Mark said: Testing wasn't a huge sample. I think if you believe in the machine learning work then you go with their total results. I had a lot of faith in my original ratings and these seem to be slightly better. So I continue to use the ykykyky one successfully. Expand
Thanks for the reply, I was just curious from reading back through the thread
Mark said: Testing wasn't a huge sample. I think if you believe in the machine learning work then you go with their total results. I had a lot of faith in my original ratings and these seem to be slightly better. So I continue to use the ykykyky one successfully. Expand
This is the "ykykyky balanced" file specifically that was shared?
I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go.
Mark said: I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go. Expand
@Mark Will try this - just want to make sure I understand that in GS I will change the rating for each position with the above screenshot and search only with that for best player/position% I can find and they should (theoretically) be lower cost but better performace? If you have the re-rated file please feel free to share so I don't mess it up/misunderstand the ratings! Thanks!
saycarramrod said: @Mark Will try this - just want to make sure I understand that in GS I will change the rating for each position with the above screenshot and search only with that for best player/position% I can find and they should (theoretically) be lower cost but better performace? If you have the re-rated file please feel free to share so I don't mess it up/misunderstand the ratings! Thanks! Expand
I just use the ykykyky rating file but use the filters with the attributes highlighted above. For example, with a DC I look at the Squad / Analyst Report for defenders and get the highest attributes for the Division I am in for Passing, Vision, Composure and Work Rate and put those values into the filter on Genie Scout, rounding up. I then make sure the players have 20 out of 20 for DC.
Mark said: I just use the ykykyky rating file but use the filters with the attributes highlighted above. For example, with a DC I look at the Squad / Analyst Report for defenders and get the highest attributes for the Division I am in for Passing, Vision, Composure and Work Rate and put those values into the filter on Genie Scout, rounding up. I then make sure the players have 20 out of 20 for DC. Expand
Ah, I see now, thanks. Theoretically, could I use the ratings above to create a GS file based just on those attributes at the ratings listed for the best supposed value?
saycarramrod said: Ah, I see now, thanks. Theoretically, could I use the ratings above to create a GS file based just on those attributes at the ratings listed for the best supposed value? Expand
There is nothing to stop you doing that. But if you do it the way I have said you can differentiate the players with the ykykyky ratings
Mark said: I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go. Expand
Hey @Mark sorry but im feeling quite stupid today What you're saying is that the best attribute per position (CA cost wise) would be Vision for DCs, Off the ball for DRL and so on? Meaning, if i only train these attributes i will get my players to the best performance possible instead of just train them for quickness. Am I wrong?
Gracolas said: Hey @Mark sorry but im feeling quite stupid today What you're saying is that the best attribute per position (CA cost wise) would be Vision for DCs, Off the ball for DRL and so on? Meaning, if i only train these attributes i will get my players to the best performance possible instead of just train them for quickness. Am I wrong? Expand
It is ykykyky position weighting divided by CA cost. So whilst I haven't tested it I think so. I have been cycling through the attributes with more than 15 on my table by position using additional focus. But I am also using filters to try and target players with those attributes when buying players.
Mark said: I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go. Expand
The ykykyky genie scout file is at post #103 page 4. I haven't done a genie scout file based on the attributes that appear to be the best value. As I said above, I just use filters.
I am testing whether they work. I have selected the worst side from a lower division and swapped in the players using each of 3 systems, the default, ykykyky, and ykykyky using the value filters with average attribute scores for the division. I also capped the rating scores to select players below the 15th side in the league to keep the side lowly rated in the league.
Interestingly each of the selected teams is totally different. I will run 3 or 4 tests for each and see if there is a consistent result. I will post the results when they are done.
