Tavares82 said: Do these important attributes work for any tactic? Expand
Most top tactics have similar player and team instructions, so those attributes can work on any of them. It get's more tricky when a tactic uses very different roles or instructions, like low pace, hold back, ease off tackles, dribble less and so on.
Tavares82 said: Do these important attributes work for any tactic? Expand
yeah i am using my own tactic with fulbacks, inwerted wingers and central midfielders and it works very well... in january i made first transfer based on those filters... its FB-attack and guy in first 8 games 4 times became Man of the match so at the moment for me is very clear evidence that filter work like a magic
Mark said: OK so I had a quick play with the ratings files. The first observation is that you need to balance the ratings files. I learned this from last years attempt. What do I mean by this, well have a look at the screenshot below. There should not be major discrepancies between positions ie you should be getting most positions covered in the top 50 or so top players.
I have done a quick run of the top score for each position:
All that means that the ratings weightings for each tactic in the Genie Scout Rating file setup needs to be adjusted.
Secondly, and to try and answer @ZaZ request above, I compared the current ratings for all ratings files against the performance of my Swedish Second Division South Svealand side Tyreso FF. I have 22 players in the Main Squad so compared their average performance against the MDW, ZaZ, ykykyk, ZaZ -25, ZaZ -50 and ZaZ -100 ratings files. I have only used ratings for the position selected.
Here are the results:
Disclaimer: I have used players out of the positions identified in the results, but in the main they have played the positions indicated. In addition I have used 2 main tactics, Dragons Breath that uses an MC instead of AMC, and ZaZ Blue DM, but given the ratings files don't all have MC ratings I just used AMC.
To answer @ZaZ question the ZaZ-100 ended up equal with MDW in picking 8 of the best 11 positional players. It does need balancing to make it more usable though. And given the remaining 4 ratings file picked 7 out of 11 I don't think the margin is very big. All are definitely usable.
Now if we look at average % difference from the best rated team the order is MDW, ykykyk, ZaZ -50, ZaZ -25, ZaZ, ZaZ -100.
Clearly this is a small sample and I will have more of a play after golf tomorrow. But I think if you wanted to use one of the ratings files above, I would go with the ZaZ -50. Expand
I am now running more thorough testing to see which GS Ratings work best. I have taken the ZaZ EPL Test League and downloaded the ratings for EPL players for each ratings filter including the GS default. I set up coaches for the top 9 teams and set all tactics to ZaZ Blue DM. I will do at least 3 runs and then look at the predictions for each position versus the end player ratings for each position.
It should be interesting to see performance against this data set.
Mark said: I am now running more thorough testing to see which GS Ratings work best. I have taken the ZaZ EPL Test League and downloaded the ratings for EPL players for each ratings filter including the GS default. I set up coaches for the top 9 teams and set all tactics to ZaZ Blue DM. I will do at least 3 runs and then look at the predictions for each position versus the end player ratings for each position.
It should be interesting to see performance against this data set. Expand
Wow, that's way more than I asked for, but thanls a lot!
Mark said: I use this view, you can then see the positional ability and positional ratings. You need positional ability above 13 out of 20 and the best positional rating you can afford.
Expand
@Mark I have a question about your view. Is it not better to check also the best roll of the player? Or is positional rating better?
Petrades said: @Mark I have a question about your view. Is it not better to check also the best roll of the player? Or is positional rating better? Expand
That is a great question. You definitely need their positional ability to be 13+ and then you look at positional rating. Role rating really doesn't seem to impact.
Mark said: That is a great question. You definitely need their positional ability to be 13+ and then you look at positional rating. Role rating really doesn't seem to impact. Expand
Oke, but than the ratings are saying my slow player is better in AMC than the faster player. Would you choose for the slower player? If you look at the shadow striker rating, than it is saying to choose the faster player.
Petrades said: Oke, but than the ratings are saying my slow player is better in AMC than the faster player. Would you choose for the slower player? If you look at the shadow striker rating, than it is saying to choose the faster player. Expand
I would never get that SS with 7 acceleration and pace. Lower league is full of those low speed players, which is why it's so easy to win there.
