge of this game is. Its staggering
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: For reference, these are the optimal minimum set of attributes for GK derived from testing:
The proper version has 8s instead of 1s, but this makes it clearer what attributes matter and which don't.
I've had a double check and it seems to be working as intended. The top rated GKs are the ones you'd expect to be (1st GKs from the very top clubs), and if I filter for current rep 5000< or 3000< then the top players even if low in value or have weird looking distribution of attributes nonetheless are getting high ratings and are getting picked up by higher clubs which are strong indications it's on the right track.
Some examples:
Keep in mind that a GK alone is not going to stop goals. The results depend largely on the rest of your team. HarvestGreen concluded that a GK is worth 20% of an outfield player. My impression is that it's quite a bit more than that, but a GK alone certainly won't save a bad team. What I assess by is the improvement or drop in league position.
In regards to Hidden Attributes in Genie Scout, the problem is not that I can't work out what weighting to give them - you can find those weightings here. The problem is that GS does not calculate using those weightings correctly. It uses some complex formula that makes setting them accurately difficult if not impossible. Think of it as two curves that don't match up and therefore can't be integrated together even if you work out what those curves exactly are, this is the challenge I'm facing. The band-aid solution right now is to combine the weights with a basic filter for hiddens (i.e. min 8 pro, pressure, etc.).
Now if you use FM26 you may be in luck because there is now a program that can do what we're looking for. See my post below this. Expand
Thanks for your detailed reply, I really appreciate it.
I genuinely have this feeling that a goalkeeper with poor Reflexes is basically a walking sieve, haha! But at the same time, what you said makes perfect sense, because a goalkeeper isn't supposed to save everything on his own.
I'll post a screenshot so you can tell me what you think. This was my goalkeeper: he conceded 58 goals over the season. I replaced him the following year, but according to the ratings he's still considered the best goalkeeper in my save... despite having only 9 Reflexes. That just feels strange to me.
Anyway, thanks again. I also noticed you mentioned FMSuperScout. I've never used it before. Is it as accurate as Genie Scout when it comes to calculations and visible attributes? I see that FMSuperScout also takes hidden attributes into account, so it's definitely worth testing. I'll have a closer look at it. If you've already done some testing with it, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts, especially regarding the reliability of its ratings and percentages.
One last thing: would it be possible to talk to you via DM instead of posting publicly here? Do you accept private messages? If not, no worries at all!
bf3metro said: Thanks for your detailed reply, I really appreciate it.
I genuinely have this feeling that a goalkeeper with poor Reflexes is basically a walking sieve, haha! But at the same time, what you said makes perfect sense, because a goalkeeper isn't supposed to save everything on his own.
I'll post a screenshot so you can tell me what you think. This was my goalkeeper: he conceded 58 goals over the season. I replaced him the following year, but according to the ratings he's still considered the best goalkeeper in my save... despite having only 9 Reflexes. That just feels strange to me.
Anyway, thanks again. I also noticed you mentioned FMSuperScout. I've never used it before. Is it as accurate as Genie Scout when it comes to calculations and visible attributes? I see that FMSuperScout also takes hidden attributes into account, so it's definitely worth testing. I'll have a closer look at it. If you've already done some testing with it, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts, especially regarding the reliability of its ratings and percentages.
One last thing: would it be possible to talk to you via DM instead of posting publicly here? Do you accept private messages? If not, no worries at all!
Thanks again, and speak soon! Expand The only issue with that player is the 9 reflexes. I would expect that player to do better than 6.7 rating in England Div 3. Could it be that the player has poor hiddens?
It's an inherent downside of weightings that it can't distinguish between (1 pace/20 acc) and (10 pace/10 acc). I think it can be mitigated in various ways though, similar to how there are perceptual tunings available in video encoding to improve the subjective quality.
I have attempted this by weighting the weightings, which you can find here. Here are the weighted weightings for GK, which I haven't posted before:
It's a trade off where determination for GK is hardly taken into account anymore, but on the other hand aerial reach will always get the priority it deserves. It should be an improvement, because it's worse to be deficient in aerial reach than in determination.
But in a controlled test of it, it finished position 8.5 on average, which was worse than 7.333 for the standard Premier League 1.0 file. I will still be going down this route further, but that is where things are at right now. You can try using these weighted weights if you like.
I respond to DMs but obviously I only have the bandwidth for a few people from time to time
Now I'm not an expert, but could it be that if the most important attribute for keepers is 9 out of 20, this could lead to them being crap? Probably not, but just a mad idea I had.
keithb said: Now I'm not an expert, but could it be that if the most important attribute for keepers is 9 out of 20, this could lead to them being crap? Probably not, but just a mad idea I had.
