Exellent said: Hey, I tested your latest rating build, and it’s a complete disaster.
your super rating says that Shota Fukuoka is better than Bastoni. Spoiler Expand
I've inputted the stats shown for Fukuoka into FM24. I ended up with 131 instead of 135 CA, probably because of some lacking DL/DR/weak foot proficiency, but that's no issue. The only other difference is that I've changed Fukuoka's nation to England, so that his low adaptability doesn't mess with things.
Here is the result:
82% | Kim Min Jae (DC) - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position 75% | Kurt Zouma (DC) - 7th, 5th, 6th, 3rd = 5.6 position 73% | Shota Fukuoka (DC) [Exellent version] = 7th, 8th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 11th = 8.166 position 71% | Sean Goldberg (DC) - 5th, 16th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 5th = 8.5 position
I'm using the FMST26 % as that is more accurate and what I always refer to, but you can see the difference is only 73% vs 75% anyway.
Kurt Zouma is quite similar to Bastoni if you compare the stats:
But I will also do a clone of Bastoni for comparison so that there's no doubt about it.
This is all a good test of my claims, because this way no one can say it's only valid for cherrypicked players.
While I'm doing Bastoni I do notice that he is actually 77.9% in FMST26, for FM24 (where he has largely the same stats). Anyone can verify this by loading up FMST26 with my weights and checking Bastoni.
So based on the rankings you see above, as well as 78% | Jules Kounde (DR), I would expect Bastoni to come ~4.8 position on average, but we'll see.
82% | Kim Min Jae (DC) - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position 77% | Alessandro Bastoni (DC) [Exellent version] - 3rd, 5th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 7th = 4.333 position 75% | Kurt Zouma (DC) - 7th, 5th, 6th, 3rd = 5.6 position 73% | Shota Fukuoka (DC) [Exellent version] - 7th, 8th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 11th = 8.166 position 71% | Sean Goldberg (DC) - 5th, 16th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 5th = 8.5 position
I withdraw saying that Fukuoka is better than Bastoni. My mistake was to assume that the GS rating reflected the FMST26 rating.
But we see here that the rating for both players in FMST26 aligns correctly.
I got ahead of myself because I know that Maeda & Furuhashi are slightly better than Lautaro Martinez, even though Martinez has better attributes in literally almost every way - except dirtiness and injury proneness, and the case looked at a glance to be the same here.
So there is a translation to GS problem here.
Now if I compare DC % between FMST26 and GS, the following players have significant discrepancies (2% or more, when both are adjusted to 77.9% max):
Declan Rice - 77.1% (FMST26) vs. 74.76% (GS) = -2.34% Fiyako Tomori - 71.9% (FMST26) vs. 74.33% (GS) = +2.43% Nacho - 70.9% (FMST26) vs. 73.51% (GS) = +2.61% Levi Colwill - 71.1% (FMST26) vs. 73.27% (GS) = +2.17% Shota Fukuoka [Exellent version] - 69.3% (FMST26) vs. 73.32% (GS) = +4.02% Pantelis Hatzidiakos - 69.1% (FMST26) vs. 72.10% (GS) = +3.00% Cristian Romero - 69.1% (FMST26) vs. 71.96% (GS) = +2.86% Pascal Struijk - 68.8% (FMST26) vs. 71.88% (GS) = +3.08% Federico Dimarco - 74.0% (FMST26) vs. 71.72% (GS) = -2.28% Maxence Lacroix - 68.7% (FMST26) vs. 71.69% (GS) = 2.99%
That's 10 out of the top 70 players (14.3%), and he happened to find the worst one of the bunch, so overall I'm not too concerned. Bastoni has a 1.6% underrating in GS.
Maeda, who benefits from the high negative dirtiness and injury proneness values (he has '2' and '3' respectively) already had to be compromised down from 4th in FMST26 to 16th in GS, so it's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with GS. This is just the limit of GS. No doubt it could be improved a bit, but it's not going to be able to match FMST26.
