i'll have a look at it and try to pull some data out then
these are the settting that i want o adjust to a correct value, and also the attributes for a position, thats why i asked about MC AMR/L and WBR/L as they were not on that chinese table.
Only done the GK position as you can see in the pic
the reason why i am using this app is because is simple to use, loads in an instant, can look for players based on your positions from tactic and the best part: you don't see their CA or PA attributes or personality
Ive been really impressed with the work on here , attributes have always fascinated me , in the game they blind you with a range of attributes set for roles that dont really matter, as its all about positions not roles , if you were a new player to FM then they really are a pointless addition for SI , you ask the SI forum which attributes work for each position and ive always had an answer that makes me think not even SI know what attribute combinations work properly , everyone of them are linked in one way or another meaning you would need 20 odd attributes or more for each position which is unobtainable, what Mark and Zaz have done is actually done SI's job for them by helping everyone , so thanks to them for this.
Im still on FM 21 as i can never be bothered with the new one until i know there will be no more patches, so would some of these ratings work with FM 21 ?
Which is the ratings that was decided upon as the one to use ? ive got about 7 now in the ratings folder lol, as im late to FM22 i just wondered if there is a definitive decision of which rating is near to perfect for finding the right players and would it work with fm21 ?
Rhumble said: Ive been really impressed with the work on here , attributes have always fascinated me , in the game they blind you with a range of attributes set for roles that dont really matter, as its all about positions not roles , if you were a new player to FM then they really are a pointless addition for SI , you ask the SI forum which attributes work for each position and ive always had an answer that makes me think not even SI know what attribute combinations work properly , everyone of them are linked in one way or another meaning you would need 20 odd attributes or more for each position which is unobtainable, what Mark and Zaz have done is actually done SI's job for them by helping everyone , so thanks to them for this.
Im still on FM 21 as i can never be bothered with the new one until i know there will be no more patches, so would some of these ratings work with FM 21 ?
Which is the ratings that was decided upon as the one to use ? ive got about 7 now in the ratings folder lol, as im late to FM22 i just wondered if there is a definitive decision of which rating is near to perfect for finding the right players and would it work with fm21 ? Expand
I had very little to do with that, it was mostly Mark and the guy from chinese forum. They deserve all credit. I just added a rating to the mix.
ZaZ said: I had very little to do with that, it was mostly Mark and the guy from chinese forum. They deserve all credit. I just added a rating to the mix. Expand
thats cool , its all been a help though
which version was the one that you and mark thought gave the best results , ive got loads in my ratings folder and i cant remember what order they i downloaded them in, would they work in FM21 or has everything changed between both games
which version was the one that you and mark thought gave the best results , ive got loads in my ratings folder and i cant remember what order they i downloaded them in, would they work in FM21 or has everything changed between both games Expand
From my ratings, the one that subtracts 25 from all weights under 50 was the best, according to Mark's test. But I believe his scores might be better than mine since he tested that more than me.
ZaZ said: From my ratings, the one that subtracts 25 from all weights under 50 was the best, according to Mark's test. But I believe his scores might be better than mine since he tested that more than me. Expand
i'll have a look at it and try to pull some data out then
these are the settting that i want o adjust to a correct value, and also the attributes for a position, thats why i asked about MC AMR/L and WBR/L as they were not on that chinese table.
Only done the GK position as you can see in the pic
the reason why i am using this app is because is simple to use, loads in an instant, can look for players based on your positions from tactic and the best part: you don't see their CA or PA attributes or personality Expand
Did you figure out how to put them into the lineup tool ? Would be amazing if you could share it, I do like using that tool as the scouting center
Wail said: Did you figure out how to put them into the lineup tool ? Would be amazing if you could share it, I do like using that tool as the scouting center Expand
Had to stop the work, some family issues but will get back to it. I have an idea, yeah
doru228 said: Had to stop the work, some family issues but will get back to it. I have an idea, yeah Expand
I could probably help, if you share the idea exactly, I tried with making the ones over 50 as Required, while the ones between 30 and 50 as prefered, It didnt give me that good ratings imo cause of the 4/1 multipliers, I didnt really bother with changing them tho, wanted to test them vs genie scout but the g version just lags and freezes alot.
thegr8 said: Hi Mark, this one you would say is the best to use? Also can you edit first post or make a new post with all the versions in one post? Thanks. Expand
The one you have referenced is the one that I use. Enjoy.
Mark said: This question comes up a lot on the forum. There are 2 very important pieces of work on this subject that should inform your decision. The first is the attribute testing done by @Zippohttps://fm-arena.com/table/13-fm22-attributes-ratings/. This shows the testing of each attribute in FM22 and the impact of reducing the attribute score has on results. The limitation of this work is that it is not positional. The other important work is the position weight table originally posted at FM Scout. This gives a sense of the value of each attribute for each position.
