Rain said: If you really want to test strikers and rank them should probably just give all the teams in the league including your own the exact same attributes besides the player you are testing. That way you will have consistent data and confirm your player is always playing in the same circumstances. Expand HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real.
The reason for the discrepancy between HarvestGreen's data and the rankings in reality, is that he's testing against opposition that is either all 10 or 20. If I put an ST with 12 jump reach in a league where every player has 1 jump reach, guess how many aerial attempts he's going to win. But each Premier League team in reality has players with at least ~15 jump reach.
Nonetheless I'm currently plugging in HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 data into FMST26 as weights to see how it fares compared to the weights I ended up with so far, because the more accurate the starting set of weights, the less likely we get a set of weights that 'functions' properly most of the time but isn't actually using the right weights that will get us to near 100% accuracy. One problem that appears with HarvestGreen's weights is that Maeda and Furuhashi are underrated.
What I'm doing at the moment is using HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 & 6 > 18 data as a baseline, then changing just the minimum of what needs to be changed to make things line up.
One example of a radical change, and what I think is going on:
In my weightings attempt before this, I found stamina ~90 (a bit higher than acc/pace) is necessary. HarvestGreen says stamina 10 > 18 is 21.6% of acc 10 > 18. I'm saying it's ~110%.
From my own testing, I know the following is ideal: 20 acc/pace 13 sta | 18 acc/pace 14 sta | 14 acc/pace 15 sta. Something like that anyway, you get the picture. So we see sta is 1/3 of acc, or it's higher at 1 to 1 or a bit more.
Acc & Pace are 2 attributes it's conserving, so sta @ 1/3 acc is actually 2/3 of acc or pace alone. So we know it's in a range of ~67%-200%. Hence I think why something like 110% sta weighting of acc works and HarvestGreen's 21.6% doesn't.
But why did HarvestGreen get 21.6%? Well in his test his players have 10 in every attribute except the one tested, so he's doing 10 acc/pace 18 sta vs 10 acc/pace/sta. That translates to roughly ~9.7 acc/pace vs. 8.3 acc/pace. That's +17% for the 18 sta team.
tam1236 said: Sure, with better concentration, dribbling and finishing they would be much better. But until there is no other team with good, physical players they are getting along. And, maybe that's not my coaches, but default FM schedules that give not enough quickness who sucks? CA points are really badly distributed: leadership (0 importance, unless...) is so expenxive - why? cooperation (0 importance) expensive - why? And physicals, most important, are just cheap - I can have decent player of 45 CA. When I see a CB 24 yo., 160 CA, pa, acc 10-11 I think something is really wrong in this game. It reminds me, that some time ago a club from my town won a domestic championship with a technically very weak but big, strong and quick team (and doing mainly physical training). So it happens irl, but of course not on a very high level Expand And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0.
A 24 yo CB with 160 CA and having 11 acc is completely normal. We got so used to abusing the broken training system that we somehow forgot that. What is actually wrong in this game is that you can engineer a 18+ pace player out of "almost anyone".
Yarema said: And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0. Expand They are, as demonstrated by the Messi vs Furuhashi example I showed you in detail, but you have seemingly chosen to overlook.
I have almost completed another example which is even better (Luis Suarez vs Le Fonde). Suarez has green in almost everything technical/mental, but has similar low physicals to Le Fonde. Suarez is finishing consistently 7th to 10th, making him the worst player tested so far.
I don't know why you want to die on this hill. I was talking about sta, pace, acc which are attributes that matter. A majority of attributes do not matter at all, and should be valued at 0, even when other attributes are identical, due to the CA cost.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real. Expand
I understand what you're saying, but you also can't assume your player will be playing the same teams every time there will be different players playing depending on who the managers decide to play anyway. Also we know what is important so why are you still trying to get this to an exact science 3 years later?
Rain said: I understand what you're saying, but you also can't assume your player will be playing the same teams every time there will be different players playing depending on who the managers decide to play anyway. Expand You are saying either one of two things: That my method is unreliable because the opposition teams are in flux, or otherwise that deducing weightings more precisely is pointless because in reality the opposition teams are always in flux.