A more appropriate example to compare to Bastoni is Illia Zabarnyi, whom Exellent castigated, as Zabarnyi also has very low dirtiness (2) & injury proneness (3), but has an equal rating to Bastoni in FMST26 (both ~78%)
78% | Illia Zabarnyi (DC) - 3rd, 5th, 4th, 5th, 2nd = 3.8 position 82% | Kim Min Jae (DC) - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position 77% | Alessandro Bastoni (DC) [Exellent version] - 3rd, 5th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 7th = 4.333 position 75% | Kurt Zouma (DC) - 7th, 5th, 6th, 3rd = 5.6 position 73% | Shota Fukuoka (DC) [Exellent version] - 7th, 8th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 11th = 8.166 position 71% | Sean Goldberg (DC) - 5th, 16th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 5th = 8.5 position
Note: I capped Zabarnyi's PA to just above CA so that he wouldn't grow during the season.
You can see here why I automatically assumed Fukuoka was better than Bastoni, on the basis of his very low dirtiness and injury proneness.
I didn't set dirtiness at such a high negative weighting for the heck of it.
I know it's unintuitive but I'm just reflecting what the data shows. And actually this is the most clear cut example I've seen, for with Maeda you have stuff like work rate and anticipation clouding it a bit. But here, Zabaryni literally has no other advantage than +3 composure, and many disadvantages (including in meaningful attributes!).
I challenge anyone to try and explain why Zabarnyi finishes higher than Bastoni looking at the comparison above, without concluding dirtiness and injury proneness has a massive impact.
Now I have had the thought that it could be that low dirtiness is the necessary cherry on top at the highest level, but diminishes in relative importance at lower levels. I lean towards no, but we'll cross this bridge when we come to it - I figure that the most common, or final goal, is to win at a high level in the game, and so that is what I have remained focused on for now.
Rain said: We could really solve this "which file is best?" problem pretty easily. Take whichever files say your original, pure performance, prem 2.1, keith, etc. and just use each file to make a team in the league based on the best player you can buy for 1 mil and under (Should filter out teams using a bunch of the same top players) and if they do have the same player just clone them. Then just run the league a good amount of times and take the median results. Expand
Currently running sims it will probably take a while to get a good sample size. Took me forever just setting it up for 5 teams. There's definitely dupes (Especially pure performance team), but should be different enough. Had to avoid the big 3 FA GKs in the original db as they would have been in every team (De Gea, Leno, Neto) Although ended up with a few Ochoa anyway.
Rain said: Currently running sims it will probably take a while to get a good sample size. Took me forever just setting it up for 5 teams. There's definitely dupes (Especially pure performance team), but should be different enough. Had to avoid the big 3 FA GKs in the original db as they would have been in every team (De Gea, Leno, Neto) Although ended up with a few Ochoa anyway. Expand So what files are you comparing, and are you using FM24 or FM26?
Make sure you're using full detail, can be overlooked
I couldn't include every attribute, there's some limit occurring in FMSS, but it'll only be a few minor ones missing. I had to take off professionalism from outfield though. You could swap 'Balance: 3.03' for 'Professionalism: 3.19' if you like.
I've simplified dirtiness & injury proneness. I also can't verify the accuracy at all because it's FM26 only.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I withdraw saying that Fukuoka is better than Bastoni. My mistake was to assume that the GS rating reflected the FMST26 rating. Expand Your ranking for the tools is the following, correct? 1. FMST26 2. FMSS 3. FM Genie Scout
Make sure you're using full detail, can be overlooked Expand
FM 24 and yes I'm using full detail. I went with Orion's classic, Harvestgreen's test weights, Keiths he posted, your Pure Performance, and Premier League 2.1
Rain said: FM 24 and yes I'm using full detail. I went with Orion's classic, Harvestgreen's test weights, Keiths he posted, your Pure Performance, and Premier League 2.1 Expand
I couldn't include every attribute, there's some limit occurring in FMSS, but it'll only be a few minor ones missing. I had to take off professionalism from outfield though. You could swap 'Balance: 3.03' for 'Professionalism: 3.19' if you like.