I have used these pieces to calculate values or weightings for the Genie Scout tool. You can use these filters for comparison of players when you are buying players or to determine the best player for each role in your tactic from your squad.
Here is the download link to my updated ratings file for Genie Scout.
You should save the standard FMGS ratings file before loading and changing this file so you can reload the default if you are not happy with my ratings.
The standard place for Genie Scout ratings files is C:\FM Genie Scout 22g\Ratings. If you did a custom install it will be in a folder called Ratings under the FMGS install directory. Once you have copied the file to the correct location you should be able to select my ratings file by clicking on the GS symbol in the top left of the screen, and then clicking Ratings in the drop down menu, and then MDW22 from the sub menu.
I have adjusted the weightings this year to try and align all the positions, as previously the ratings were skewed with Wingers having a much higher rating.
A reminder here that Genie Scout doesn't take into account the positional ability of players in their ratings calculations. Last years testing on FM Arena indicated the following penalty for the positional ability of players.
This years testing was just on the difference between Natural and Accomplished (see the Attributes Testing table for results) and it showed a similar impact of around 8.5% penalty this year.
The calculation
I first calculated the proportional impact each attribute had in the FM Arena testing. For example Acceleration - default PPM was 1.648, reducing Acceleration by 4 points resulted in 1.039 PPM. The calculation was 1-(1.039/1.648) or 36.95%. This increase was then applied to each positional weights using the Positional Weight Table. Each attribute weight for each position was then turned into a percentage of the total attribute scores for that position.
Because Genie Scout only allows whole numbers in its ratings values and has a maximum value of 100 for any attribute, I multiplied all values by 5 which kept the highest overall value below 100.
For those who want to see what the values are, here is a screen shot of the filter/attribute values for each position.
I hope this helps someone.
Enjoy Expand In Your opinion which is the best update rating file and can you post the link?
Why is Work Rate valued so high by the guys from Chinese forum (https://fm-arena.com/attachment/12952/) compared to its impact based on the FM Arena attribute testing?
It's quite simple to me. For all positions except central defender you should look for Acceleration, Pace, Dribbling, Anticipation, Stamina and for central defenders you should look Jumping Reach and Strength instead of Dribbling. Expand
Doesn't the work of the chinese forum suggest different though
ZaZ said: It can be several reasons. For example, it can be very important until certain value, then less important after some point. Expand
Can you give me a practical example? I don't understand. Looking at the chinese table, for out field players Work Rate is 5th most important for CB, 4th FB, 1st DM, 4th W, 4 AM, 7th ST, so on average should be around the 4th most important attribute. yet on the FM arena testing it is around 23rd
Middleweight165 said: Can you give me a practical example? I don't understand. Looking at the chinese table, for out field players Work Rate is 5th most important for CB, 4th FB, 1st DM, 4th W, 4 AM, 7th ST, so on average should be around the 4th most important attribute. yet on the FM arena testing it is around 23rd Expand
Testing the impact of attributes is something very hard to do, because important attributes for DC are different from important attributes for ST. Basically, you need to test each position/role individually. It's also not something linear, which means the effect from 10 > 12 can be very big, but from 12 > 14 can be negligible. That means there are too many combinations to test, and FM-Arena just doesn't have the resources to do so. What they did was an approximation that is pretty accurate for most cases. We should be thankful they did that when no one else wanted to do it, and appreciate their contribution to FM community.
About the study from the Chinese group, they had more resources since they are a company that works in a basketball game with focus on statistics. That includes machines (possibly a supercomputer), experts in the field of statistics / machine learning, and time. I believe their results are more precise, but you have to consider the difference in their methodology.
For example, the AI made variations in attributes but kept the same CA for players, while in FM-Arena the attributes were changed without considering CA. The result is that attribute weights have direct impact in the Chinese study, while it was not considered by FM-Arena since it wanted to isolate the impact of the attribute.
Again, you have to understand that even if FM-Arena wanted to do a similar methodology, that wouldn't be possible because they just don't have resources to do so. I think FM-Arena's approximation is pretty decent considering how hard it is to test attributes. The Chinese guy itself said they wouldn't be doing any more similar tests using machine learning since the cost was too high to repeat the experiment.
So, in short, FM-Arena's results are different mainly because they are an approximation, and also because they chose to not consider the weight of attributes to CA, which has the potential to counter-balance the impact and make the analysis even harder.