Anyway its food for thought! Expand
he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc.
treath said: he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc. Expand
not mention other positions that infer a player like a winger or midfield with 20 passing 20 first touch 20 long shoot 20 technic and 14 driblling are worst than a player with 20 driblling and 5 on the rest.
treath said: he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc. Expand
It's some of the maddest stuff I've seen concerning football manager. We've back to speed isn't king/op, reflexes aren't important for keepers and jumping reach is now essential in every position. You can literally play for a few seasons with wingers and 10's that have jumping reach under 5 and they will be your best players through goals, assists and average rating. For example Messi in a retro database will get an average rating above 8 playing 10 or RW. But bozo is telling people you should play Soucek there. Sometimes I tell myself he's not serious and this is all some joke, because I'm not sure what level of reality I'm supposed to be operating on. But he's deadly serious. I don't think the words even exist to describe how crazy this all is. And people believe him 😂😂
( edited 16 hours, 21 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#430
Link to the post:
treath said: he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc. Expand If you doubt it, you can edit an English Premier League's team in the editor to match these attributes and see if they come ~7th in combination with Knap tactic as I claim they do. For hiddens, convert the values here (simply divide by 4).
It requires a bit of work, but the difficult legwork is already done. It would take about 30 minutes, and then perhaps another 30 minutes to test.
I have tried to state clearly that while the attribute templates are very reliable (plug those figures in and you *will* get 7th on average and with not too much variation), weightings have the downside of being unable to distinguish between 1 acc/20 pace and 10 acc/10 pace.
You mention 'prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more important for a GK than reflexes' and 'aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1vs1', which are examples of this inherent lack of discrimination. I have attempted a weighted weights version in attempt to try and compensate for this problem, however my comparison testing found that it did performed worse than the standard Premier League 1.0 weights under normal playing conditions (8.333 position result average vs 7.333 for standard Premier League 1.0 weights).
The comparison tests included a control of Orion's weights, which averaged 13.166 position, so my weightings are definitely worth using above any random set of values, and I daresay anyone else's weights presented so far.
You say that my weightings 'show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers'. This irks me because this is just straight up disinfo. Now maybe what you mean to say is that sometimes a 100 CA goalkeeper can supposedly perform at the highest level, but cmon man, anyone can load up my ratings with the starting database in 3 minutes and see this:
treath said: not mention other positions that infer a player like a winger or midfield with 20 passing 20 first touch 20 long shoot 20 technic and 14 driblling are worst than a player with 20 driblling and 5 on the rest. Expand Passing, first touch, long shots, and technique have negligible benefit or even possibly negative correlation for outfield players.
If you don't want to take my word for it, refer to HarvestGreen's data on this:
You're also not attempting a fair example. No players are going to have 20 passing, first touch, long shots, and technique. Nor is a player going to have 20 dribbling and 5 in those other stats.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Passing, first touch, long shots, and technique have negligible benefit or even possibly negative correlation for outfield players.
If you don't want to take my word for it, refer to HarvestGreen's data on this:
You're also not attempting a fair example. No players are going to have 20 passing, first touch, long shots, and technique. Nor is a player going to have 20 dribbling and 5 in those other stats. Expand
You're quoting testing from someone that contradicts your testing? His keeper testing has technique at 0% and jumping reach at 1%. Aren't they two of your top attributes for a keeper? That poor person above using a keeper with 9 reflexes and struggling. Probably the rest of their team isn't that good either using your file.
Let's look at some basic numbers that anyone can plug into genie scout: Full backs 100/100 speed. 60-70 stamina and work rate. 40-50 for anticipation, concentration and balance. 30 determination (same for all players). Agility and dribbling 20-30.
Centre backs is 100 for speed and jumping reach. 50 anticipation, concentration and balance. 40 strength. 30 determination. 20-30 work rate and stamina.
DM's are similar to FB. Can add long shots say 10-20. Maybe decrease dribbling. As jumping reach say 20 it really isn't essential. But a physical king like David ozoh will do well.
10's and wingers are similar also. It's 100/100 speed. Dribbling 65/80. They want higher agility50-65, lower concentration say 10. Add some finishing 10-20, composure 10. Stamina and work rate 30-40. Jumping reach is ZERO for both.
Fast striker similar to wingers and 10's. Increase finishing to 40. Maybe higher composure. Jumping reach ZERO.
Target striker 90/90 speed. Jumping reach 100. Strength and balance 50-60, heading 15, dribbling ZERO. Stamina and work rate 30-40.
Every position determination 30. All players are roughly 40 for balance as well. centre backs and ts higher. 50-60
Keepers 100 reflexes, 60 agility, 30 for the other attributes that harvest and FM arena say added something. Not jumping reach (10) or technique (ZERO). Aerial reach yes 30.
That's not complete it's from memory. When you search filter injury proneness max 17, pressure minimum 5 and professionalism 12, but ideally 15. Buy young players with high genie scout ratings and/or high pa. Some 150 players can be monsters but in general the higher pa players will always be better. Not the ones with very low speed to start with. You can change the weightings to 105 for each position. Add the start of the game there is a lack of top quality keepers and centre backs so you can increase these to 110. But you don't want these weighting too far apart and Haaland is a 100% player. Plus when searching for say 90+ players GS wont always show players that are over 100.