I've simplified dirtiness & injury proneness. I also can't verify the accuracy at all because it's FM26 only. Expand
FM24 Ratings File Tests - Max Players Loaded and full detail for matches - Removed all players from teams and added starters and backups at every position according to best rating for the position (Did not use De Gea, Leno or Neto as they were by far the top GKs and Free agents) - Clones were made via FMRTE of players that were used on more than one team (Disregard pictures of players as I used academy players to import the stats on) - All teams used the top 4-2-3-1 tactic Highway Star and Blues Routines on set pieces - All players Froze given homegrown status, work permits, healed, and changed all morale to good
After doing all this honestly we all know which attributes are the most important and there really isn't that big of a difference anywhere. To be fair the best three are the most recent ones. Harvestgreen's file was made by translating the percentages to weights. If anyone is interested in doing more I can upload the save file, but it seems very up and down with Pure Performance really being the most consistent hovering around 6th-10th besides one finish in 15th. Also makes sense seeing Pure Performance had the most dupes from other teams. All the data is in the google sheet below as well as the screenshots. Attached are the starting teams.
Summary Pure Performance: 8.90 Position, 56.80 Points, 5.20 GD Keith File: 10.40 Position, 52.30 Points, 2.10 GD Premier League 2.1: 10.70 Position, 51.70 Points, 3.10 GD Orion Classic Match Engine File: 11.40 Position, 47.70 Points, -8.30 GD Harvestgreen Weights: 11.90 Position, 49.20 Points, -8.20 GD
Rain said: If anyone is interested in doing more I can upload the save file Expand If you don't mind, I would like that save file, to have a closer look at it.
I was anxious about this test because I haven't done it myself since comparing Pure Performance & Premier League 1.0 with Orion's weights, and I thought it's 50/50 how it goes.
Now that it's done I'll make my comments and critiques, and thankfully at least my Pure Performance file topped out by a decent margin, so hopefully less chance I'll be seen as just being a sour puss.
I guess I'll start by saying now it can be seen that I wasn't just making up the numbers in my own comparison test, where the results were Pure Performance 6.5, Premier League 1.0 7.333, and Orion's weights 13.166. You can see the results are similar, particularly if you look at the individual samples (I didn't do as many samples).
Now, my critiques:
I'll start with an intuitive example. In keithb's file Maeda is rank 102 for FS, and in Premier League 2.1 he is rank 17. Regardless of which file you assume is better, if you were assessing based on this player alone there would be obviously be a great difference. The thing is, these exceptions to the rule constitute a minority of players, and so if you're picking a full squad, half are going to be identical players, and many of the rest are going to be minor differences like Mbappe vs. Haaland. In fact, it's a surprise there's any significant difference at all between HarvestGreen's/Orion's weights and Pure Performance for this reason.
Now if you're on board with that, then let's take it to the next matter. Because now I'm going to show that those exceptions matter, and I would argue you can't really just conclude 'well, if they're all about the same once you buy a full squad, who cares'.
Suppose I want a top striker for my team. I load up keithb's ratings, sort by FS, and find that the cheapest of the top 20 is Victor Gyokeres for a GS estimated sale value of £100mil. If I use Premier League 1.0, in the top 20 I have Furuhashi (£33.8mil), Maeda (£22.4mil), Jhon Cordoba (£8.5mil) and even a few more under the cheapest in keithb's ratings. If I load up FM24 now as Fulham and make an offer for Gyokeres, they want £41.5mil, whereas for Maeda it's £12.5mil, so it's not just GS. Pure Performance also has this problem, although to a lesser extent than keithb's file - the cheapest in the top 20 FS is Umar Sadiq for £40mil sale value (~£20mil in game).
Now who would argue money is no matter in FM?
So one thing I'm interested in seeing in your save, is the relative cost/value of each squad. I don't actually know if Premier League 2.1 would be significantly less expensive to purchase, but I suspect it would be.
Now the matter of performance. I have high confidence that Premier League 2.1 is going to give more accurate performance estimations than Pure Performance. I am confident because I have tested a player like Maeda, and I know with certainty he gets the team to 3rd, so he's definitely up there with the best. So how then does it finish worse here? Because these files should be comparing by performance alone, not cost - the low cost would just be a symptom of the improved efficiency.
I can think of a few possibilities here, but I'll just say the main two.