Hey! Will ykykyky rating work well with Positive Tiki Taka - Shadow Striker Tweak ( v2 )? This tactic is more possession focused, so I can suppose attributes like Technic, Passing, First touch and Vision could be more valuable. Also IFs are more similar to a Fast Striker, than a classical Winger. And is it necessary to chase for Finishing for STs an IFs? For ex. will be player with 10-12 Finishing effective as a ST in EPL for a top club like City, Liverpool?
duxa92 said: Hey! Will ykykyky rating work well with Positive Tiki Taka - Shadow Striker Tweak ( v2 )? This tactic is more possession focused, so I can suppose attributes like Technic, Passing, First touch and Vision could be more valuable. Also IFs are more similar to a Fast Striker, than a classical Winger. And is it necessary to chase for Finishing for STs an IFs? For ex. will be player with 10-12 Finishing effective as a ST in EPL for a top club like City, Liverpool? Expand
The ykykyky ratings should work for any tactic. They are based on what works for positions so changing roles shouldn't impact. The only position not included in the ratings file is stopper, which is rarely used now.
In terms of actual attribute scores, don't worry about that. Just get your players at around the average rating for the league and they will be fine using a tactic from near the top of the FM Arena table like you are suggesting.
Mark said: The ykykyky ratings should work for any tactic. They are based on what works for positions so changing roles shouldn't impact. The only position not included in the ratings file is stopper, which is rarely used now.
In terms of actual attribute scores, don't worry about that. Just get your players at around the average rating for the league and they will be fine using a tactic from near the top of the FM Arena table like you are suggesting. Expand
its ykykyk balanced (1).grf from january the correct file?
@Mark Do you know what the GS potential rating is based on? I signed some young players whose potential rating was over 90% but now this has dropped. Looking at it more closely it seems to fluctuate. Why is this?
Middleweight165 said: @Mark Do you know what the GS potential rating is based on? I signed some young players whose potential rating was over 90% but now this has dropped. Looking at it more closely it seems to fluctuate. Why is this? Expand
Below are excerpts from guides on FM Scout where they have extensively looked at CA and PA to develop their tool. I hope this helps.
General
Well, first and foremost it is very important to understand that attributes are the most important thing. As a player develops, their attributes will increase and this drives the increase in CA, not the other way around. So it is important to have effective training for your players and give them game time at an appropriate level. For players 18 and younger, training is the most important. Above 18 getting adequate game time at an appropriate level becomes more important than training. Of course, a player also needs a good personality and determination in order to develop. A player with a poor personality may benefit from mentoring by a more senior player with a good personality.
Remember that the PA acts as a cap on the CA and hence the attributes. The player development does not depend on PA i.e. a young player with 180 PA will not necessarily develop faster than one with 100 PA. It simply means that the 100 PA player will reach his limit sooner and hence stop developing. For training, you can look to improve any weak attributes by selecting an appropriate additional focus that covers those attributes. The player will then spend more training time on those attributes causing them to rise leading to an increase in CA. You can look at the weights to decide which attributes are important for the players position. For example, Central Defenders have high weights for Decisions and Marking so you may choose to use 'Defensive Positioning' as that focusses on Marking, Positioning and Decisions. Role training covers several attributes that are considered key for a particular role.
Higher weighted attributes will essentially use up more CA than lower weighted ones. If a player already has a decent value for a highly-weighted attribute, further development in that attribute is essentially at the expense of potential growth in other attributes. So if you have a striker with 17 for Finishing and still some room for development, it could be better spent increasing his poor heading ability rather than trying to get him to have 20 for Finishing. Basically, try and develop well-rounded players with decent values in all the relevant attributes for their position and role. Regularly check on the training progress and change focus to better spread the development across attributes.
Current Ability
CA is a translation. It takes the attribute ratings, along with a few hidden attributes and calculates all of it into a number between 0 and 200. At that point in time, with those exact stats, that is the CA of the player.
This does not mean that if someone were to play out of this world, they would have a CA of 200, rather CA is the calculation of the overall player’s ability based on their stats. Not a form calculation.
CA can fluctuate, it is not static. As a player improves or decreases throughout the simulation, their CA can fluctuate accordingly. You as the manager do not see an overall increase or decrease in a set number as in FIFA, rather you see the attribute fluctuations within your player over time.