Look, my view is that I don't need teams to be frozen, because I actually think having teams in flux replicates the realism better. I don't need to be able to work out precisely how good a particular player is. If I can just improve the reasonable certainty from +/- 15% to +/- 8%, then that's what worth doing in my opinion. Of course, data from controlled testing is often useful, but it's not the be all or end all.
Rain said: Also we know what is important so why are you still trying to get this to an exact science 3 years later? Expand Because it is more enjoyable than playing the game itself. The difficulty makes it an enjoyable challenge, and it's one of the few things I know of that hasn't been done to death by a million people.
You say 'we know what is important', but it has become apparent that the assertion pace/acc is everything isn't quite true anymore. I'm still discovering new things that surprise me. And judging by quite a few of the recent replies in this thread, many don't have a clue what's important in the game and what's not.
Now you could say 'well, we've worked out the game well enough to win everything with ease', and that would have been true already back in 2019 - before EBFM, HarvestGreen, FM Arena, etc. - because we had Knap tactics. If other people want to persist with the game vanilla or whatnot, good for them - the problem I have with it is when people tell me what to do with my time based on that attitude.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You are saying either one of two things: That my method is unreliable because the opposition teams are in flux, or otherwise that deducing weightings more precisely is pointless because in reality the opposition teams are always in flux.
Look, my view is that I don't need teams to be frozen, because I actually think having teams in flux replicates the realism better. I don't need to be able to work out precisely how good a particular player is. If I can just improve the reasonable certainty from +/- 15% to +/- 8%, then that's what worth doing in my opinion. Of course, data from controlled testing is often useful, but it's not the be all or end all.
Because it is more enjoyable than playing the game itself. The difficulty makes it an enjoyable challenge, and it's one of the few things I know of that hasn't been done to death by a million people.
You say 'we know what is important', but it has become apparent that the assertion pace/acc is everything isn't quite true anymore. I'm still discovering new things that surprise me. And judging by quite a few of the recent replies in this thread, many don't have a clue what's important in the game and what's not.
Now you could say 'well, we've worked out the game well enough to win everything with ease', and that would have been true already back in 2019 - before EBFM, HarvestGreen, FM Arena, etc. - because we had Knap tactics. If other people want to persist with the game vanilla or whatnot, good for them - the problem I have with it is when people tell me what to do with my time based on that attitude. Expand
I actually appreciate your tests fr, look forward to your files as this as a good baseline to apply to the upcoming game imo
OpticFawn said: I actually appreciate your tests fr, look forward to your files as this as a good baseline to apply to the upcoming game imo Expand It's always nice to have one's work appreciated, but I carry on regardless.
As I've said before, being beholden to praise or criticism paralyzes and retards the creator. We see that with the state of FM itself. They have no balls, and likely no genuine interest in the game either.
Someone said in this thread earlier 'I liked X file, but now you've gone off the rails with Y file!'. The deeper one gets, the less likely others are able to understand or sympathize.
I know I'm upsetting a fair few people by constantly coming up with new conclusions that contradict or confound the previous ones at times, not least because they may take it as painting them a fool for believing them once, but this is the process genuine progress necessitates. It's keithb who is always right from the get-go, not me.
Just FYI, I checked the FM Scouting Tool26 and I realize I was doing the exact thing by modifying the code within FMSuperScout (being open-source paves the way to fully customizable score).
For instance, I have the following "base weight" for, specifically DC (the comments are w/r to basic weighting from FMArena testing.
InjuryProneness and Dirtiness have weight, but they are flagged as "adverse", so 20==1 and 1==20.
Then, I applied a transform on a couple of attributes that I saw being flagged as "non-linear" in theses forums:
WorkRate and Pressure, if below 6, are treated as half their value (so 4 is weighted as if it was a 2) Pace and acceleration, if above 15, have every point count as 1.5 (so 20 counts as if it was litterally a 22.5!!)
This is a first draft, but these non-linearity have weight considering the meta weightings. Meta score is simply the weighted average of all that considered.