You 'froze' and 'healed' the players. Two of the biggest factors in Premier League 2.1 are dirtiness and injury proneness. If you prevent red cards, injuries, and so on, then you'd be disrupting a key part of the natural process. But I'm not sure exactly what the freeze/healing extends to.
The second thing is that while the goal of Premier League 2.1 is to assess performance rather than value, this does nonetheless loop back around.. let me demonstrate what I mean by this:
Your selections for ST are as follows:
Premier League 2.1 - Adam Zrelak, 113 CA, $2k/week, Warta Poznań (Poland Div 1) Keithb - Alexis Sanchez, 137 CA, $78k/wk, Inter Milan Pure Performance - Jair Silva, 112 CA, $1.2k/week, Leiria (Portugal Div 2) Orion - Choupo-Moting, 137 CA, $123k/wk, FC Bayern HarvestGreen - Dickson Abiama, 110 CA, $10k/wk, FC Kaiserslautern
If I've thought about this right, what is going on here is a problem with the methodology where because the better players are actually getting pushed up in Premier League 2.1 (i.e. Maeda 102 -> 16) this leaves what's left down at player 102 slightly weaker and yet still adequate, while also being more populated by even lower CA players who have been pushed up (i.e. Zrelak 300 > 100 say).
To complicate matters, this would only affect a minority of players, because people like Maeda and Zrelak are the exceptions not the rule, and for that majority remainder most of them are going to be the same selections (overlap) while one or two (differences) may even be better than Premier League 2.1. So for example if you selected players at rank 102, guess what, keithb gets Maeda and Premier League 2.1 gets someone like Zrelak. But actually Alexis Sanchez is higher rated in keithb's file than in Premier League 2.1. So it's overall its like I got Maeda/Kuruhashi/Cordoba right and Sanchez wrong, while keithb gets Maeda/Kuruhashi/Cordoba wrong, but gets Sanchez right. But you tell me what you think of this theory.
To put it another way, the file that would finish 1st in your test would have Haaland, Mbappe, etc. at the rank of 300 or whatever it is that you are selecting at. However it does nonetheless have use, because it tells us how many duds are pulling the team down. For example, keithb's team has an ST from Inter Milan, yet why does it still get beaten by Pure Performance on average? I reckon if we have a look at the file, Sanchez will get 7.3+ rating, but a few duds will get 6.5. Just my guess.
Exellent said: Hey, I tested your latest rating build, and it’s a complete disaster.
Spoiler
your super rating says that Shota Fukuoka is better than Bastoni.
I've inputted the stats shown for Fukuoka into FM24. I ended up with 131 instead of 135 CA, probably because of some lacking DL/DR/weak foot proficiency, but that's no issue. The only other difference is that I've changed Fukuoka's nation to England, so that his low adaptability doesn't mess with things.
Here is the result:
82% | Kim Min Jae (DC) - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position
75% | Kurt Zouma (DC) - 7th, 5th, 6th, 3rd = 5.6 position
73% | Shota Fukuoka (DC) [Exellent version] = 7th, 8th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 11th = 8.166 position
71% | Sean Goldberg (DC) - 5th, 16th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 5th = 8.5 position
I'm using the FMST26 % as that is more accurate and what I always refer to, but you can see the difference is only 73% vs 75% anyway.
Kurt Zouma is quite similar to Bastoni if you compare the stats:
But I will also do a clone of Bastoni for comparison so that there's no doubt about it.
This is all a good test of my claims, because this way no one can say it's only valid for cherrypicked players.
While I'm doing Bastoni I do notice that he is actually 77.9% in FMST26, for FM24 (where he has largely the same stats). Anyone can verify this by loading up FMST26 with my weights and checking Bastoni.
So based on the rankings you see above, as well as 78% | Jules Kounde (DR), I would expect Bastoni to come ~4.8 position on average, but we'll see.
82% | Kim Min Jae (DC) - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position
77% | Alessandro Bastoni (DC) [Exellent version] - 3rd, 5th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 7th = 4.333 position
75% | Kurt Zouma (DC) - 7th, 5th, 6th, 3rd = 5.6 position
73% | Shota Fukuoka (DC) [Exellent version] - 7th, 8th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 11th = 8.166 position
71% | Sean Goldberg (DC) - 5th, 16th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 5th = 8.5 position
I withdraw saying that Fukuoka is better than Bastoni. My mistake was to assume that the GS rating reflected the FMST26 rating.