ZaZ said: I would never get that SS with 7 acceleration and pace. Lower league is full of those low speed players, which is why it's so easy to win there. Expand
ZaZ said: I would never get that SS with 7 acceleration and pace. Lower league is full of those low speed players, which is why it's so easy to win there. Expand
I cant translate this language but I thought from the placement of the numbers that the first player has 14 Acc and 9 Pace and the second has 7 Acc and 16 Pace. If that is right then it is more understandable the the ratings are close. I make it just favoring the second player. If the attributes don't align with the English version then I understand.
Mark said: I cant translate this language but I thought from the placement of the numbers that the first player has 14 Acc and 9 Pace and the second has 7 Acc and 16 Pace. If that is right then it is more understandable the the ratings are close. I make it just favoring the second player. If the attributes don't align with the English version then I understand. Expand
Sorry for the Dutch, Seuntjes is both 7 on pace and acc
Petrades said: Sorry for the Dutch, Seuntjes is both 7 on pace and acc Expand
I therefore assume jumping reach is the one that is 16 and natural fitness moves as well. If that is the case then the Chinese ratings and my ratings would both have the first one in front.
What ratings are you using and can you translate the attributes so I can check the calculations
Mark said: I therefore assume jumping reach is the one that is 16 and natural fitness moves as well. If that is the case then the Chinese ratings and my ratings would both have the first one in front.
What ratings are you using and can you translate the attributes so I can check the calculations Expand
I am using the Chinese ratings
EDIT: I changed to your ratings and now the ratings changed in favor of the 'faster' player. But you still looking to AMC rating rather shadow striker rating?
I didn't test the ratings in a normal game yet. If I was to choose one of the three I posted, I would go for the one with chinese base where all ratings under 50 get -25. However, they probably need to be adjusted to show goalkeepers with similar scores. Anyway, I would trust more Mark ratings, since he is more of a reference in that than me.
Mark said: I am now running more thorough testing to see which GS Ratings work best. I have taken the ZaZ EPL Test League and downloaded the ratings for EPL players for each ratings filter including the GS default. I set up coaches for the top 9 teams and set all tactics to ZaZ Blue DM. I will do at least 3 runs and then look at the predictions for each position versus the end player ratings for each position.
It should be interesting to see performance against this data set. Expand
So my work here is now complete. There were some issues. There were 2 of the managers that didn't work because I hadn't taken control of them, That left us with 7 sides we have control of. One of course was Man City whose Manager was sacked every test as they couldn't compete against the ZaZ Blue tactics.
The methodology was to take the best rated XI for each ratings and compare the average ratings for each side. I ran 5 tests and then dropped any player that had less than 50 games over the 5 runs or 190 games. I only selected players rated best from the 7 teams we were working with who all used ZaZ Blue DM tactics.
So they were playing the same role for the majority of the time and played substantial games in the role.
I have to say the results very much favor the Chinese machine learning research we were all interested in.
I tested 6 ratings files plus the default Genie Scout rating file. The main ratings files were ZaZ, my MDW, ykykyk the one based on the Chinese machine learning research, and 3 variants of that proposed by @ZaZ.
I used either end of season team of the year for the squad or the highest positional rating to determine the position for each player. Players with less than 50 games of the 5 tests were excluded. Only players in the 7 controlled teams were included, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs.
First we have the control test which is the default Genie Scout ratings. Here is their side:
So of the main 3 ratings files, MDW, ykykyk and ZaZ here are the results:
And here are the 3 test tactics from ZaZ using the Chinese machine learning technology.
The Analysis from our Chinese friends has been very impressive,
Mark said: So my work here is now complete. There were some issues. There were 2 of the managers that didn't work because I hadn't taken control of them, That left us with 7 sides we have control of. One of course was Man City whose Manager was sacked every test as they couldn't compete against the ZaZ Blue tactics.
The methodology was to take the best rated XI for each ratings and compare the average ratings for each side. I ran 5 tests and then dropped any player that had less than 50 games over the 5 runs or 190 games. I only selected players rated best from the 7 teams we were working with who all used ZaZ Blue DM tactics.
So they were playing the same role for the majority of the time and played substantial games in the role.