Then, above that, I assign players an "effective meta" per position, according to its position proficiency (based again on some testing I've seen). A player untrained (1 proficiency at position X) has 0.5*meta. So even a player with perfect 20 in every meta attributes will be equivalent to a player with 10 everywhere in a non-proficient position.
And that multiplification factor is linear between 0.5 and 1.0 between 1 and 20 position proficiency.
This is the part I'm still working on to reproduce testings we've seen.
I wanted to show you this in case it gives you a "starting" point on how to implement custom scores in the new tool you foud.
Panneton0 said: Just FYI, I checked the FM Scouting Tool26 and I realize I was doing the exact thing by modifying the code within FMSuperScout (being open-source paves the way to fully customizable score). Expand Yes, it would be good for more people to come up with their own weights for the rankings, as there's so many possibilities it could be right now.
I'm using a couple of formula weights, but I'm leaving the non-linear adjustments until after I have some confidence all outfield positions are the same and get a set of weights out.
Rain said: If you really want to test strikers and rank them should probably just give all the teams in the league including your own the exact same attributes besides the player you are testing. That way you will have consistent data and confirm your player is always playing in the same circumstances.
HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real.
The reason for the discrepancy between HarvestGreen's data and the rankings in reality, is that he's testing against opposition that is either all 10 or 20. If I put an ST with 12 jump reach in a league where every player has 1 jump reach, guess how many aerial attempts he's going to win. But each Premier League team in reality has players with at least ~15 jump reach.
Nonetheless I'm currently plugging in HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 data into FMST26 as weights to see how it fares compared to the weights I ended up with so far, because the more accurate the starting set of weights, the less likely we get a set of weights that 'functions' properly most of the time but isn't actually using the right weights that will get us to near 100% accuracy. One problem that appears with HarvestGreen's weights is that Maeda and Furuhashi are underrated.
What I'm doing at the moment is using HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 & 6 > 18 data as a baseline, then changing just the minimum of what needs to be changed to make things line up.
One example of a radical change, and what I think is going on:
In my weightings attempt before this, I found stamina ~90 (a bit higher than acc/pace) is necessary.
HarvestGreen says stamina 10 > 18 is 21.6% of acc 10 > 18. I'm saying it's ~110%.
From my own testing, I know the following is ideal: 20 acc/pace 13 sta | 18 acc/pace 14 sta | 14 acc/pace 15 sta. Something like that anyway, you get the picture. So we see sta is 1/3 of acc, or it's higher at 1 to 1 or a bit more.
Acc & Pace are 2 attributes it's conserving, so sta @ 1/3 acc is actually 2/3 of acc or pace alone. So we know it's in a range of ~67%-200%. Hence I think why something like 110% sta weighting of acc works and HarvestGreen's 21.6% doesn't.
But why did HarvestGreen get 21.6%? Well in his test his players have 10 in every attribute except the one tested, so he's doing 10 acc/pace 18 sta vs 10 acc/pace/sta. That translates to roughly ~9.7 acc/pace vs. 8.3 acc/pace. That's +17% for the 18 sta team.
tam1236 said: Sure, with better concentration, dribbling and finishing they would be much better. But until there is no other team with good, physical players they are getting along. And, maybe that's not my coaches, but default FM schedules that give not enough quickness who sucks? CA points are really badly distributed: leadership (0 importance, unless...) is so expenxive - why? cooperation (0 importance) expensive - why? And physicals, most important, are just cheap - I can have decent player of 45 CA. When I see a CB 24 yo., 160 CA, pa, acc 10-11 I think something is really wrong in this game.
It reminds me, that some time ago a club from my town won a domestic championship with a technically very weak but big, strong and quick team (and doing mainly physical training). So it happens irl, but of course not on a very high level
And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0.
A 24 yo CB with 160 CA and having 11 acc is completely normal. We got so used to abusing the broken training system that we somehow forgot that. What is actually wrong in this game is that you can engineer a 18+ pace player out of "almost anyone".
Yarema said: And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0.
They are, as demonstrated by the Messi vs Furuhashi example I showed you in detail, but you have seemingly chosen to overlook.