If you really want to cheese the game don't start with that many leagues then add Belgium, Spain div2, Netherlands, Italy div2, Portugal div2 and see the players it populates the next season lol. High pa and dirt cheap. Especially in Spain.
For the person who doesn't like to play with real players. Start with Hong Kong only and holiday ten seasons. Then add the leagues you want, remove Hong Kong and most players won't be real.
The table you posted also shows that speed, surprisingly, is twice as good as any other attribute. Who knew. Well not you.
and also have tried to emphasize that Unique Nation ID matters a lot - as important as junior coaching or more.
But I've never discussed the randomness factor, let alone put a precise figure on it. And many people just handwave discussion of newgens away with 'it's all dominated by randomness anyway'.
So I think it is time to start determining and stating just how random it is exactly. After a brief thinkle I've put it at 50% and junior coaching at 13% for a comparison, but this is just a starting point for a more precise estimation.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you doubt it, you can edit an English Premier League's team in the editor to match these attributes and see if they come ~7th in combination with Knap tactic as I claim they do. For hiddens, convert the values here (simply divide by 4).
It requires a bit of work, but the difficult legwork is already done. It would take about 30 minutes, and then perhaps another 30 minutes to test.
I have tried to state clearly that while the attribute templates are very reliable (plug those figures in and you *will* get 7th on average and with not too much variation), weightings have the downside of being unable to distinguish between 1 acc/20 pace and 10 acc/10 pace.
You mention 'prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more important for a GK than reflexes' and 'aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1vs1', which are examples of this inherent lack of discrimination. I have attempted a weighted weights version in attempt to try and compensate for this problem, however my comparison testing found that it did performed worse than the standard Premier League 1.0 weights under normal playing conditions (8.333 position result average vs 7.333 for standard Premier League 1.0 weights).
The comparison tests included a control of Orion's weights, which averaged 13.166 position, so my weightings are definitely worth using above any random set of values, and I daresay anyone else's weights presented so far.
You say that my weightings 'show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers'. This irks me because this is just straight up disinfo. Now maybe what you mean to say is that sometimes a 100 CA goalkeeper can supposedly perform at the highest level, but cmon man, anyone can load up my ratings with the starting database in 3 minutes and see this: Expand
mate i don't discredit your research, i think it's valid when we talk about cost effective relatively.
but people don't use the ratings for that, they use to find the best players, so when you put in your ratings ZERO for long shot, technique, first touch, etc. It will fall apart. It will not show the best players, but the more cost effective maybe.
Take a look at your picture here from GenieScout, there is a GK from KV Mechelen 112Ca better than Mamardashville 148ca..near as good as Diogo Costa and Verbruggen.
But he is not that good, am i right?
Your rating show that, well forGk with 110-120ca he is the best cost effective in the game but not the best player to play for my team now.
There is no way in hell Courtouis it's not the best Gk in the game, there is no way a Gk from Indepediente Del Valle and Burnley better than Oblak, just because the Aerial Reach and Pace (???) is a little bit better than Oblak (discredit for all other atributes).
So you misguiding people when we talk about find the best players to play for my team now.
But you help a lot, and helped me a lot when we talk about cost effective for training.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Passing, first touch, long shots, and technique have negligible benefit or even possibly negative correlation for outfield players.
If you don't want to take my word for it, refer to HarvestGreen's data on this:
You're also not attempting a fair example. No players are going to have 20 passing, first touch, long shots, and technique. Nor is a player going to have 20 dribbling and 5 in those other stats. Expand
You are right there is no such a player with 20 and 14 dribling as i mentioned but if it existed he would be worst than i player with 20 dribbling and zero in all other atribbutes because in your rating dribbling is rated 50ish in all positions and the other technical atribbutes are zero.
And we know in the game the player with 20is and a little less dribbling would perform better.
Maybe that is not cost effective from it ca, it could be better if we could choose the atriibutes and relocate better for it ca, ok i get it.
But what i want to infer here, it's people use genie scout to find the best players to play the game in their teams now, not the better cost effective ca
treath said: mate i don't discredit your research, i think it's valid when we talk about cost effective relatively.
but people don't use the ratings for that, they use to find the best players, so when you put in your ratings ZERO for long shot, technique, first touch, etc. It will fall apart. It will not show the best players, but the more cost effective maybe.
Take a look at your picture here from GenieScout, there is a GK from KV Mechelen 112Ca better than Mamardashville 148ca..near as good as Diogo Costa and Verbruggen.
But he is not that good, am i right?
Your rating show that, well forGk with 110-120ca he is the best cost effective in the game but not the best player to play for my team now.
There is no way in hell Courtouis it's not the best Gk in the game, there is no way a Gk from Indepediente Del Valle and Burnley better than Oblak, just because the Aerial Reach and Pace (???) is a little bit better than Oblak (discredit for all other atributes).
So you misguiding people when we talk about find the best players to play for my team now.
But you help a lot, and helped me a lot when we talk about cost effective for training. Expand For many attributes, including all the ones you mention, there is simply no benefit to having them. They are in fact often a net negative because they take up CA, reducing available CA for useful attributes such as pace/acc and slowing development (CA-PA gap strongly influences growth).