I have to say the results very much favor the Chinese machine learning research we were all interested in.
I tested 6 ratings files plus the default Genie Scout rating file. The main ratings files were ZaZ, my MDW, ykykyk the one based on the Chinese machine learning research, and 3 variants of that proposed by @ZaZ.
I used either end of season team of the year for the squad or the highest positional rating to determine the position for each player. Players with less than 50 games of the 5 tests were excluded. Only players in the 7 controlled teams were included, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs.
First we have the control test which is the default Genie Scout ratings. Here is their side:
So of the main 3 ratings files, MDW, ykykyk and ZaZ here are the results:
And here are the 3 test tactics from ZaZ using the Chinese machine learning technology.
The Analysis from our Chinese friends has been very impressive, Expand
Mark said: So my work here is now complete. There were some issues. There were 2 of the managers that didn't work because I hadn't taken control of them, That left us with 7 sides we have control of. One of course was Man City whose Manager was sacked every test as they couldn't compete against the ZaZ Blue tactics.
The methodology was to take the best rated XI for each ratings and compare the average ratings for each side. I ran 5 tests and then dropped any player that had less than 50 games over the 5 runs or 190 games. I only selected players rated best from the 7 teams we were working with who all used ZaZ Blue DM tactics.
So they were playing the same role for the majority of the time and played substantial games in the role.
I have to say the results very much favor the Chinese machine learning research we were all interested in.
I tested 6 ratings files plus the default Genie Scout rating file. The main ratings files were ZaZ, my MDW, ykykyk the one based on the Chinese machine learning research, and 3 variants of that proposed by @ZaZ.
I used either end of season team of the year for the squad or the highest positional rating to determine the position for each player. Players with less than 50 games of the 5 tests were excluded. Only players in the 7 controlled teams were included, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs.
First we have the control test which is the default Genie Scout ratings. Here is their side:
So of the main 3 ratings files, MDW, ykykyk and ZaZ here are the results:
And here are the 3 test tactics from ZaZ using the Chinese machine learning technology.
The Analysis from our Chinese friends has been very impressive, Expand
Thank you for the results! I'm a researcher from the field of optimization, which is closely related to machine learning, so I have no doubts their experiment holds lots of value. I'll try to boost the goalkeeper scores of my best version and add to my tactic page, as well as linking here so they can also see your filters. Looking forward for your next improvements or any suggestions.
P.S.: Just to be clear, Y50 is the one that subtracts 25 from all under 50 using chinese as base, right?
ZaZ said: Thank you for the results! I'm a researcher from the field of optimization, which is closely related to machine learning, so I have no doubts their experiment holds lots of value. I'll try to boost the goalkeeper scores of my best version and add to my tactic page, as well as linking here so they can also see your filters. Looking forward for your next improvements or any suggestions.
P.S.: Just to be clear, Y50 is the one that subtracts 25 from all under 50 using chinese as base, right? Expand
In the balanced version I added positions not covered by the original and then made the top rated player from each position roughly even which allows you to find players across positions. This is done by adjusting the overall weighting for the position and doesn't impact ratings from within the position itself because all the attribute weightings remain the same.
For example the top rated GK was previously 62.4 on the save I have, and the top rated Fast Striker was 87.5. All the other positions were somewhere in between. Now the top rated player for each position is around the 91 or 92 mark.
Hey, @Mark and @ZaZ This is weird, this player according to genie under the zaz 25 under 50 rating has the guy rated better than all of my strikers but looks the worst? what do you guys think I'm seeing this on other players.
José Huanca rating = 73.1
Dennis = 69.65
Junior Arias = 71.18
As you can see Jose is the highest by a fair bit and looks the worst out of the 3.
Do these important attributes work for any tactic?
Tavares82 said: Do these important attributes work for any tactic?
I would say 99% yes.
Tavares82 said: Do these important attributes work for any tactic?
Most top tactics have similar player and team instructions, so those attributes can work on any of them. It get's more tricky when a tactic uses very different roles or instructions, like low pace, hold back, ease off tackles, dribble less and so on.