Potential Ability
PA is like CA, rather than it being a current representation of a player; PA is the potential that a player can reach. However, it does not mean that they will achieve their potential as is the case in real life.
Again, this can be misjudged by your staff and even yourself, there are guides and development tools available on FMScout to help you grow your players - but nothing is ever set in stone.
A player will only ever reach their maximum potential if they develop under the right circumstances. It can depend on multiple factors such as; age, personality traits, playing time, club facilities, mental attributes, hidden attributes, and youth staff.
Therefore, it is crucial for you as a manager to keep an eye on your staff and your youth players and plan out what is best for them.
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. Expand Can we have the updated table about positions abilities and penaltys? FM21 had 6.5% in Accomplished and in FM22 has 8.5%?
dzek said: Can we have the updated table about positions abilities and penaltys? FM21 had 6.5% in Accomplished and in FM22 has 8.5%? Expand
I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Hope this helps. Expand
@Mark Just curious if there's an inverse formula for this? For instance say I was looking for a player that was out of position that I wanted to convert and figure out their GS Rating if they went from 1 in a position to 20 (extreme example, but lets roll with it). If I have a CM that is a 1 for the position rating and is a 60% GS Rating, it's not as simple as adding the ~40% to that if he became a 20 in the position rating and becomes a 100% for the CM rating - so just curious if it's something you've looked into. Thanks!
Could anyone please explain me why role rating doesn't matter? I have guy who is 86% rated as an Advanced Forward, but only 79% as a Fast Striker. Does it mean that someone who's rated 81% as a Fast Striker, but worse as an Advanced Forward will still perform better than my guy?
Another example - year 2026 in my Schalke save: Vestergaard (CB) = 77% positional rating // 86,3% role rating as BPD Katinic (CB) = 85,4% positional rating // 85,6% role rating as BPD
Who starts? Based on role rating Vestergaard is favourite by a small margin, but when looking at positional rating - bench warmer.
Why is the difference so big? Is there a thread from where I could understand this better? If not, could anyone ELI5 this please?
@kvasir I have asked this before, but the answer is frankly Katinic is better (easily) by the Pace/Accel alone. Look at the Attributes Table for reference. Anyways, the Role does not matter because the position testing has meant that certain positions require certain attributes regardless of their role.
kvasir said: Could anyone please explain me why role rating doesn't matter? I have guy who is 86% rated as an Advanced Forward, but only 79% as a Fast Striker. Does it mean that someone who's rated 81% as a Fast Striker, but worse as an Advanced Forward will still perform better than my guy?
Another example - year 2026 in my Schalke save: Vestergaard (CB) = 77% positional rating // 86,3% role rating as BPD Katinic (CB) = 85,4% positional rating // 85,6% role rating as BPD
Who starts? Based on role rating Vestergaard is favourite by a small margin, but when looking at positional rating - bench warmer.
Why is the difference so big? Is there a thread from where I could understand this better? If not, could anyone ELI5 this please? Expand
Probably role rating considers the attributes from the role, which are not the best for performance. Meanwhile, position rating uses the filter, which is optimized. I would just ignore role rating and focus on position alone. The first defender in your pictures is clearly stronger than the second, by a large margin.
saycarramrod said: @Mark Just curious if there's an inverse formula for this? For instance say I was looking for a player that was out of position that I wanted to convert and figure out their GS Rating if they went from 1 in a position to 20 (extreme example, but lets roll with it). If I have a CM that is a 1 for the position rating and is a 60% GS Rating, it's not as simple as adding the ~40% to that if he became a 20 in the position rating and becomes a 100% for the CM rating - so just curious if it's something you've looked into. Thanks! Expand
I think the best way to do this is looking at the general rating for each position which is at the following post
Mark said: Testing wasn't a huge sample. I think if you believe in the machine learning work then you go with their total results. I had a lot of faith in my original ratings and these seem to be slightly better. So I continue to use the ykykyky one successfully.