ZaZ said: Testing the impact of attributes is something very hard to do, because important attributes for DC are different from important attributes for ST. Basically, you need to test each position/role individually. It's also not something linear, which means the effect from 10 > 12 can be very big, but from 12 > 14 can be negligible. That means there are too many combinations to test, and FM-Arena just doesn't have the resources to do so. What they did was an approximation that is pretty accurate for most cases. We should be thankful they did that when no one else wanted to do it, and appreciate their contribution to FM community.
About the study from the Chinese group, they had more resources since they are a company that works in a basketball game with focus on statistics. That includes machines (possibly a supercomputer), experts in the field of statistics / machine learning, and time. I believe their results are more precise, but you have to consider the difference in their methodology.
For example, the AI made variations in attributes but kept the same CA for players, while in FM-Arena the attributes were changed without considering CA. The result is that attribute weights have direct impact in the Chinese study, while it was not considered by FM-Arena since it wanted to isolate the impact of the attribute.
Again, you have to understand that even if FM-Arena wanted to do a similar methodology, that wouldn't be possible because they just don't have resources to do so. I think FM-Arena's approximation is pretty decent considering how hard it is to test attributes. The Chinese guy itself said they wouldn't be doing any more similar tests using machine learning since the cost was too high to repeat the experiment.
So, in short, FM-Arena's results are different mainly because they are an approximation, and also because they chose to not consider the weight of attributes to CA, which has the potential to counter-balance the impact and make the analysis even harder. Expand
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I understand completely what you're that the FM arena testing is limited because that's all they are capable of doing, but it still provides us with a huge insight into whats important and whats not.
What instigated my question was my assumption that the chinese research was more thorough, therefore a more accurate analysis of which attributes are most important for each position, but it felt to me, and this could just be a personal feeling is that members of this forum have't abandoned the FM Arena test results in favour of the Chinese results and I wanted to know why. Maybe paragraph 3 of your reply provides more info on this.
What is your personal opinion now? Do you follow the Chinese guidelines or the FM Arena ones? For the DM position would you prioritise Work Rate (Chinese) or Acceleration (FM Arena)?
Middleweight165 said: Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I understand completely what you're that the FM arena testing is limited because that's all they are capable of doing, but it still provides us with a huge insight into whats important and whats not.
What instigated my question was my assumption that the chinese research was more thorough, therefore a more accurate analysis of which attributes are most important for each position, but it felt to me, and this could just be a personal feeling is that members of this forum have't abandoned the FM Arena test results in favour of the Chinese results and I wanted to know why. Maybe paragraph 3 of your reply provides more info on this.
What is your personal opinion now? Do you follow the Chinese guidelines or the FM Arena ones? For the DM position would you prioritise Work Rate (Chinese) or Acceleration (FM Arena)? Expand
I leave this question for @Mark since he is the boss in attribute filters. Maybe you can ask him to test the filter from FM-Arena vs the filter from Chinese guys and compare performance between them.
ZaZ said: I leave this question for @Mark since he is the boss in attribute filters. Maybe you can ask him to test the filter from FM-Arena vs the filter from Chinese guys and compare performance between them. Expand
@Middleweight165 I have a few comments around your observations above. The FM Arena attribute tests were against all positions in the side so not by position. The machine learning tests were against each of the positions in the ZaZ Blue tactic, GK, DR, DC, DL, DM, MR, MC, ML and ST.
I have tested using the Machine learning findings in positional filters o Genie Scout and find them to be very good. The best players from my team at the end of the season are the ones that were found and are at the top of the list when I use the ratings file.
I also know that if you just use acceleration to pick strikers and wingers you will generally get decent players as I have tried this before. Your observation was that Work Rate was higher for the DM. This is correct and it is worth noting that this is the only position where Work Rate is higher than Acceleration for any of the Machine learning positional analysis. My DMs don't tend to have as high Acceleration numbers as my attacking players.
If you look at the Machine learning numbers for DM, there are values against 36 attributes, so the 90 rating for Work Rate is around 6.2% of the overall rating for that position. You can see from that, if you just pick a DM on the highest rated attribute for the position it might not work too well and it certainly wouldn't be in keeping with what the Machine learning analysis was trying to get across to us. Also, if you chose players using Acceleration and Pace (which tend to be reasonably close numbers for most players), combined they total around 9.3% of the overall rating for the DM position.
I would suggest you use the Genie Scout ratings file it makes it easy and you can compare how all players rate for particular positions you are interested in. I also posted the ratings file on FM Scout. Here is an extract of the response I received:
"I must say that this filter gives way better ratings than the default ratings which comes with Genie Scout. The reason is, I see way more players which perform in-game better than the rest with your filters.