I have almost completed another example which is even better (Luis Suarez vs Le Fonde). Suarez has green in almost everything technical/mental, but has similar low physicals to Le Fonde. Suarez is finishing consistently 7th to 10th, making him the worst player tested so far.
I don't know why you want to die on this hill. I was talking about sta, pace, acc which are attributes that matter. A majority of attributes do not matter at all, and should be valued at 0, even when other attributes are identical, due to the CA cost.
Adam Le Fondre vs Luis Suarez
Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
Luis Suarez - 7th, 9th, 10th, 8th, 8th = 8.4 position
Note that Suarez isn't (significantly) superior in the key mentals of anticipation, concentration, work rate.
The argument that useless technicals/mentals should be counted even a little is in the toilet.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real.
I understand what you're saying, but you also can't assume your player will be playing the same teams every time there will be different players playing depending on who the managers decide to play anyway. Also we know what is important so why are you still trying to get this to an exact science 3 years later?
Rain said: I understand what you're saying, but you also can't assume your player will be playing the same teams every time there will be different players playing depending on who the managers decide to play anyway.
You are saying either one of two things: That my method is unreliable because the opposition teams are in flux, or otherwise that deducing weightings more precisely is pointless because in reality the opposition teams are always in flux.
Look, my view is that I don't need teams to be frozen, because I actually think having teams in flux replicates the realism better. I don't need to be able to work out precisely how good a particular player is. If I can just improve the reasonable certainty from +/- 15% to +/- 8%, then that's what worth doing in my opinion. Of course, data from controlled testing is often useful, but it's not the be all or end all.
Rain said: Also we know what is important so why are you still trying to get this to an exact science 3 years later?
Because it is more enjoyable than playing the game itself. The difficulty makes it an enjoyable challenge, and it's one of the few things I know of that hasn't been done to death by a million people.
You say 'we know what is important', but it has become apparent that the assertion pace/acc is everything isn't quite true anymore. I'm still discovering new things that surprise me. And judging by quite a few of the recent replies in this thread, many don't have a clue what's important in the game and what's not.
Now you could say 'well, we've worked out the game well enough to win everything with ease', and that would have been true already back in 2019 - before EBFM, HarvestGreen, FM Arena, etc. - because we had Knap tactics. If other people want to persist with the game vanilla or whatnot, good for them - the problem I have with it is when people tell me what to do with my time based on that attitude.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You are saying either one of two things: That my method is unreliable because the opposition teams are in flux, or otherwise that deducing weightings more precisely is pointless because in reality the opposition teams are always in flux.
Look, my view is that I don't need teams to be frozen, because I actually think having teams in flux replicates the realism better. I don't need to be able to work out precisely how good a particular player is. If I can just improve the reasonable certainty from +/- 15% to +/- 8%, then that's what worth doing in my opinion. Of course, data from controlled testing is often useful, but it's not the be all or end all.
Because it is more enjoyable than playing the game itself. The difficulty makes it an enjoyable challenge, and it's one of the few things I know of that hasn't been done to death by a million people.
You say 'we know what is important', but it has become apparent that the assertion pace/acc is everything isn't quite true anymore. I'm still discovering new things that surprise me. And judging by quite a few of the recent replies in this thread, many don't have a clue what's important in the game and what's not.
Now you could say 'well, we've worked out the game well enough to win everything with ease', and that would have been true already back in 2019 - before EBFM, HarvestGreen, FM Arena, etc. - because we had Knap tactics. If other people want to persist with the game vanilla or whatnot, good for them - the problem I have with it is when people tell me what to do with my time based on that attitude.
I actually appreciate your tests fr, look forward to your files as this as a good baseline to apply to the upcoming game imo
OpticFawn said: I actually appreciate your tests fr, look forward to your files as this as a good baseline to apply to the upcoming game imo
It's always nice to have one's work appreciated, but I carry on regardless.
As I've said before, being beholden to praise or criticism paralyzes and retards the creator. We see that with the state of FM itself. They have no balls, and likely no genuine interest in the game either.
Someone said in this thread earlier 'I liked X file, but now you've gone off the rails with Y file!'. The deeper one gets, the less likely others are able to understand or sympathize.