Tavares82 said: Do these important attributes work for any tactic?
so at the moment for me is very clear evidence that filter work like a magic
yeah i am using my own tactic with fulbacks, inwerted wingers and central midfielders and it works very well... in january i made first transfer based on those filters... its FB-attack and guy in first 8 games 4 times became Man of the match
Mark said: OK so I had a quick play with the ratings files. The first observation is that you need to balance the ratings files. I learned this from last years attempt. What do I mean by this, well have a look at the screenshot below. There should not be major discrepancies between positions ie you should be getting most positions covered in the top 50 or so top players.
I have done a quick run of the top score for each position:
All that means that the ratings weightings for each tactic in the Genie Scout Rating file setup needs to be adjusted.
Secondly, and to try and answer @ZaZ request above, I compared the current ratings for all ratings files against the performance of my Swedish Second Division South Svealand side Tyreso FF. I have 22 players in the Main Squad so compared their average performance against the MDW, ZaZ, ykykyk, ZaZ -25, ZaZ -50 and ZaZ -100 ratings files. I have only used ratings for the position selected.
Here are the results:
Disclaimer: I have used players out of the positions identified in the results, but in the main they have played the positions indicated. In addition I have used 2 main tactics, Dragons Breath that uses an MC instead of AMC, and ZaZ Blue DM, but given the ratings files don't all have MC ratings I just used AMC.
To answer @ZaZ question the ZaZ-100 ended up equal with MDW in picking 8 of the best 11 positional players. It does need balancing to make it more usable though. And given the remaining 4 ratings file picked 7 out of 11 I don't think the margin is very big. All are definitely usable.
Now if we look at average % difference from the best rated team the order is MDW, ykykyk, ZaZ -50, ZaZ -25, ZaZ, ZaZ -100.
Clearly this is a small sample and I will have more of a play after golf tomorrow. But I think if you wanted to use one of the ratings files above, I would go with the ZaZ -50.
I am now running more thorough testing to see which GS Ratings work best. I have taken the ZaZ EPL Test League and downloaded the ratings for EPL players for each ratings filter including the GS default. I set up coaches for the top 9 teams and set all tactics to ZaZ Blue DM. I will do at least 3 runs and then look at the predictions for each position versus the end player ratings for each position.
It should be interesting to see performance against this data set.
Mark said: I am now running more thorough testing to see which GS Ratings work best. I have taken the ZaZ EPL Test League and downloaded the ratings for EPL players for each ratings filter including the GS default. I set up coaches for the top 9 teams and set all tactics to ZaZ Blue DM. I will do at least 3 runs and then look at the predictions for each position versus the end player ratings for each position.
It should be interesting to see performance against this data set.
Wow, that's way more than I asked for, but thanls a lot!
so what would be the best call? use filters or ratings?
Mark said: I use this view, you can then see the positional ability and positional ratings. You need positional ability above 13 out of 20 and the best positional rating you can afford.
@Mark I have a question about your view. Is it not better to check also the best roll of the player? Or is positional rating better?
Petrades said: @Mark I have a question about your view. Is it not better to check also the best roll of the player? Or is positional rating better?
That is a great question. You definitely need their positional ability to be 13+ and then you look at positional rating. Role rating really doesn't seem to impact.
Mark said: That is a great question. You definitely need their positional ability to be 13+ and then you look at positional rating. Role rating really doesn't seem to impact.
Oke, but than the ratings are saying my slow player is better in AMC than the faster player. Would you choose for the slower player? If you look at the shadow striker rating, than it is saying to choose the faster player.
Petrades said: Oke, but than the ratings are saying my slow player is better in AMC than the faster player. Would you choose for the slower player? If you look at the shadow striker rating, than it is saying to choose the faster player.
I would never get that SS with 7 acceleration and pace. Lower league is full of those low speed players, which is why it's so easy to win there.
ZaZ said: I would never get that SS with 7 acceleration and pace. Lower league is full of those low speed players, which is why it's so easy to win there.
So which rating do you recommend?
ZaZ said: I would never get that SS with 7 acceleration and pace. Lower league is full of those low speed players, which is why it's so easy to win there.