I really thank you for your effort and sharing this! Now I can buy players without having to pray for them to perform in-game"
Mark said: @Middleweight165 I have a few comments around your observations above. The FM Arena attribute tests were against all positions in the side so not by position. The machine learning tests were against each of the positions in the ZaZ Blue tactic, GK, DR, DC, DL, DM, MR, MC, ML and ST.
I have tested using the Machine learning findings in positional filters o Genie Scout and find them to be very good. The best players from my team at the end of the season are the ones that were found and are at the top of the list when I use the ratings file.
I also know that if you just use acceleration to pick strikers and wingers you will generally get decent players as I have tried this before. Your observation was that Work Rate was higher for the DM. This is correct and it is worth noting that this is the only position where Work Rate is higher than Acceleration for any of the Machine learning positional analysis. My DMs don't tend to have as high Acceleration numbers as my attacking players.
If you look at the Machine learning numbers for DM, there are values against 36 attributes, so the 90 rating for Work Rate is around 6.2% of the overall rating for that position. You can see from that, if you just pick a DM on the highest rated attribute for the position it might not work too well and it certainly wouldn't be in keeping with what the Machine learning analysis was trying to get across to us. Also, if you chose players using Acceleration and Pace (which tend to be reasonably close numbers for most players), combined they total around 9.3% of the overall rating for the DM position.
I would suggest you use the Genie Scout ratings file it makes it easy and you can compare how all players rate for particular positions you are interested in. I also posted the ratings file on FM Scout. Here is an extract of the response I received:
"I must say that this filter gives way better ratings than the default ratings which comes with Genie Scout. The reason is, I see way more players which perform in-game better than the rest with your filters.
I really thank you for your effort and sharing this! Now I can buy players without having to pray for them to perform in-game" Expand
Thanks for such a detailed reply. I have uploaded your balanced ratings file into Genie Scout. Can I ask does your file override the existing file or do i need to load it in when Im in GS? I copied the file into the ratings folder in the C drive. When clicking between your ratings file and the old one 'Football Manager 2016', the ratings dont seem to change, so I'm wondering if it has automatically updated to yours
Middleweight165 said: Thanks for such a detailed reply. I have uploaded your balanced ratings file into Genie Scout. Can I ask does your file override the existing file or do i need to load it in when Im in GS? I copied the file into the ratings folder in the C drive. When clicking between your ratings file and the old one 'Football Manager 2016', the ratings dont seem to change, so I'm wondering if it has automatically updated to yours Expand
Middleweight165 said: Thanks for such a detailed reply. I have uploaded your balanced ratings file into Genie Scout. Can I ask does your file override the existing file or do i need to load it in when Im in GS? I copied the file into the ratings folder in the C drive. When clicking between your ratings file and the old one 'Football Manager 2016', the ratings dont seem to change, so I'm wondering if it has automatically updated to yours Expand
Make sure you downloaded the right Ratings file - link is at post #103 in this thread.
The standard place for Genie Scout ratings files is C:\FM Genie Scout 22g\Ratings. If you did a custom install it will be in a folder called Ratings under the FMGS install directory. Once you have copied the file to the correct location you should be able to select my ratings file by clicking on the GS symbol in the top left of the screen, and then clicking Ratings in the drop down menu, and then ykykyky balanced from the sub menu.
Below is the link to the place in this thread where I shared the FM22 default ratings file - post #33.
The problem with trying to produce a ratings file based on the attributes testing from FM Arena is that the for each player will be the same for each position. The only thing that will then impact is the adjustment for their positional rating out of 20 ie you need to multiply their GS Rating by 100% minus the difference between 20 and their positional rating multiplied by 2.5%. For example if their GS rating is 50% and their positional rating is 19, it is 20 - 19= 1 multiplied by 2.5% is 2.5%. Take this off 100% = 97.5% multiplied by 50.00% is 48.75%.
I will give it a go though for a comparison against ykykyky and the default.
Mark said: I have derived the other positions and balanced the files above. Which filter are you interested in?
@Mark The ykykyk balanced ratings file
i'll have a look at it and try to pull some data out then
these are the settting that i want o adjust to a correct value, and also the attributes for a position, thats why i asked about MC AMR/L and WBR/L as they were not on that chinese table.
Only done the GK position as you can see in the pic
the reason why i am using this app is because is simple to use, loads in an instant, can look for players based on your positions from tactic and the best part: you don't see their CA or PA attributes or personality
Ive been really impressed with the work on here , attributes have always fascinated me , in the game they blind you with a range of attributes set for roles that dont really matter, as its all about positions not roles , if you were a new player to FM then they really are a pointless addition for SI , you ask the SI forum which attributes work for each position and ive always had an answer that makes me think not even SI know what attribute combinations work properly , everyone of them are linked in one way or another meaning you would need 20 odd attributes or more for each position which is unobtainable, what Mark and Zaz have done is actually done SI's job for them by helping everyone , so thanks to them for this.