That may sound hyperbolic, but consider the following example:
A player has 5 extra passing. +5 passing = Approx +0.96 win rate according to HarvestGreen's data I took a random 140 CA player and gave him +5 passing. His RCA went to 142 CA. So +2 CA for +5 passing. If I give him +1 acceleration instead, his RCA is 143. So +3 CA for +1 acceleration. +1 acceleration = Approx +4.78% win rate according to HarvestGreen's data. If we adjust the CA to match, it's +0.96 (passing) vs +3.186 (acceleration). So extra passing is just losing.
That's HarvestGreen's data.
For my own reference, I use my own data. I change an attribute from 1 to 20 for all players in a team, and if the team has an identical or worse position after a full season, I say that attribute is worthless, end of story, and mark it '1'. If going from 1 to 20 changes the position by 1 place, I put it in my weights - even if it costs a lot of CA. An example of this is strength.
A zero weighting does not mean they are penalized for having the attribute, it just doesn't give them an advantage for it.
Now as for saying Messi is obviously better than Joe Blow from Slough.. I have resigned myself to not making presumptions. First off, I'm not an expert on every great player in the footballing world, and my knowledge is probably a bit outdated. Second, it would obviously be a form of confirmation bias to judge results by name recognition.
The gold standard for me is results. I have compared a few top strikers, testing them in the same league as a control.
A good second option I believe is to see who the top clubs actually start with or buy. You say Courtois is not the best GK in the game. Well, he's the 1st choice GK for Real Madrid, and in a save I checked he averaged 7.21 rating over 5 years with 2 runner-up World Goalkeeper of the Year Awards and 3 third-place awards, which doesn't sound too shabby to me. I guess my question to you is.. on what basis do you know he is not one of the best GKs?
In regards to best players vs CA cost-effective, the current weightings I present do not take CA cost-effectiveness into account. I previously have, if you are familiar with the 'Blended' vs. 'Pure Performance' files. The only way it is currently coming into consideration is as follows:
Suppose I test X attribute '20' finishes 5th. '12' finishes 5th. '11' finishes 6th. '10' finishes 7th. '9' finishes 10th.
My thinking would be that I should choose somewhere between '10' and '12'. If attribute X is very CA costly, or more importantly difficult to find/train, then I will likely choose '11' or possibly '10'. Otherwise I will choose '12'.
How you should actually present your argument therefore is that I should target 1st, not 7th. But I think your typical player is taking Slough to the Champions League, not assembling the World's best XI in Season 1.
I mean honestly, what do you even suppose to propose? I can only imagine you would suggest weighting passing as 5 instead of 0 for example. But then you would have 36 year olds giving Div 2 strikers a run for their money, because their 16s in various dud technicals & mentals would make up for the difference in speed.
Bottom line is people are looking for who is a better player right now kind of rating, not who you can train to be better in 5 seasons. You severely undervalue pace and acceleration for example because you argue that it's easy to train it up, which might be true but it takes a lot of time and some luck.
Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure, but most of people looking for ratings aren't after that. They simply want a scoring system that will tell them player X is better than player Y, and I think you've strayed further and further from the original intention with each iteration.
bf3metro said: Hi, first of all, thank you so much for your incredibly detailed reply. I hope I'm not bothering you, but I have a couple more questions that could really help improve my experience with the game.
Regarding the Premier League 1.0 ratings, I feel like the goalkeeper ratings are a bit off. Quite often, average or even poor goalkeepers end up with very high percentages. In fact, the highest-rated player in my save is a goalkeeper with only 9 Reflexes who conceded 58 goals during the season. Do you think there's any way to improve the goalkeeper ratings in the file?
You also mentioned the Genie Scout bug regarding hidden attributes. In your original FM26 ratings file, hidden attributes are taken into account. I'm completely willing to modify the Premier League 1.0 ratings file to include only the hidden attributes, but do you know what weights or values they should be given? Would it simply make sense to import the hidden attribute weights from the original FM26 ratings file into the Premier League 1.0 file?
Thanks again in advance for your reply. What you're doing is genuinely impressive, and I really appreciate the amount of work you've put into it. I'll definitely continue supporting your work in the future.
For reference, these are the optimal minimum set of attributes for GK derived from testing:
The proper version has 8s instead of 1s, but this makes it clearer what attributes matter and which don't.
I've had a double check and it seems to be working as intended. The top rated GKs are the ones you'd expect to be (1st GKs from the very top clubs), and if I filter for current rep 5000< or 3000< then the top players even if low in value or have weird looking distribution of attributes nonetheless are getting high ratings and are getting picked up by higher clubs which are strong indications it's on the right track.
Some examples:
Keep in mind that a GK alone is not going to stop goals. The results depend largely on the rest of your team. HarvestGreen concluded that a GK is worth 20% of an outfield player. My impression is that it's quite a bit more than that, but a GK alone certainly won't save a bad team. What I assess by is the improvement or drop in league position.