But we see here that the rating for both players in FMST26 aligns correctly.
I got ahead of myself because I know that Maeda & Furuhashi are slightly better than Lautaro Martinez, even though Martinez has better attributes in literally almost every way - except dirtiness and injury proneness, and the case looked at a glance to be the same here.
So there is a translation to GS problem here.
Now if I compare DC % between FMST26 and GS, the following players have significant discrepancies (2% or more, when both are adjusted to 77.9% max):
Declan Rice - 77.1% (FMST26) vs. 74.76% (GS) = -2.34%
Fiyako Tomori - 71.9% (FMST26) vs. 74.33% (GS) = +2.43%
Nacho - 70.9% (FMST26) vs. 73.51% (GS) = +2.61%
Levi Colwill - 71.1% (FMST26) vs. 73.27% (GS) = +2.17%
Shota Fukuoka [Exellent version] - 69.3% (FMST26) vs. 73.32% (GS) = +4.02%
Pantelis Hatzidiakos - 69.1% (FMST26) vs. 72.10% (GS) = +3.00%
Cristian Romero - 69.1% (FMST26) vs. 71.96% (GS) = +2.86%
Pascal Struijk - 68.8% (FMST26) vs. 71.88% (GS) = +3.08%
Federico Dimarco - 74.0% (FMST26) vs. 71.72% (GS) = -2.28%
Maxence Lacroix - 68.7% (FMST26) vs. 71.69% (GS) = 2.99%
That's 10 out of the top 70 players (14.3%), and he happened to find the worst one of the bunch, so overall I'm not too concerned. Bastoni has a 1.6% underrating in GS.
Maeda, who benefits from the high negative dirtiness and injury proneness values (he has '2' and '3' respectively) already had to be compromised down from 4th in FMST26 to 16th in GS, so it's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with GS. This is just the limit of GS. No doubt it could be improved a bit, but it's not going to be able to match FMST26.
A more appropriate example to compare to Bastoni is Illia Zabarnyi, whom Exellent castigated, as Zabarnyi also has very low dirtiness (2) & injury proneness (3), but has an equal rating to Bastoni in FMST26 (both ~78%)
78% | Illia Zabarnyi (DC) - 3rd, 5th, 4th, 5th, 2nd = 3.8 position
82% | Kim Min Jae (DC) - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position
77% | Alessandro Bastoni (DC) [Exellent version] - 3rd, 5th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 7th = 4.333 position
75% | Kurt Zouma (DC) - 7th, 5th, 6th, 3rd = 5.6 position
73% | Shota Fukuoka (DC) [Exellent version] - 7th, 8th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 11th = 8.166 position
71% | Sean Goldberg (DC) - 5th, 16th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 5th = 8.5 position
Note: I capped Zabarnyi's PA to just above CA so that he wouldn't grow during the season.
You can see here why I automatically assumed Fukuoka was better than Bastoni, on the basis of his very low dirtiness and injury proneness.
I didn't set dirtiness at such a high negative weighting for the heck of it.
I know it's unintuitive but I'm just reflecting what the data shows. And actually this is the most clear cut example I've seen, for with Maeda you have stuff like work rate and anticipation clouding it a bit. But here, Zabaryni literally has no other advantage than +3 composure, and many disadvantages (including in meaningful attributes!).
I challenge anyone to try and explain why Zabarnyi finishes higher than Bastoni looking at the comparison above, without concluding dirtiness and injury proneness has a massive impact.
Now I have had the thought that it could be that low dirtiness is the necessary cherry on top at the highest level, but diminishes in relative importance at lower levels. I lean towards no, but we'll cross this bridge when we come to it - I figure that the most common, or final goal, is to win at a high level in the game, and so that is what I have remained focused on for now.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Busy in life for a few days right now, but I'll get round to it probably after that
can’t wait for it, mate! good luck in life too!!