Im still on FM 21 as i can never be bothered with the new one until i know there will be no more patches, so would some of these ratings work with FM 21 ?
Which is the ratings that was decided upon as the one to use ? ive got about 7 now in the ratings folder lol, as im late to FM22 i just wondered if there is a definitive decision of which rating is near to perfect for finding the right players and would it work with fm21 ?
Rhumble said: Ive been really impressed with the work on here , attributes have always fascinated me , in the game they blind you with a range of attributes set for roles that dont really matter, as its all about positions not roles , if you were a new player to FM then they really are a pointless addition for SI , you ask the SI forum which attributes work for each position and ive always had an answer that makes me think not even SI know what attribute combinations work properly , everyone of them are linked in one way or another meaning you would need 20 odd attributes or more for each position which is unobtainable, what Mark and Zaz have done is actually done SI's job for them by helping everyone , so thanks to them for this.
Im still on FM 21 as i can never be bothered with the new one until i know there will be no more patches, so would some of these ratings work with FM 21 ?
Which is the ratings that was decided upon as the one to use ? ive got about 7 now in the ratings folder lol, as im late to FM22 i just wondered if there is a definitive decision of which rating is near to perfect for finding the right players and would it work with fm21 ?
I had very little to do with that, it was mostly Mark and the guy from chinese forum. They deserve all credit. I just added a rating to the mix.
ZaZ said: I had very little to do with that, it was mostly Mark and the guy from chinese forum. They deserve all credit. I just added a rating to the mix.
thats cool , its all been a help though
which version was the one that you and mark thought gave the best results , ive got loads in my ratings folder and i cant remember what order they i downloaded them in, would they work in FM21 or has everything changed between both games
Rhumble said: thats cool , its all been a help though
which version was the one that you and mark thought gave the best results , ive got loads in my ratings folder and i cant remember what order they i downloaded them in, would they work in FM21 or has everything changed between both games
From my ratings, the one that subtracts 25 from all weights under 50 was the best, according to Mark's test. But I believe his scores might be better than mine since he tested that more than me.
ZaZ said: From my ratings, the one that subtracts 25 from all weights under 50 was the best, according to Mark's test. But I believe his scores might be better than mine since he tested that more than me.
Thanks Buddy , ill give them a go
doru228 said: @Mark The ykykyk balanced ratings file
i'll have a look at it and try to pull some data out then
these are the settting that i want o adjust to a correct value, and also the attributes for a position, thats why i asked about MC AMR/L and WBR/L as they were not on that chinese table.
Only done the GK position as you can see in the pic
the reason why i am using this app is because is simple to use, loads in an instant, can look for players based on your positions from tactic and the best part: you don't see their CA or PA attributes or personality
Did you figure out how to put them into the lineup tool ? Would be amazing if you could share it, I do like using that tool as the scouting center
Wail said: Did you figure out how to put them into the lineup tool ? Would be amazing if you could share it, I do like using that tool as the scouting center
Had to stop the work, some family issues but will get back to it. I have an idea, yeah
doru228 said: Had to stop the work, some family issues but will get back to it. I have an idea, yeah
I could probably help, if you share the idea exactly, I tried with making the ones over 50 as Required, while the ones between 30 and 50 as prefered, It didnt give me that good ratings imo cause of the 4/1 multipliers, I didnt really bother with changing them tho, wanted to test them vs genie scout but the g version just lags and freezes alot.
Mark said: @saycarramrod here is the link to the balanced version ykykyk balanced ratings file
Hi Mark, this one you would say is the best to use? Also can you edit first post or make a new post with all the versions in one post? Thanks.
thegr8 said: Hi Mark, this one you would say is the best to use? Also can you edit first post or make a new post with all the versions in one post? Thanks.
The one you have referenced is the one that I use. Enjoy.
Below is a link to a post on using these ratings to determine the best 20 players for each position in the game
Post Link
Mark said: Below is a link to a post on using these ratings to determine the best 20 players for each position in the game
Link to post
Pretty sure you linked the wrong stuff.
ZaZ said: Pretty sure you linked the wrong stuff.
I think I have fixed it. I was sure I checked it but it seemed to have picked a recent copied link. Thanks for letting me know
Mark said: This question comes up a lot on the forum. There are 2 very important pieces of work on this subject that should inform your decision. The first is the attribute testing done by @Zippo https://fm-arena.com/table/13-fm22-attributes-ratings/. This shows the testing of each attribute in FM22 and the impact of reducing the attribute score has on results. The limitation of this work is that it is not positional. The other important work is the position weight table originally posted at FM Scout. This gives a sense of the value of each attribute for each position.