I cant translate this language but I thought from the placement of the numbers that the first player has 14 Acc and 9 Pace and the second has 7 Acc and 16 Pace. If that is right then it is more understandable the the ratings are close. I make it just favoring the second player. If the attributes don't align with the English version then I understand.
Mark said: I cant translate this language but I thought from the placement of the numbers that the first player has 14 Acc and 9 Pace and the second has 7 Acc and 16 Pace. If that is right then it is more understandable the the ratings are close. I make it just favoring the second player. If the attributes don't align with the English version then I understand.
Sorry for the Dutch, Seuntjes is both 7 on pace and acc
Petrades said: Sorry for the Dutch, Seuntjes is both 7 on pace and acc
I therefore assume jumping reach is the one that is 16 and natural fitness moves as well. If that is the case then the Chinese ratings and my ratings would both have the first one in front.
What ratings are you using and can you translate the attributes so I can check the calculations
Mark said: I therefore assume jumping reach is the one that is 16 and natural fitness moves as well. If that is the case then the Chinese ratings and my ratings would both have the first one in front.
What ratings are you using and can you translate the attributes so I can check the calculations
I am using the Chinese ratings
EDIT: I changed to your ratings and now the ratings changed in favor of the 'faster' player.
But you still looking to AMC rating rather shadow striker rating?
Petrades said: So which rating do you recommend?
I didn't test the ratings in a normal game yet. If I was to choose one of the three I posted, I would go for the one with chinese base where all ratings under 50 get -25. However, they probably need to be adjusted to show goalkeepers with similar scores. Anyway, I would trust more Mark ratings, since he is more of a reference in that than me.
Mark said: I am now running more thorough testing to see which GS Ratings work best. I have taken the ZaZ EPL Test League and downloaded the ratings for EPL players for each ratings filter including the GS default. I set up coaches for the top 9 teams and set all tactics to ZaZ Blue DM. I will do at least 3 runs and then look at the predictions for each position versus the end player ratings for each position.
It should be interesting to see performance against this data set.
So my work here is now complete. There were some issues. There were 2 of the managers that didn't work because I hadn't taken control of them, That left us with 7 sides we have control of. One of course was Man City whose Manager was sacked every test as they couldn't compete against the ZaZ Blue tactics.
The methodology was to take the best rated XI for each ratings and compare the average ratings for each side. I ran 5 tests and then dropped any player that had less than 50 games over the 5 runs or 190 games. I only selected players rated best from the 7 teams we were working with who all used ZaZ Blue DM tactics.
So they were playing the same role for the majority of the time and played substantial games in the role.
I have to say the results very much favor the Chinese machine learning research we were all interested in.
I tested 6 ratings files plus the default Genie Scout rating file. The main ratings files were ZaZ, my MDW, ykykyk the one based on the Chinese machine learning research, and 3 variants of that proposed by @ZaZ.
I used either end of season team of the year for the squad or the highest positional rating to determine the position for each player. Players with less than 50 games of the 5 tests were excluded. Only players in the 7 controlled teams were included, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs.
First we have the control test which is the default Genie Scout ratings. Here is their side:
So of the main 3 ratings files, MDW, ykykyk and ZaZ here are the results:
And here are the 3 test tactics from ZaZ using the Chinese machine learning technology.
The Analysis from our Chinese friends has been very impressive,
Mark said: So my work here is now complete. There were some issues. There were 2 of the managers that didn't work because I hadn't taken control of them, That left us with 7 sides we have control of. One of course was Man City whose Manager was sacked every test as they couldn't compete against the ZaZ Blue tactics.
The methodology was to take the best rated XI for each ratings and compare the average ratings for each side. I ran 5 tests and then dropped any player that had less than 50 games over the 5 runs or 190 games. I only selected players rated best from the 7 teams we were working with who all used ZaZ Blue DM tactics.
So they were playing the same role for the majority of the time and played substantial games in the role.
I have to say the results very much favor the Chinese machine learning research we were all interested in.
I tested 6 ratings files plus the default Genie Scout rating file. The main ratings files were ZaZ, my MDW, ykykyk the one based on the Chinese machine learning research, and 3 variants of that proposed by @ZaZ.