I know I'm upsetting a fair few people by constantly coming up with new conclusions that contradict or confound the previous ones at times, not least because they may take it as painting them a fool for believing them once, but this is the process genuine progress necessitates. It's keithb who is always right from the get-go, not me.
Just FYI, I checked the FM Scouting Tool26 and I realize I was doing the exact thing by modifying the code within FMSuperScout (being open-source paves the way to fully customizable score).
For instance, I have the following "base weight" for, specifically DC (the comments are w/r to basic weighting from FMArena testing.
// DC — JumpingReach rises to tier-1 (closer to Pace/Acc). Finishing removed.
const META_DC_W = {
Pace: 20.5, Acceleration: 20.4, JumpingReach: 18.0,
WorkRate: 6.5, Anticipation: 6.5, Concentration: 5.5, Balance: 4.0,
Strength: 3.5, Determination: 3.0, Stamina: 2.5, Agility: 2.0, Aggression: 1.5,
Pressure: 5.0, Consistency: 2.0, ImportantMatches: 2.0,
InjuryProneness: 1.5, Dirtiness: 1.5,
};
InjuryProneness and Dirtiness have weight, but they are flagged as "adverse", so 20==1 and 1==20.
Then, I applied a transform on a couple of attributes that I saw being flagged as "non-linear" in theses forums:
WorkRate and Pressure, if below 6, are treated as half their value (so 4 is weighted as if it was a 2)
Pace and acceleration, if above 15, have every point count as 1.5 (so 20 counts as if it was litterally a 22.5!!)
This is a first draft, but these non-linearity have weight considering the meta weightings. Meta score is simply the weighted average of all that considered.
Then, above that, I assign players an "effective meta" per position, according to its position proficiency (based again on some testing I've seen). A player untrained (1 proficiency at position X) has 0.5*meta. So even a player with perfect 20 in every meta attributes will be equivalent to a player with 10 everywhere in a non-proficient position.
And that multiplification factor is linear between 0.5 and 1.0 between 1 and 20 position proficiency.
This is the part I'm still working on to reproduce testings we've seen.
I wanted to show you this in case it gives you a "starting" point on how to implement custom scores in the new tool you foud.
Panneton0 said: Just FYI, I checked the FM Scouting Tool26 and I realize I was doing the exact thing by modifying the code within FMSuperScout (being open-source paves the way to fully customizable score).
Yes, it would be good for more people to come up with their own weights for the rankings, as there's so many possibilities it could be right now.
I'm using a couple of formula weights, but I'm leaving the non-linear adjustments until after I have some confidence all outfield positions are the same and get a set of weights out.
Latest results and % scores from FMST26 according to latest weightings
ST
90% | Erling Haaland - 1st, 1st, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 1.666 position
87% | Kylian Mbappe - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 1st = 2.5 position
87% | Mohamed Salah* - 1st, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st = 2.571 position
84% | Heung-Min Son - 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 4th = 3 position
82% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position
81% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position
82% | Vinicius Junior - 5th, 4th, 1st, 3rd = 3.25 position
83% | Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 3.5 position
84% | Robert Lewandowski - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 8th, 5th, 3rd = 3.555 position
79% | Dusan Vlahovic - 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th, 4th = 3.625
83% | Lautaro Martinez - 7th, 3rd, 1st, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 3.75 position
81% | Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th = 3.833 position
78% | Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position
81% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd = 4 position
74% | Donyell Malen - 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 4.666 position
73% | Robert Glatzel - 5th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, 12th, 6th, 2nd, 6th, 8th = 6.111 position
69% | Paulo Dybala - 5th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th, 6th, 5th, 6th, 6th = 6.4 position
64% | Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
63% | Luis Suarez - 7th, 9th, 10th, 8th, 8th = 8.4 position
DR
83% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position
66% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
It's worth mentioning again that all players were set to 20 ST and nothing else. This will affect a few players slightly.
* I forgot to duplicate Salah first before moving him, so there was no Salah for the opposition. Could redo, but shouldn't make much difference.