I have used these pieces to calculate values or weightings for the Genie Scout tool. You can use these filters for comparison of players when you are buying players or to determine the best player for each role in your tactic from your squad.
Here is the download link to my updated ratings file for Genie Scout.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r55jwbdutrq19n6/MDW22.grf?dl=0
You should save the standard FMGS ratings file before loading and changing this file so you can reload the default if you are not happy with my ratings.
The standard place for Genie Scout ratings files is C:\FM Genie Scout 22g\Ratings. If you did a custom install it will be in a folder called Ratings under the FMGS install directory. Once you have copied the file to the correct location you should be able to select my ratings file by clicking on the GS symbol in the top left of the screen, and then clicking Ratings in the drop down menu, and then MDW22 from the sub menu.
I have adjusted the weightings this year to try and align all the positions, as previously the ratings were skewed with Wingers having a much higher rating.
A reminder here that Genie Scout doesn't take into account the positional ability of players in their ratings calculations. Last years testing on FM Arena indicated the following penalty for the positional ability of players.
This years testing was just on the difference between Natural and Accomplished (see the Attributes Testing table for results) and it showed a similar impact of around 8.5% penalty this year.
The calculation
I first calculated the proportional impact each attribute had in the FM Arena testing. For example Acceleration - default PPM was 1.648, reducing Acceleration by 4 points resulted in 1.039 PPM. The calculation was 1-(1.039/1.648) or 36.95%. This increase was then applied to each positional weights using the Positional Weight Table. Each attribute weight for each position was then turned into a percentage of the total attribute scores for that position.
Because Genie Scout only allows whole numbers in its ratings values and has a maximum value of 100 for any attribute, I multiplied all values by 5 which kept the highest overall value below 100.
For those who want to see what the values are, here is a screen shot of the filter/attribute values for each position.
I hope this helps someone.
Enjoy
In Your opinion which is the best update rating file and can you post the link?
Enok said: In Your opinion which is the best update rating file and can you post the link?
See post 103 on page 4.
Hello guys. For some reason my genie doesn't recognize any of the .grf files, you have any idea?
Are you placing them in the correct folder. For me the location is:
C:\FM Genie Scout 22g\Ratings
LOL i know why now, you have to restart the app
Thank you anyway
Why is Work Rate valued so high by the guys from Chinese forum (https://fm-arena.com/attachment/12952/) compared to its impact based on the FM Arena attribute testing?
Bogeyman said: I really don't understand why people complicate things. Just look at this table - https://fm-arena.com/table/13-fm22-attributes-ratings/
It's quite simple to me. For all positions except central defender you should look for Acceleration, Pace, Dribbling, Anticipation, Stamina and for central defenders you should look Jumping Reach and Strength instead of Dribbling.
Doesn't the work of the chinese forum suggest different though
Middleweight165 said: Why is Work Rate valued so high by the guys from Chinese forum (https://fm-arena.com/attachment/12952/) compared to its impact based on the FM Arena attribute testing?
It can be several reasons. For example, it can be very important until certain value, then less important after some point.
ZaZ said: It can be several reasons. For example, it can be very important until certain value, then less important after some point.
Can you give me a practical example? I don't understand. Looking at the chinese table, for out field players Work Rate is 5th most important for CB, 4th FB, 1st DM, 4th W, 4 AM, 7th ST, so on average should be around the 4th most important attribute. yet on the FM arena testing it is around 23rd
Middleweight165 said: Can you give me a practical example? I don't understand. Looking at the chinese table, for out field players Work Rate is 5th most important for CB, 4th FB, 1st DM, 4th W, 4 AM, 7th ST, so on average should be around the 4th most important attribute. yet on the FM arena testing it is around 23rd
Testing the impact of attributes is something very hard to do, because important attributes for DC are different from important attributes for ST. Basically, you need to test each position/role individually. It's also not something linear, which means the effect from 10 > 12 can be very big, but from 12 > 14 can be negligible. That means there are too many combinations to test, and FM-Arena just doesn't have the resources to do so. What they did was an approximation that is pretty accurate for most cases. We should be thankful they did that when no one else wanted to do it, and appreciate their contribution to FM community.
About the study from the Chinese group, they had more resources since they are a company that works in a basketball game with focus on statistics. That includes machines (possibly a supercomputer), experts in the field of statistics / machine learning, and time. I believe their results are more precise, but you have to consider the difference in their methodology.