In regards to Hidden Attributes in Genie Scout, the problem is not that I can't work out what weighting to give them - you can find those weightings here. The problem is that GS does not calculate using those weightings correctly. It uses some complex formula that makes setting them accurately difficult if not impossible. Think of it as two curves that don't match up and therefore can't be integrated together even if you work out what those curves exactly are, this is the challenge I'm facing. The band-aid solution right now is to combine the weights with a basic filter for hiddens (i.e. min 8 pro, pressure, etc.).
Now if you use FM26 you may be in luck because there is now a program that can do what we're looking for. See my post below this.
There is a program now, FMSuperScout, that appears to solve the weighting of hiddens problem. Unfortunately it only works for FM26.
You can find my instructions on how to use my weights with the program here.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: are getting picked up by higher clubs which are strong indications it's on the right track.
You really need to stop typing this stuff out. The AI is horrendous at squad building and buying the right players. It is based off ca/pa, reputation and other things. Not the attributes needed for the match engine. A team will have three keepers and they're all shit. Or they will play the worst one of the three. Just like when you do quick pick and your assistant picks some of your worst players to start.
Using one of the biggest faults in the game to validate your testing again shows how bad your knowledge of this game is. Its staggering
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: For reference, these are the optimal minimum set of attributes for GK derived from testing:
The proper version has 8s instead of 1s, but this makes it clearer what attributes matter and which don't.
I've had a double check and it seems to be working as intended. The top rated GKs are the ones you'd expect to be (1st GKs from the very top clubs), and if I filter for current rep 5000< or 3000< then the top players even if low in value or have weird looking distribution of attributes nonetheless are getting high ratings and are getting picked up by higher clubs which are strong indications it's on the right track.
Some examples:
Keep in mind that a GK alone is not going to stop goals. The results depend largely on the rest of your team. HarvestGreen concluded that a GK is worth 20% of an outfield player. My impression is that it's quite a bit more than that, but a GK alone certainly won't save a bad team. What I assess by is the improvement or drop in league position.
In regards to Hidden Attributes in Genie Scout, the problem is not that I can't work out what weighting to give them - you can find those weightings here. The problem is that GS does not calculate using those weightings correctly. It uses some complex formula that makes setting them accurately difficult if not impossible. Think of it as two curves that don't match up and therefore can't be integrated together even if you work out what those curves exactly are, this is the challenge I'm facing. The band-aid solution right now is to combine the weights with a basic filter for hiddens (i.e. min 8 pro, pressure, etc.).
Now if you use FM26 you may be in luck because there is now a program that can do what we're looking for. See my post below this.
Thanks for your detailed reply, I really appreciate it.
I genuinely have this feeling that a goalkeeper with poor Reflexes is basically a walking sieve, haha! But at the same time, what you said makes perfect sense, because a goalkeeper isn't supposed to save everything on his own.
I'll post a screenshot so you can tell me what you think. This was my goalkeeper: he conceded 58 goals over the season. I replaced him the following year, but according to the ratings he's still considered the best goalkeeper in my save... despite having only 9 Reflexes. That just feels strange to me.
Anyway, thanks again. I also noticed you mentioned FMSuperScout. I've never used it before. Is it as accurate as Genie Scout when it comes to calculations and visible attributes? I see that FMSuperScout also takes hidden attributes into account, so it's definitely worth testing. I'll have a closer look at it. If you've already done some testing with it, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts, especially regarding the reliability of its ratings and percentages.
One last thing: would it be possible to talk to you via DM instead of posting publicly here? Do you accept private messages? If not, no worries at all!
Thanks again, and speak soon!
bf3metro said: Thanks for your detailed reply, I really appreciate it.
I genuinely have this feeling that a goalkeeper with poor Reflexes is basically a walking sieve, haha! But at the same time, what you said makes perfect sense, because a goalkeeper isn't supposed to save everything on his own.
I'll post a screenshot so you can tell me what you think. This was my goalkeeper: he conceded 58 goals over the season. I replaced him the following year, but according to the ratings he's still considered the best goalkeeper in my save... despite having only 9 Reflexes. That just feels strange to me.
Anyway, thanks again. I also noticed you mentioned FMSuperScout. I've never used it before. Is it as accurate as Genie Scout when it comes to calculations and visible attributes? I see that FMSuperScout also takes hidden attributes into account, so it's definitely worth testing. I'll have a closer look at it. If you've already done some testing with it, I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts, especially regarding the reliability of its ratings and percentages.
One last thing: would it be possible to talk to you via DM instead of posting publicly here? Do you accept private messages? If not, no worries at all!
Thanks again, and speak soon!
The only issue with that player is the 9 reflexes. I would expect that player to do better than 6.7 rating in England Div 3. Could it be that the player has poor hiddens?
It's an inherent downside of weightings that it can't distinguish between (1 pace/20 acc) and (10 pace/10 acc). I think it can be mitigated in various ways though, similar to how there are perceptual tunings available in video encoding to improve the subjective quality.