Rain said: We could really solve this "which file is best?" problem pretty easily. Take whichever files say your original, pure performance, prem 2.1, keith, etc. and just use each file to make a team in the league based on the best player you can buy for 1 mil and under (Should filter out teams using a bunch of the same top players) and if they do have the same player just clone them. Then just run the league a good amount of times and take the median results.
Currently running sims it will probably take a while to get a good sample size. Took me forever just setting it up for 5 teams. There's definitely dupes (Especially pure performance team), but should be different enough. Had to avoid the big 3 FA GKs in the original db as they would have been in every team (De Gea, Leno, Neto) Although ended up with a few Ochoa anyway.
Rain said: Currently running sims it will probably take a while to get a good sample size. Took me forever just setting it up for 5 teams. There's definitely dupes (Especially pure performance team), but should be different enough. Had to avoid the big 3 FA GKs in the original db as they would have been in every team (De Gea, Leno, Neto) Although ended up with a few Ochoa anyway.
So what files are you comparing, and are you using FM24 or FM26?
Make sure you're using full detail, can be overlooked
bf3metro said: any FMSS update? please, thanks mate!
FMSS Premier League 2.1 weights
Outfield:
const META_W = {
Pace: 20, Acceleration: 19.26, JumpingReach: 9.15, Dribbling: 3.04, Balance: 3.03,
Concentration: 9.57, Anticipation: 8.51, Determination: 9.25, Agility: 3.40, Stamina: 10.64,
Dirtiness: 6.8, Composure: 5.53, WorkRate: 14.15, Pressure: 3.62, InjuryProneness: -4.8,
};
GK:
const META_GK_W = { Determination: 20, Concentration: 18.53, Reflexes: 19.35, AerialReach: 6.45, Agility: 7.35, Pace: 6.37, Acceleration: 3.38, InjuryProneness: -11.03, Dirtiness: -3.68, FirstTouch: 3.83, WorkRate: 8.7, JumpingReach: 3.22, Stamina: 7.35, Technique: 3.53, Flair: 11.03, CommandOfArea: 3.53, Pressure: 3.38, Professionalism: 2.2, NaturalFitness: 2.35, };
I couldn't include every attribute, there's some limit occurring in FMSS, but it'll only be a few minor ones missing. I had to take off professionalism from outfield though. You could swap 'Balance: 3.03' for 'Professionalism: 3.19' if you like.
I've simplified dirtiness & injury proneness. I also can't verify the accuracy at all because it's FM26 only.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I withdraw saying that Fukuoka is better than Bastoni. My mistake was to assume that the GS rating reflected the FMST26 rating.
Your ranking for the tools is the following, correct?
1. FMST26
2. FMSS
3. FM Genie Scout
Kriek said: Your ranking for the tools is the following, correct?
1. FMST26
2. FMSS
3. FM Genie Scout
Yes
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: So what files are you comparing, and are you using FM24 or FM26?
Make sure you're using full detail, can be overlooked
FM 24 and yes I'm using full detail. I went with Orion's classic, Harvestgreen's test weights, Keiths he posted, your Pure Performance, and Premier League 2.1
Rain said: FM 24 and yes I'm using full detail. I went with Orion's classic, Harvestgreen's test weights, Keiths he posted, your Pure Performance, and Premier League 2.1
I'm curious about your results
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: FMSS Premier League 2.1 weights
Outfield:
const META_W = {
Pace: 20, Acceleration: 19.26, JumpingReach: 9.15, Dribbling: 3.04, Balance: 3.03,
Concentration: 9.57, Anticipation: 8.51, Determination: 9.25, Agility: 3.40, Stamina: 10.64,
Dirtiness: 6.8, Composure: 5.53, WorkRate: 14.15, Pressure: 3.62, InjuryProneness: -4.8,
};
GK:
const META_GK_W = { Determination: 20, Concentration: 18.53, Reflexes: 19.35, AerialReach: 6.45, Agility: 7.35, Pace: 6.37, Acceleration: 3.38, InjuryProneness: -11.03, Dirtiness: -3.68, FirstTouch: 3.83, WorkRate: 8.7, JumpingReach: 3.22, Stamina: 7.35, Technique: 3.53, Flair: 11.03, CommandOfArea: 3.53, Pressure: 3.38, Professionalism: 2.2, NaturalFitness: 2.35, };
I couldn't include every attribute, there's some limit occurring in FMSS, but it'll only be a few minor ones missing. I had to take off professionalism from outfield though. You could swap 'Balance: 3.03' for 'Professionalism: 3.19' if you like.