I used either end of season team of the year for the squad or the highest positional rating to determine the position for each player. Players with less than 50 games of the 5 tests were excluded. Only players in the 7 controlled teams were included, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs.
First we have the control test which is the default Genie Scout ratings. Here is their side:
So of the main 3 ratings files, MDW, ykykyk and ZaZ here are the results:
And here are the 3 test tactics from ZaZ using the Chinese machine learning technology.
The Analysis from our Chinese friends has been very impressive,
so what ratings should we use in genie scout?
Mark said: So my work here is now complete. There were some issues. There were 2 of the managers that didn't work because I hadn't taken control of them, That left us with 7 sides we have control of. One of course was Man City whose Manager was sacked every test as they couldn't compete against the ZaZ Blue tactics.
The methodology was to take the best rated XI for each ratings and compare the average ratings for each side. I ran 5 tests and then dropped any player that had less than 50 games over the 5 runs or 190 games. I only selected players rated best from the 7 teams we were working with who all used ZaZ Blue DM tactics.
So they were playing the same role for the majority of the time and played substantial games in the role.
I have to say the results very much favor the Chinese machine learning research we were all interested in.
I tested 6 ratings files plus the default Genie Scout rating file. The main ratings files were ZaZ, my MDW, ykykyk the one based on the Chinese machine learning research, and 3 variants of that proposed by @ZaZ.
I used either end of season team of the year for the squad or the highest positional rating to determine the position for each player. Players with less than 50 games of the 5 tests were excluded. Only players in the 7 controlled teams were included, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs.
First we have the control test which is the default Genie Scout ratings. Here is their side:
So of the main 3 ratings files, MDW, ykykyk and ZaZ here are the results:
And here are the 3 test tactics from ZaZ using the Chinese machine learning technology.
The Analysis from our Chinese friends has been very impressive,
Thank you for the results! I'm a researcher from the field of optimization, which is closely related to machine learning, so I have no doubts their experiment holds lots of value. I'll try to boost the goalkeeper scores of my best version and add to my tactic page, as well as linking here so they can also see your filters. Looking forward for your next improvements or any suggestions.
P.S.: Just to be clear, Y50 is the one that subtracts 25 from all under 50 using chinese as base, right?
ZaZ said: Thank you for the results! I'm a researcher from the field of optimization, which is closely related to machine learning, so I have no doubts their experiment holds lots of value. I'll try to boost the goalkeeper scores of my best version and add to my tactic page, as well as linking here so they can also see your filters. Looking forward for your next improvements or any suggestions.
P.S.: Just to be clear, Y50 is the one that subtracts 25 from all under 50 using chinese as base, right?
That is correct ZaZ.
Mark said: That is correct ZaZ.
And that is the best Genie file to use so far?
So which Rating file would be the best to use?
saycarramrod said: And that is the best Genie file to use so far?
From my options, the best is this. However, Mark will probably update his filter and get something even better soon.
how do i put the blue tactic positions in the genie scout?
Here is the updated version of the ZaZ 25 from all under 50 rating, balanced and unrated positions derived.
Hope this helps someone
ZaZ 25 under 50 Balanced
Thanks gentlemen as always!
Mark said: Here is the updated version of the ZaZ 25 from all under 50 rating, balanced and unrated positions derived.
Hope this helps someone
ZaZ 25 under 50 Balanced
Mark what's the difference with the normal Zaz 25 under 50 and this balanced version?
In the balanced version I added positions not covered by the original and then made the top rated player from each position roughly even which allows you to find players across positions. This is done by adjusting the overall weighting for the position and doesn't impact ratings from within the position itself because all the attribute weightings remain the same.
For example the top rated GK was previously 62.4 on the save I have, and the top rated Fast Striker was 87.5. All the other positions were somewhere in between. Now the top rated player for each position is around the 91 or 92 mark.
I hope this makes sense.
Hey, @Mark and @ZaZ This is weird, this player according to genie under the zaz 25 under 50 rating has the guy rated better than all of my strikers but looks the worst? what do you guys think I'm seeing this on other players.
José Huanca rating = 73.1
Dennis = 69.65
Junior Arias = 71.18
As you can see Jose is the highest by a fair bit and looks the worst out of the 3.