I have attempted this by weighting the weightings, which you can find here. Here are the weighted weightings for GK, which I haven't posted before:
It's a trade off where determination for GK is hardly taken into account anymore, but on the other hand aerial reach will always get the priority it deserves. It should be an improvement, because it's worse to be deficient in aerial reach than in determination.
But in a controlled test of it, it finished position 8.5 on average, which was worse than 7.333 for the standard Premier League 1.0 file. I will still be going down this route further, but that is where things are at right now. You can try using these weighted weights if you like.
I respond to DMs but obviously I only have the bandwidth for a few people from time to time
Now I'm not an expert, but could it be that if the most important attribute for keepers is 9 out of 20, this could lead to them being crap? Probably not, but just a mad idea I had.
Anyway its food for thought!
keithb said: Now I'm not an expert, but could it be that if the most important attribute for keepers is 9 out of 20, this could lead to them being crap? Probably not, but just a mad idea I had.
Anyway its food for thought!
he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc.
treath said: he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc.
not mention other positions that infer a player like a winger or midfield with 20 passing 20 first touch 20 long shoot 20 technic and 14 driblling are worst than a player with 20 driblling and 5 on the rest.
treath said: he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc.
It's some of the maddest stuff I've seen concerning football manager. We've back to speed isn't king/op, reflexes aren't important for keepers and jumping reach is now essential in every position. You can literally play for a few seasons with wingers and 10's that have jumping reach under 5 and they will be your best players through goals, assists and average rating. For example Messi in a retro database will get an average rating above 8 playing 10 or RW. But bozo is telling people you should play Soucek there. Sometimes I tell myself he's not serious and this is all some joke, because I'm not sure what level of reality I'm supposed to be operating on. But he's deadly serious. I don't think the words even exist to describe how crazy this all is. And people believe him 😂😂
treath said: he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc.
If you doubt it, you can edit an English Premier League's team in the editor to match these attributes and see if they come ~7th in combination with Knap tactic as I claim they do. For hiddens, convert the values here (simply divide by 4).
It requires a bit of work, but the difficult legwork is already done. It would take about 30 minutes, and then perhaps another 30 minutes to test.
I have tried to state clearly that while the attribute templates are very reliable (plug those figures in and you *will* get 7th on average and with not too much variation), weightings have the downside of being unable to distinguish between 1 acc/20 pace and 10 acc/10 pace.
You mention 'prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more important for a GK than reflexes' and 'aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1vs1', which are examples of this inherent lack of discrimination. I have attempted a weighted weights version in attempt to try and compensate for this problem, however my comparison testing found that it did performed worse than the standard Premier League 1.0 weights under normal playing conditions (8.333 position result average vs 7.333 for standard Premier League 1.0 weights).
The comparison tests included a control of Orion's weights, which averaged 13.166 position, so my weightings are definitely worth using above any random set of values, and I daresay anyone else's weights presented so far.
You say that my weightings 'show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers'. This irks me because this is just straight up disinfo. Now maybe what you mean to say is that sometimes a 100 CA goalkeeper can supposedly perform at the highest level, but cmon man, anyone can load up my ratings with the starting database in 3 minutes and see this:
treath said: not mention other positions that infer a player like a winger or midfield with 20 passing 20 first touch 20 long shoot 20 technic and 14 driblling are worst than a player with 20 driblling and 5 on the rest.
Passing, first touch, long shots, and technique have negligible benefit or even possibly negative correlation for outfield players.
If you don't want to take my word for it, refer to HarvestGreen's data on this:
You're also not attempting a fair example. No players are going to have 20 passing, first touch, long shots, and technique. Nor is a player going to have 20 dribbling and 5 in those other stats.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Passing, first touch, long shots, and technique have negligible benefit or even possibly negative correlation for outfield players.
If you don't want to take my word for it, refer to HarvestGreen's data on this:
You're also not attempting a fair example. No players are going to have 20 passing, first touch, long shots, and technique. Nor is a player going to have 20 dribbling and 5 in those other stats.
You're quoting testing from someone that contradicts your testing? His keeper testing has technique at 0% and jumping reach at 1%. Aren't they two of your top attributes for a keeper? That poor person above using a keeper with 9 reflexes and struggling. Probably the rest of their team isn't that good either using your file.
Let's look at some basic numbers that anyone can plug into genie scout:
Full backs 100/100 speed. 60-70 stamina and work rate. 40-50 for anticipation, concentration and balance. 30 determination (same for all players). Agility and dribbling 20-30.
Centre backs is 100 for speed and jumping reach. 50 anticipation, concentration and balance. 40 strength. 30 determination. 20-30 work rate and stamina.
DM's are similar to FB. Can add long shots say 10-20. Maybe decrease dribbling. As jumping reach say 20 it really isn't essential. But a physical king like David ozoh will do well.
10's and wingers are similar also. It's 100/100 speed. Dribbling 65/80. They want higher agility50-65, lower concentration say 10. Add some finishing 10-20, composure 10. Stamina and work rate 30-40. Jumping reach is ZERO for both.