For example, the AI made variations in attributes but kept the same CA for players, while in FM-Arena the attributes were changed without considering CA. The result is that attribute weights have direct impact in the Chinese study, while it was not considered by FM-Arena since it wanted to isolate the impact of the attribute.
Again, you have to understand that even if FM-Arena wanted to do a similar methodology, that wouldn't be possible because they just don't have resources to do so. I think FM-Arena's approximation is pretty decent considering how hard it is to test attributes. The Chinese guy itself said they wouldn't be doing any more similar tests using machine learning since the cost was too high to repeat the experiment.
So, in short, FM-Arena's results are different mainly because they are an approximation, and also because they chose to not consider the weight of attributes to CA, which has the potential to counter-balance the impact and make the analysis even harder.
ZaZ said: Testing the impact of attributes is something very hard to do, because important attributes for DC are different from important attributes for ST. Basically, you need to test each position/role individually. It's also not something linear, which means the effect from 10 > 12 can be very big, but from 12 > 14 can be negligible. That means there are too many combinations to test, and FM-Arena just doesn't have the resources to do so. What they did was an approximation that is pretty accurate for most cases. We should be thankful they did that when no one else wanted to do it, and appreciate their contribution to FM community.
About the study from the Chinese group, they had more resources since they are a company that works in a basketball game with focus on statistics. That includes machines (possibly a supercomputer), experts in the field of statistics / machine learning, and time. I believe their results are more precise, but you have to consider the difference in their methodology.
For example, the AI made variations in attributes but kept the same CA for players, while in FM-Arena the attributes were changed without considering CA. The result is that attribute weights have direct impact in the Chinese study, while it was not considered by FM-Arena since it wanted to isolate the impact of the attribute.
Again, you have to understand that even if FM-Arena wanted to do a similar methodology, that wouldn't be possible because they just don't have resources to do so. I think FM-Arena's approximation is pretty decent considering how hard it is to test attributes. The Chinese guy itself said they wouldn't be doing any more similar tests using machine learning since the cost was too high to repeat the experiment.
So, in short, FM-Arena's results are different mainly because they are an approximation, and also because they chose to not consider the weight of attributes to CA, which has the potential to counter-balance the impact and make the analysis even harder.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I understand completely what you're that the FM arena testing is limited because that's all they are capable of doing, but it still provides us with a huge insight into whats important and whats not.
What instigated my question was my assumption that the chinese research was more thorough, therefore a more accurate analysis of which attributes are most important for each position, but it felt to me, and this could just be a personal feeling is that members of this forum have't abandoned the FM Arena test results in favour of the Chinese results and I wanted to know why. Maybe paragraph 3 of your reply provides more info on this.
What is your personal opinion now? Do you follow the Chinese guidelines or the FM Arena ones? For the DM position would you prioritise Work Rate (Chinese) or Acceleration (FM Arena)?
Middleweight165 said: Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I understand completely what you're that the FM arena testing is limited because that's all they are capable of doing, but it still provides us with a huge insight into whats important and whats not.
What instigated my question was my assumption that the chinese research was more thorough, therefore a more accurate analysis of which attributes are most important for each position, but it felt to me, and this could just be a personal feeling is that members of this forum have't abandoned the FM Arena test results in favour of the Chinese results and I wanted to know why. Maybe paragraph 3 of your reply provides more info on this.
What is your personal opinion now? Do you follow the Chinese guidelines or the FM Arena ones? For the DM position would you prioritise Work Rate (Chinese) or Acceleration (FM Arena)?
I leave this question for @Mark since he is the boss in attribute filters. Maybe you can ask him to test the filter from FM-Arena vs the filter from Chinese guys and compare performance between them.
ZaZ said: I leave this question for @Mark since he is the boss in attribute filters. Maybe you can ask him to test the filter from FM-Arena vs the filter from Chinese guys and compare performance between them.
@Middleweight165 I have a few comments around your observations above. The FM Arena attribute tests were against all positions in the side so not by position. The machine learning tests were against each of the positions in the ZaZ Blue tactic, GK, DR, DC, DL, DM, MR, MC, ML and ST.
I have tested using the Machine learning findings in positional filters o Genie Scout and find them to be very good. The best players from my team at the end of the season are the ones that were found and are at the top of the list when I use the ratings file.
I also know that if you just use acceleration to pick strikers and wingers you will generally get decent players as I have tried this before. Your observation was that Work Rate was higher for the DM. This is correct and it is worth noting that this is the only position where Work Rate is higher than Acceleration for any of the Machine learning positional analysis. My DMs don't tend to have as high Acceleration numbers as my attacking players.
