Yarema said: Pretty sure you can get a new position to 20/20 unless they changed something in FM26, quite easily actually. New position might trigger some attribute relocation though due to different CA weights. Expand
tam1236 said: You can - tested many times. Especially at youngsters and with close positions. Of course it depends on versatility hidden attribute.
In theory professionalism is better - somebody on yt tested that there is no chance to make a good player with low prof. and sometimes it happens when a determination is low. But irl players with really low profess. are very, very few and very, very far between in FM base and in newgen. Balotelli is a lonely knight. And low determination you can see quite often Expand
I'll take your word for it on the position proficiency. I haven't done any testing on it, I've just always had the assumption from way back that 18 is the limit and I don't retrain players to new positions in my own saves.
I'll probably do a quick test of it to make sure later and update my main post later to reflect the fact that 20 proficiency can be trained.
In regards to pro vs det, aren't both just random generated for newgens now? To me, newgens are the main source of high PA signings. If I search in genie scout for players >140 PA w/ det 10< I get 472 players, 598 for pro 10<. So I still think it's clear if you had to choose one to search for, it would be high professionalism.
I've been having a rethink on my ideal player templates, trying to improve them. In testing certain changes to attributes one-by-one I've had some interesting results.
I'll explain my process a bit first. Let's take a more nuanced attribute, 'dribbling'.
First I look at other people's findings:
HarvestGreen22, using a very artificial setup method (all attributes 10 bar the one being tested) and assessing without regard for position, claims dribbling is 4th most impactful attribute and follows a largely but not entirely linear benefit through 1-20.
And then there's the FM Arena testing of course.
Orion uses a different method, he derives his attribute values from the match ratings from the actual leagues as they exist in the game, and he does it for each position. For the DR position, dribbling is ranked 6th. For DC, it is not in the top 8.
But for DR and DC, I plan to give them perhaps ~14 and ~16 dribbling respectively in my updated ideal templates. This is for several reasons:
1. With the Knap tactic I'm using, DC has 'dribble more' instruction. Normally this would be an automatic ~2 boost for me. 2. Dribbling has a very low 1.0 weighting for DC. After doing the math on it's relative value once weighted, it's clear this is worth setting very high. 3. I've read a comment that perhaps the match engine favors dribbling in general, not necessarily because dribbling is good in itself, but because simply continuing to run with the ball prevents other calculations coming into play. For instance, if a player decides to pass instead, then a decision/technique/etc error may occur, and all these calculations cause time delays. 4. According to the SI staff hints from long ago, dribbling combines well with high pace & acceleration. It intriguingly adds 'don't have too many dribblers as they'll tend to ignore any passing tactic you might have'. 5. Someone (HarvestGreen22?) theorized that attributes are simultaneously ability and tendency. Given that I expect my DC and DR to still do a fair bit of passing, that means dribbling needs to very high to take precedence. 6. A dampening factor must be applied, which is the actual availability of the attribute value. In a save I've loaded up, there are 489 DCs who are 100+ PA w/ 12+ dribbling. There are only 18 who have 14+ dribbling. Technicals decline or stagnate with HarvestGreen22's optimal training. Let's say you could take 1 of the 120 players (or newgen) with 13 drib and boost it by 1-2 with training, that's 14-15 max dribbling you're looking at. For DR it's a bit better, a small handful already start with 16. If it were not for this reason, I would get 20 drib for both positions (this is what I'm trying to communicate through my 'high' ideal templates).
In this case it's quite clear that regardless of whether the speculations are true or not, it's well established that dribbling is high performance and/or low cost. You can safely assume it without even running tests.
But sometimes there are contradictions, or nuances that haven't been explored enough, and these I perform tests to clarify.