Fast striker similar to wingers and 10's. Increase finishing to 40. Maybe higher composure. Jumping reach ZERO.
Target striker 90/90 speed. Jumping reach 100. Strength and balance 50-60, heading 15, dribbling ZERO. Stamina and work rate 30-40.
Every position determination 30. All players are roughly 40 for balance as well. centre backs and ts higher. 50-60
Keepers 100 reflexes, 60 agility, 30 for the other attributes that harvest and FM arena say added something. Not jumping reach (10) or technique (ZERO). Aerial reach yes 30.
That's not complete it's from memory. When you search filter injury proneness max 17, pressure minimum 5 and professionalism 12, but ideally 15. Buy young players with high genie scout ratings and/or high pa. Some 150 players can be monsters but in general the higher pa players will always be better. Not the ones with very low speed to start with. You can change the weightings to 105 for each position. Add the start of the game there is a lack of top quality keepers and centre backs so you can increase these to 110. But you don't want these weighting too far apart and Haaland is a 100% player. Plus when searching for say 90+ players GS wont always show players that are over 100.
If you really want to cheese the game don't start with that many leagues then add Belgium, Spain div2, Netherlands, Italy div2, Portugal div2 and see the players it populates the next season lol. High pa and dirt cheap. Especially in Spain.
For the person who doesn't like to play with real players. Start with Hong Kong only and holiday ten seasons. Then add the leagues you want, remove Hong Kong and most players won't be real.
The table you posted also shows that speed, surprisingly, is twice as good as any other attribute. Who knew. Well not you.
The original post was in bad need of an update, so I've redone it.
Initially I explained things in more extensive and precise detail, but realized it would be too burdensome to read through.
It's still fairly long and could do with another touch up soon, but it has new sections and new info.
For instance I have previously characterized newgen PA as essentially:
40% Junior Coaching
25% Youth Recruitment
25% Nation Youth Rating
~10% Game Importance
0% Youth Facilities
and also have tried to emphasize that Unique Nation ID matters a lot - as important as junior coaching or more.
But I've never discussed the randomness factor, let alone put a precise figure on it. And many people just handwave discussion of newgens away with 'it's all dominated by randomness anyway'.
So I think it is time to start determining and stating just how random it is exactly. After a brief thinkle I've put it at 50% and junior coaching at 13% for a comparison, but this is just a starting point for a more precise estimation.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you doubt it, you can edit an English Premier League's team in the editor to match these attributes and see if they come ~7th in combination with Knap tactic as I claim they do. For hiddens, convert the values here (simply divide by 4).
It requires a bit of work, but the difficult legwork is already done. It would take about 30 minutes, and then perhaps another 30 minutes to test.
I have tried to state clearly that while the attribute templates are very reliable (plug those figures in and you *will* get 7th on average and with not too much variation), weightings have the downside of being unable to distinguish between 1 acc/20 pace and 10 acc/10 pace.
You mention 'prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more important for a GK than reflexes' and 'aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1vs1', which are examples of this inherent lack of discrimination. I have attempted a weighted weights version in attempt to try and compensate for this problem, however my comparison testing found that it did performed worse than the standard Premier League 1.0 weights under normal playing conditions (8.333 position result average vs 7.333 for standard Premier League 1.0 weights).
The comparison tests included a control of Orion's weights, which averaged 13.166 position, so my weightings are definitely worth using above any random set of values, and I daresay anyone else's weights presented so far.
You say that my weightings 'show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers'. This irks me because this is just straight up disinfo. Now maybe what you mean to say is that sometimes a 100 CA goalkeeper can supposedly perform at the highest level, but cmon man, anyone can load up my ratings with the starting database in 3 minutes and see this:
mate i don't discredit your research, i think it's valid when we talk about cost effective relatively.
but people don't use the ratings for that, they use to find the best players, so when you put in your ratings ZERO for long shot, technique, first touch, etc. It will fall apart. It will not show the best players, but the more cost effective maybe.
Take a look at your picture here from GenieScout, there is a GK from KV Mechelen 112Ca better than Mamardashville 148ca..near as good as Diogo Costa and Verbruggen.
But he is not that good, am i right?
Your rating show that, well forGk with 110-120ca he is the best cost effective in the game but not the best player to play for my team now.
There is no way in hell Courtouis it's not the best Gk in the game, there is no way a Gk from Indepediente Del Valle and Burnley better than Oblak, just because the Aerial Reach and Pace (???) is a little bit better than Oblak (discredit for all other atributes).
So you misguiding people when we talk about find the best players to play for my team now.
But you help a lot, and helped me a lot when we talk about cost effective for training.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Passing, first touch, long shots, and technique have negligible benefit or even possibly negative correlation for outfield players.
If you don't want to take my word for it, refer to HarvestGreen's data on this:
You're also not attempting a fair example. No players are going to have 20 passing, first touch, long shots, and technique. Nor is a player going to have 20 dribbling and 5 in those other stats.