If you look at the Machine learning numbers for DM, there are values against 36 attributes, so the 90 rating for Work Rate is around 6.2% of the overall rating for that position. You can see from that, if you just pick a DM on the highest rated attribute for the position it might not work too well and it certainly wouldn't be in keeping with what the Machine learning analysis was trying to get across to us. Also, if you chose players using Acceleration and Pace (which tend to be reasonably close numbers for most players), combined they total around 9.3% of the overall rating for the DM position.
I would suggest you use the Genie Scout ratings file it makes it easy and you can compare how all players rate for particular positions you are interested in. I also posted the ratings file on FM Scout. Here is an extract of the response I received:
"I must say that this filter gives way better ratings than the default ratings which comes with Genie Scout. The reason is, I see way more players which perform in-game better than the rest with your filters.
I really thank you for your effort and sharing this! Now I can buy players without having to pray for them to perform in-game"
Mark said: @Middleweight165 I have a few comments around your observations above. The FM Arena attribute tests were against all positions in the side so not by position. The machine learning tests were against each of the positions in the ZaZ Blue tactic, GK, DR, DC, DL, DM, MR, MC, ML and ST.
I have tested using the Machine learning findings in positional filters o Genie Scout and find them to be very good. The best players from my team at the end of the season are the ones that were found and are at the top of the list when I use the ratings file.
I also know that if you just use acceleration to pick strikers and wingers you will generally get decent players as I have tried this before. Your observation was that Work Rate was higher for the DM. This is correct and it is worth noting that this is the only position where Work Rate is higher than Acceleration for any of the Machine learning positional analysis. My DMs don't tend to have as high Acceleration numbers as my attacking players.
If you look at the Machine learning numbers for DM, there are values against 36 attributes, so the 90 rating for Work Rate is around 6.2% of the overall rating for that position. You can see from that, if you just pick a DM on the highest rated attribute for the position it might not work too well and it certainly wouldn't be in keeping with what the Machine learning analysis was trying to get across to us. Also, if you chose players using Acceleration and Pace (which tend to be reasonably close numbers for most players), combined they total around 9.3% of the overall rating for the DM position.
I would suggest you use the Genie Scout ratings file it makes it easy and you can compare how all players rate for particular positions you are interested in. I also posted the ratings file on FM Scout. Here is an extract of the response I received:
"I must say that this filter gives way better ratings than the default ratings which comes with Genie Scout. The reason is, I see way more players which perform in-game better than the rest with your filters.
I really thank you for your effort and sharing this! Now I can buy players without having to pray for them to perform in-game"
Thanks for such a detailed reply. I have uploaded your balanced ratings file into Genie Scout. Can I ask does your file override the existing file or do i need to load it in when Im in GS? I copied the file into the ratings folder in the C drive. When clicking between your ratings file and the old one 'Football Manager 2016', the ratings dont seem to change, so I'm wondering if it has automatically updated to yours
Middleweight165 said: Thanks for such a detailed reply. I have uploaded your balanced ratings file into Genie Scout. Can I ask does your file override the existing file or do i need to load it in when Im in GS? I copied the file into the ratings folder in the C drive. When clicking between your ratings file and the old one 'Football Manager 2016', the ratings dont seem to change, so I'm wondering if it has automatically updated to yours
It keeps the last rating you used.
Middleweight165 said: Thanks for such a detailed reply. I have uploaded your balanced ratings file into Genie Scout. Can I ask does your file override the existing file or do i need to load it in when Im in GS? I copied the file into the ratings folder in the C drive. When clicking between your ratings file and the old one 'Football Manager 2016', the ratings dont seem to change, so I'm wondering if it has automatically updated to yours
Make sure you downloaded the right Ratings file - link is at post #103 in this thread.
Link to ykykyky balanced Ratings file
The standard place for Genie Scout ratings files is C:\FM Genie Scout 22g\Ratings. If you did a custom install it will be in a folder called Ratings under the FMGS install directory. Once you have copied the file to the correct location you should be able to select my ratings file by clicking on the GS symbol in the top left of the screen, and then clicking Ratings in the drop down menu, and then ykykyky balanced from the sub menu.
Below is the link to the place in this thread where I shared the FM22 default ratings file - post #33.
Link to default file
The problem with trying to produce a ratings file based on the attributes testing from FM Arena is that the for each player will be the same for each position. The only thing that will then impact is the adjustment for their positional rating out of 20 ie you need to multiply their GS Rating by 100% minus the difference between 20 and their positional rating multiplied by 2.5%. For example if their GS rating is 50% and their positional rating is 19, it is 20 - 19= 1 multiplied by 2.5% is 2.5%. Take this off 100% = 97.5% multiplied by 50.00% is 48.75%.
I will give it a go though for a comparison against ykykyky and the default.