Thanks for the reply, I was just curious from reading back through the thread
Mark said: Testing wasn't a huge sample. I think if you believe in the machine learning work then you go with their total results. I had a lot of faith in my original ratings and these seem to be slightly better. So I continue to use the ykykyky one successfully.
This is the "ykykyky balanced" file specifically that was shared?
saycarramrod said: This is the "ykykyky balanced" file specifically that was shared?
Yep
I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go.
Mark said: I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go.
@Mark Will try this - just want to make sure I understand that in GS I will change the rating for each position with the above screenshot and search only with that for best player/position% I can find and they should (theoretically) be lower cost but better performace? If you have the re-rated file please feel free to share so I don't mess it up/misunderstand the ratings! Thanks!
saycarramrod said: @Mark Will try this - just want to make sure I understand that in GS I will change the rating for each position with the above screenshot and search only with that for best player/position% I can find and they should (theoretically) be lower cost but better performace? If you have the re-rated file please feel free to share so I don't mess it up/misunderstand the ratings! Thanks!
I just use the ykykyky rating file but use the filters with the attributes highlighted above. For example, with a DC I look at the Squad / Analyst Report for defenders and get the highest attributes for the Division I am in for Passing, Vision, Composure and Work Rate and put those values into the filter on Genie Scout, rounding up. I then make sure the players have 20 out of 20 for DC.
Mark said: I just use the ykykyky rating file but use the filters with the attributes highlighted above. For example, with a DC I look at the Squad / Analyst Report for defenders and get the highest attributes for the Division I am in for Passing, Vision, Composure and Work Rate and put those values into the filter on Genie Scout, rounding up. I then make sure the players have 20 out of 20 for DC.
Ah, I see now, thanks. Theoretically, could I use the ratings above to create a GS file based just on those attributes at the ratings listed for the best supposed value?
saycarramrod said: Ah, I see now, thanks. Theoretically, could I use the ratings above to create a GS file based just on those attributes at the ratings listed for the best supposed value?
There is nothing to stop you doing that. But if you do it the way I have said you can differentiate the players with the ykykyky ratings
Mark said: I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.
What you're saying is that the best attribute per position (CA cost wise) would be Vision for DCs, Off the ball for DRL and so on? Meaning, if i only train these attributes i will get my players to the best performance possible instead of just train them for quickness. Am I wrong?
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go.
Hey @Mark sorry but im feeling quite stupid today
Gracolas said: Hey @Mark sorry but im feeling quite stupid today
What you're saying is that the best attribute per position (CA cost wise) would be Vision for DCs, Off the ball for DRL and so on? Meaning, if i only train these attributes i will get my players to the best performance possible instead of just train them for quickness. Am I wrong?
It is ykykyky position weighting divided by CA cost. So whilst I haven't tested it I think so. I have been cycling through the attributes with more than 15 on my table by position using additional focus. But I am also using filters to try and target players with those attributes when buying players.
Mark said: I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go.
HI, can you post this file for genie scout?
The ykykyky genie scout file is at post #103 page 4. I haven't done a genie scout file based on the attributes that appear to be the best value. As I said above, I just use filters.
I am testing whether they work. I have selected the worst side from a lower division and swapped in the players using each of 3 systems, the default, ykykyky, and ykykyky using the value filters with average attribute scores for the division. I also capped the rating scores to select players below the 15th side in the league to keep the side lowly rated in the league.
Interestingly each of the selected teams is totally different. I will run 3 or 4 tests for each and see if there is a consistent result. I will post the results when they are done.
Hey! Will ykykyky rating work well with Positive Tiki Taka - Shadow Striker Tweak ( v2 )? This tactic is more possession focused, so I can suppose attributes like Technic, Passing, First touch and Vision could be more valuable. Also IFs are more similar to a Fast Striker, than a classical Winger. And is it necessary to chase for Finishing for STs an IFs? For ex. will be player with 10-12 Finishing effective as a ST in EPL for a top club like City, Liverpool?
duxa92 said: Hey! Will ykykyky rating work well with Positive Tiki Taka - Shadow Striker Tweak ( v2 )? This tactic is more possession focused, so I can suppose attributes like Technic, Passing, First touch and Vision could be more valuable. Also IFs are more similar to a Fast Striker, than a classical Winger. And is it necessary to chase for Finishing for STs an IFs? For ex. will be player with 10-12 Finishing effective as a ST in EPL for a top club like City, Liverpool?