I've simplified dirtiness & injury proneness. I also can't verify the accuracy at all because it's FM26 only.
Acceleration: 18.1, Pace: 18.8, JumpingReach: 8.6, Pressure: 3.4, Dribbling: 2.86, WorkRate: 13.3, Agility: 3.2, Anticipation: 8, Composure: 5.2, Stamina: 10, Consistency: 2.81, Determination: 8.7, Balance: 2.85, Strength: 1, Concentration: 9, Finishing: 0.4, ImportantMatches: 2.02, NaturalFitness: 1.29, Professionalism: 3, Ambition: 0.4, Loyalty: 0.2, Aggression: 2, Vision: 0.1,
AerialReach: 5.736, CommandOfArea: 3.138, FirstTouch: 3.398, Passing: 2.092, Reflexes: 17.2, Concentration: 16.47, Determination: 17.778, WorkRate: 7.736, Acceleration: 3.006, Balance: 2.092, Agility: 6.536, JumpingReach: 2.86, NaturalFitness: 2.092, Pace: 5.66, Stamina: 6.536, Strength: 2.092, Technique: 3.138, Pressure: 3.006, Professionalism: 1.96, Flair: 9.804, Vision: 5,
what do you think of that? i think it translates better FMST to FMSS.
FM24 Ratings File Tests
- Max Players Loaded and full detail for matches
- Removed all players from teams and added starters and backups at every position according to best rating for the position (Did not use De Gea, Leno or Neto as they were by far the top GKs and Free agents)
- Clones were made via FMRTE of players that were used on more than one team (Disregard pictures of players as I used academy players to import the stats on)
- All teams used the top 4-2-3-1 tactic Highway Star and Blues Routines on set pieces
- All players Froze given homegrown status, work permits, healed, and changed all morale to good
After doing all this honestly we all know which attributes are the most important and there really isn't that big of a difference anywhere. To be fair the best three are the most recent ones. Harvestgreen's file was made by translating the percentages to weights. If anyone is interested in doing more I can upload the save file, but it seems very up and down with Pure Performance really being the most consistent hovering around 6th-10th besides one finish in 15th. Also makes sense seeing Pure Performance had the most dupes from other teams. All the data is in the google sheet below as well as the screenshots. Attached are the starting teams.
Summary
Pure Performance: 8.90 Position, 56.80 Points, 5.20 GD
Keith File: 10.40 Position, 52.30 Points, 2.10 GD
Premier League 2.1: 10.70 Position, 51.70 Points, 3.10 GD
Orion Classic Match Engine File: 11.40 Position, 47.70 Points, -8.30 GD
Harvestgreen Weights: 11.90 Position, 49.20 Points, -8.20 GD
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11cHLvGbtHfZTvLAGujuHHptqfioZ6SliKMqkDe78S6o/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gS5uI_fK4glwcdYd6bx3VMxX2lXRASAD?usp=sharing
Rain said: If anyone is interested in doing more I can upload the save file
If you don't mind, I would like that save file, to have a closer look at it.
I was anxious about this test because I haven't done it myself since comparing Pure Performance & Premier League 1.0 with Orion's weights, and I thought it's 50/50 how it goes.
Now that it's done I'll make my comments and critiques, and thankfully at least my Pure Performance file topped out by a decent margin, so hopefully less chance I'll be seen as just being a sour puss.
I guess I'll start by saying now it can be seen that I wasn't just making up the numbers in my own comparison test, where the results were Pure Performance 6.5, Premier League 1.0 7.333, and Orion's weights 13.166. You can see the results are similar, particularly if you look at the individual samples (I didn't do as many samples).
Now, my critiques:
I'll start with an intuitive example. In keithb's file Maeda is rank 102 for FS, and in Premier League 2.1 he is rank 17. Regardless of which file you assume is better, if you were assessing based on this player alone there would be obviously be a great difference. The thing is, these exceptions to the rule constitute a minority of players, and so if you're picking a full squad, half are going to be identical players, and many of the rest are going to be minor differences like Mbappe vs. Haaland. In fact, it's a surprise there's any significant difference at all between HarvestGreen's/Orion's weights and Pure Performance for this reason.