You are right there is no such a player with 20 and 14 dribling as i mentioned but if it existed he would be worst than i player with 20 dribbling and zero in all other atribbutes because in your rating dribbling is rated 50ish in all positions and the other technical atribbutes are zero.
And we know in the game the player with 20is and a little less dribbling would perform better.
Maybe that is not cost effective from it ca, it could be better if we could choose the atriibutes and relocate better for it ca, ok i get it.
But what i want to infer here, it's people use genie scout to find the best players to play the game in their teams now, not the better cost effective ca
treath said: mate i don't discredit your research, i think it's valid when we talk about cost effective relatively.
but people don't use the ratings for that, they use to find the best players, so when you put in your ratings ZERO for long shot, technique, first touch, etc. It will fall apart. It will not show the best players, but the more cost effective maybe.
Take a look at your picture here from GenieScout, there is a GK from KV Mechelen 112Ca better than Mamardashville 148ca..near as good as Diogo Costa and Verbruggen.
But he is not that good, am i right?
Your rating show that, well forGk with 110-120ca he is the best cost effective in the game but not the best player to play for my team now.
There is no way in hell Courtouis it's not the best Gk in the game, there is no way a Gk from Indepediente Del Valle and Burnley better than Oblak, just because the Aerial Reach and Pace (???) is a little bit better than Oblak (discredit for all other atributes).
So you misguiding people when we talk about find the best players to play for my team now.
But you help a lot, and helped me a lot when we talk about cost effective for training.
For many attributes, including all the ones you mention, there is simply no benefit to having them. They are in fact often a net negative because they take up CA, reducing available CA for useful attributes such as pace/acc and slowing development (CA-PA gap strongly influences growth).
That may sound hyperbolic, but consider the following example:
A player has 5 extra passing.
+5 passing = Approx +0.96 win rate according to HarvestGreen's data
I took a random 140 CA player and gave him +5 passing. His RCA went to 142 CA. So +2 CA for +5 passing.
If I give him +1 acceleration instead, his RCA is 143. So +3 CA for +1 acceleration.
+1 acceleration = Approx +4.78% win rate according to HarvestGreen's data.
If we adjust the CA to match, it's +0.96 (passing) vs +3.186 (acceleration).
So extra passing is just losing.
That's HarvestGreen's data.
For my own reference, I use my own data. I change an attribute from 1 to 20 for all players in a team, and if the team has an identical or worse position after a full season, I say that attribute is worthless, end of story, and mark it '1'. If going from 1 to 20 changes the position by 1 place, I put it in my weights - even if it costs a lot of CA. An example of this is strength.
A zero weighting does not mean they are penalized for having the attribute, it just doesn't give them an advantage for it.
Now as for saying Messi is obviously better than Joe Blow from Slough.. I have resigned myself to not making presumptions. First off, I'm not an expert on every great player in the footballing world, and my knowledge is probably a bit outdated. Second, it would obviously be a form of confirmation bias to judge results by name recognition.
The gold standard for me is results. I have compared a few top strikers, testing them in the same league as a control.
A good second option I believe is to see who the top clubs actually start with or buy. You say Courtois is not the best GK in the game. Well, he's the 1st choice GK for Real Madrid, and in a save I checked he averaged 7.21 rating over 5 years with 2 runner-up World Goalkeeper of the Year Awards and 3 third-place awards, which doesn't sound too shabby to me. I guess my question to you is.. on what basis do you know he is not one of the best GKs?
In regards to best players vs CA cost-effective, the current weightings I present do not take CA cost-effectiveness into account. I previously have, if you are familiar with the 'Blended' vs. 'Pure Performance' files. The only way it is currently coming into consideration is as follows:
Suppose I test X attribute
'20' finishes 5th. '12' finishes 5th. '11' finishes 6th. '10' finishes 7th. '9' finishes 10th.
My thinking would be that I should choose somewhere between '10' and '12'. If attribute X is very CA costly, or more importantly difficult to find/train, then I will likely choose '11' or possibly '10'. Otherwise I will choose '12'.
How you should actually present your argument therefore is that I should target 1st, not 7th. But I think your typical player is taking Slough to the Champions League, not assembling the World's best XI in Season 1.
I mean honestly, what do you even suppose to propose? I can only imagine you would suggest weighting passing as 5 instead of 0 for example. But then you would have 36 year olds giving Div 2 strikers a run for their money, because their 16s in various dud technicals & mentals would make up for the difference in speed.
Bottom line is people are looking for who is a better player right now kind of rating, not who you can train to be better in 5 seasons. You severely undervalue pace and acceleration for example because you argue that it's easy to train it up, which might be true but it takes a lot of time and some luck.
Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure, but most of people looking for ratings aren't after that. They simply want a scoring system that will tell them player X is better than player Y, and I think you've strayed further and further from the original intention with each iteration.
There's no way this is real. It HAS to be a wind up now. You cant seriously not know how player awards are given in the game?
Courtois is a top keeper at the start, though none of them are that great. Newgens will be loads better.