The ykykyky ratings should work for any tactic. They are based on what works for positions so changing roles shouldn't impact. The only position not included in the ratings file is stopper, which is rarely used now.
In terms of actual attribute scores, don't worry about that. Just get your players at around the average rating for the league and they will be fine using a tactic from near the top of the FM Arena table like you are suggesting.
Mark said: The ykykyky ratings should work for any tactic. They are based on what works for positions so changing roles shouldn't impact. The only position not included in the ratings file is stopper, which is rarely used now.
In terms of actual attribute scores, don't worry about that. Just get your players at around the average rating for the league and they will be fine using a tactic from near the top of the FM Arena table like you are suggesting.
its ykykyk balanced (1).grf from january the correct file?
antoniojesus said: its ykykyk balanced (1).grf from january the correct file?
should be
I cant find the post # where this latest file is.. can someone let me know the Post #?
so you mean that the number 1 in the table is the main attribute of the position?
for example in DC the main one is vision?
Gracolas said: I cant find the post # where this latest file is.. can someone let me know the Post #?
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/11281/
@Mark Do you know what the GS potential rating is based on? I signed some young players whose potential rating was over 90% but now this has dropped. Looking at it more closely it seems to fluctuate. Why is this?
Middleweight165 said: @Mark Do you know what the GS potential rating is based on? I signed some young players whose potential rating was over 90% but now this has dropped. Looking at it more closely it seems to fluctuate. Why is this?
Below are excerpts from guides on FM Scout where they have extensively looked at CA and PA to develop their tool. I hope this helps.
General
Well, first and foremost it is very important to understand that attributes are the most important thing. As a player develops, their attributes will increase and this drives the increase in CA, not the other way around. So it is important to have effective training for your players and give them game time at an appropriate level. For players 18 and younger, training is the most important. Above 18 getting adequate game time at an appropriate level becomes more important than training. Of course, a player also needs a good personality and determination in order to develop. A player with a poor personality may benefit from mentoring by a more senior player with a good personality.
Remember that the PA acts as a cap on the CA and hence the attributes. The player development does not depend on PA i.e. a young player with 180 PA will not necessarily develop faster than one with 100 PA. It simply means that the 100 PA player will reach his limit sooner and hence stop developing.
For training, you can look to improve any weak attributes by selecting an appropriate additional focus that covers those attributes. The player will then spend more training time on those attributes causing them to rise leading to an increase in CA. You can look at the weights to decide which attributes are important for the players position. For example, Central Defenders have high weights for Decisions and Marking so you may choose to use 'Defensive Positioning' as that focusses on Marking, Positioning and Decisions. Role training covers several attributes that are considered key for a particular role.
Higher weighted attributes will essentially use up more CA than lower weighted ones. If a player already has a decent value for a highly-weighted attribute, further development in that attribute is essentially at the expense of potential growth in other attributes. So if you have a striker with 17 for Finishing and still some room for development, it could be better spent increasing his poor heading ability rather than trying to get him to have 20 for Finishing. Basically, try and develop well-rounded players with decent values in all the relevant attributes for their position and role. Regularly check on the training progress and change focus to better spread the development across attributes.
Current Ability
CA is a translation. It takes the attribute ratings, along with a few hidden attributes and calculates all of it into a number between 0 and 200. At that point in time, with those exact stats, that is the CA of the player.
This does not mean that if someone were to play out of this world, they would have a CA of 200, rather CA is the calculation of the overall player’s ability based on their stats. Not a form calculation.
CA can fluctuate, it is not static. As a player improves or decreases throughout the simulation, their CA can fluctuate accordingly. You as the manager do not see an overall increase or decrease in a set number as in FIFA, rather you see the attribute fluctuations within your player over time.