Now if you're on board with that, then let's take it to the next matter. Because now I'm going to show that those exceptions matter, and I would argue you can't really just conclude 'well, if they're all about the same once you buy a full squad, who cares'.
Suppose I want a top striker for my team. I load up keithb's ratings, sort by FS, and find that the cheapest of the top 20 is Victor Gyokeres for a GS estimated sale value of £100mil. If I use Premier League 1.0, in the top 20 I have Furuhashi (£33.8mil), Maeda (£22.4mil), Jhon Cordoba (£8.5mil) and even a few more under the cheapest in keithb's ratings. If I load up FM24 now as Fulham and make an offer for Gyokeres, they want £41.5mil, whereas for Maeda it's £12.5mil, so it's not just GS. Pure Performance also has this problem, although to a lesser extent than keithb's file - the cheapest in the top 20 FS is Umar Sadiq for £40mil sale value (~£20mil in game).
Now who would argue money is no matter in FM?
So one thing I'm interested in seeing in your save, is the relative cost/value of each squad. I don't actually know if Premier League 2.1 would be significantly less expensive to purchase, but I suspect it would be.
Now the matter of performance. I have high confidence that Premier League 2.1 is going to give more accurate performance estimations than Pure Performance. I am confident because I have tested a player like Maeda, and I know with certainty he gets the team to 3rd, so he's definitely up there with the best. So how then does it finish worse here? Because these files should be comparing by performance alone, not cost - the low cost would just be a symptom of the improved efficiency.
I can think of a few possibilities here, but I'll just say the main two.
You 'froze' and 'healed' the players. Two of the biggest factors in Premier League 2.1 are dirtiness and injury proneness. If you prevent red cards, injuries, and so on, then you'd be disrupting a key part of the natural process. But I'm not sure exactly what the freeze/healing extends to.
The second thing is that while the goal of Premier League 2.1 is to assess performance rather than value, this does nonetheless loop back around.. let me demonstrate what I mean by this:
Your selections for ST are as follows:
Premier League 2.1 - Adam Zrelak, 113 CA, $2k/week, Warta Poznań (Poland Div 1)
Keithb - Alexis Sanchez, 137 CA, $78k/wk, Inter Milan
Pure Performance - Jair Silva, 112 CA, $1.2k/week, Leiria (Portugal Div 2)
Orion - Choupo-Moting, 137 CA, $123k/wk, FC Bayern
HarvestGreen - Dickson Abiama, 110 CA, $10k/wk, FC Kaiserslautern
If I've thought about this right, what is going on here is a problem with the methodology where because the better players are actually getting pushed up in Premier League 2.1 (i.e. Maeda 102 -> 16) this leaves what's left down at player 102 slightly weaker and yet still adequate, while also being more populated by even lower CA players who have been pushed up (i.e. Zrelak 300 > 100 say).
To complicate matters, this would only affect a minority of players, because people like Maeda and Zrelak are the exceptions not the rule, and for that majority remainder most of them are going to be the same selections (overlap) while one or two (differences) may even be better than Premier League 2.1. So for example if you selected players at rank 102, guess what, keithb gets Maeda and Premier League 2.1 gets someone like Zrelak. But actually Alexis Sanchez is higher rated in keithb's file than in Premier League 2.1. So it's overall its like I got Maeda/Kuruhashi/Cordoba right and Sanchez wrong, while keithb gets Maeda/Kuruhashi/Cordoba wrong, but gets Sanchez right. But you tell me what you think of this theory.
To put it another way, the file that would finish 1st in your test would have Haaland, Mbappe, etc. at the rank of 300 or whatever it is that you are selecting at. However it does nonetheless have use, because it tells us how many duds are pulling the team down. For example, keithb's team has an ST from Inter Milan, yet why does it still get beaten by Pure Performance on average? I reckon if we have a look at the file, Sanchez will get 7.3+ rating, but a few duds will get 6.5. Just my guess.