Potential Ability
PA is like CA, rather than it being a current representation of a player; PA is the potential that a player can reach. However, it does not mean that they will achieve their potential as is the case in real life.
Again, this can be misjudged by your staff and even yourself, there are guides and development tools available on FMScout to help you grow your players - but nothing is ever set in stone.
A player will only ever reach their maximum potential if they develop under the right circumstances. It can depend on multiple factors such as; age, personality traits, playing time, club facilities, mental attributes, hidden attributes, and youth staff.
Therefore, it is crucial for you as a manager to keep an eye on your staff and your youth players and plan out what is best for them.
Mark said:
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.
Can we have the updated table about positions abilities and penaltys? FM21 had 6.5% in Accomplished and in FM22 has 8.5%?
dzek said: Can we have the updated table about positions abilities and penaltys? FM21 had 6.5% in Accomplished and in FM22 has 8.5%?
I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Hope this helps.
Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Hope this helps.
@Mark Just curious if there's an inverse formula for this? For instance say I was looking for a player that was out of position that I wanted to convert and figure out their GS Rating if they went from 1 in a position to 20 (extreme example, but lets roll with it). If I have a CM that is a 1 for the position rating and is a 60% GS Rating, it's not as simple as adding the ~40% to that if he became a 20 in the position rating and becomes a 100% for the CM rating - so just curious if it's something you've looked into. Thanks!
Could anyone please explain me why role rating doesn't matter?
I have guy who is 86% rated as an Advanced Forward, but only 79% as a Fast Striker.
Does it mean that someone who's rated 81% as a Fast Striker, but worse as an Advanced Forward will still perform better than my guy?
Another example - year 2026 in my Schalke save:
Vestergaard (CB) = 77% positional rating // 86,3% role rating as BPD
Katinic (CB) = 85,4% positional rating // 85,6% role rating as BPD
Who starts? Based on role rating Vestergaard is favourite by a small margin, but when looking at positional rating - bench warmer.
Why is the difference so big? Is there a thread from where I could understand this better? If not, could anyone ELI5 this please?
@kvasir I have asked this before, but the answer is frankly Katinic is better (easily) by the Pace/Accel alone. Look at the Attributes Table for reference. Anyways, the Role does not matter because the position testing has meant that certain positions require certain attributes regardless of their role.
kvasir said: Could anyone please explain me why role rating doesn't matter?
I have guy who is 86% rated as an Advanced Forward, but only 79% as a Fast Striker.
Does it mean that someone who's rated 81% as a Fast Striker, but worse as an Advanced Forward will still perform better than my guy?
Another example - year 2026 in my Schalke save:
Vestergaard (CB) = 77% positional rating // 86,3% role rating as BPD
Katinic (CB) = 85,4% positional rating // 85,6% role rating as BPD
Who starts? Based on role rating Vestergaard is favourite by a small margin, but when looking at positional rating - bench warmer.
Why is the difference so big? Is there a thread from where I could understand this better? If not, could anyone ELI5 this please?
Probably role rating considers the attributes from the role, which are not the best for performance. Meanwhile, position rating uses the filter, which is optimized. I would just ignore role rating and focus on position alone. The first defender in your pictures is clearly stronger than the second, by a large margin.
@saycarramrod @ZaZ thank you kindly! Understood.
saycarramrod said: @Mark Just curious if there's an inverse formula for this? For instance say I was looking for a player that was out of position that I wanted to convert and figure out their GS Rating if they went from 1 in a position to 20 (extreme example, but lets roll with it). If I have a CM that is a 1 for the position rating and is a 60% GS Rating, it's not as simple as adding the ~40% to that if he became a 20 in the position rating and becomes a 100% for the CM rating - so just curious if it's something you've looked into. Thanks!
I think the best way to do this is looking at the general rating for each position which is at the following post
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/13851/
@Mark Which rating do you look at for STs? Fast Striker or Target Striker?