I seem to be finding that technique and flair aren't always bad as HarvestGreen22 found them to be. Technique seems best at ~6 for most positions, flair I have around ~12. I get at least about ~10% performance loss if I drop either to 1, and 20 technique comes at high CA cost but does no better. I'm not sure what is going on here exactly. Perhaps it is that technique increases the number and quality of so-called 'tricky passes' - too much would detract from dribbling, too little would result in exponentially more lost possession, '6' takes advantage of only the most assured & promising tricky passes to nab a few extra goals that make up for any lost possession - particularly in top leagues, where the easier chances are very few and far between. Pure speculation of course.
Some others I wonder about are strength, agility and stamina. I figure that knap tactics can be weaponized against you in just the same way by certain AI managers, and that attributes have direct counters. So the counter to your AML with 20 speed (acc then pace) making a 10m charge towards goal cutting in from the left flank may be 15 agility (rapid direction change to sideways left) + 10 acc/pace to reach your AML in 3m the time it takes him to do the 10m. So if your DC has 20 agil/acc/pace, good luck to your opponent.
Yet we also see that HarvestGreen22's results show high agil/strength does relatively little. But then again, in his test his opponent has DCs with 10 agil/strength. In a tussle or direction change, they'll neither totally dominate you nor lose every contest. And what is clear is that 10 - that is, equaling them - does the job. Now in the premier league the best DCs you'll be coming up against have agil/pace/acc/strength around ~15. My theory is that it's probably best to at least equal that for optimal play, as your chance of winning a tussle probably exponentially decreases the wider the gap between the DC's strength and your striker's strength.. so agil/strength 15 on a striker. And if you put strength down to 6, because strength doesn't seem to overall matter much, are you sure you know what you're getting yourself into, because HarvestGreen never put a 6 strength striker up against a 15 strength DC.
So that is why I am in two minds about these attributes in particular. What I've found so far is that 6 str/11 agil is significantly worse than 15 str/agil, but it's not that bad (~7% worse maybe). For comparison, I found difference in off the ball to be fairly negligible.
Note that in the SI staff notes, it says of agility 'agility is an attribute which is most necessary for players in top flight football...combined with high acceleration and dribbling a high agility rating can make for a great attacking footballer'. And if you look at top goalscorers, they seem to have high agil/str - Haaland has 17 agil/17 str.
I have also tried to replicate the success of the Chinese forum member who won the Premier League with 1 CA players a few years ago. I've managed to nab a few wins and draws, but overall no cigar. This tells me that there are indeed certain non-meta attributes that you need to have certain minimums in for success, which makes me feel more justified in being wary of 6 strength and 1 technique.
How much do the latest findings indicate the importance of pace/acc/dribbling and overall physical attributes?
Let me explain what I mean:
Player X: 18 Dribbling, 18 Pace, 3 Flair, 2 Technique Player Y: 15 Dribbling, 15 Pace, 6 Flair, 12 Technique
In this scenario, Player X would clearly perform better than Player Y, right? Expand
My impression is:
Orion's attribute coefficients are most accurate to use for each position, more effective than HarvestGreen22's attribute ratios
HOWEVER Pace/acc/jump 20 will override this (possibly some other attributes in certain positions too)
Pace/acc 15 will not be sufficient for the override. But this doesn't mean they still aren't highly valuable attributes, I'm just talking about having it override other attributes to the point where you could have a DC with 1 tackling, marking & positioning and it wouldn't matter, the 20 pace/acc player would still be better than the more balanced pace/acc 15 one
Details from old SI staff-written manuals, such as [forward runs - stamina, anticipation, off the ball] seem generally correct
HOWEVER such rules/combos can and should be broken to shift valuable high weighting attributes to valuable low weighting attributes. I.e. [DC - Positioning 2, Dribbling 1] should be changed to [DC - Positioning 1, Dribbling 20] (same CA cost) even though both Orion's attributes and the guides tell you to get positioning
My theory is that putting high weights on key attributes for the relevant position carries an implicit necessary corollary: those attributes are so heavily weighted simply to dissuade you from making 20 marking/tackling/strength DC beasts out of thin air, not because marking has 8x performance and your DC will actually only be hampered by ~1x performance if you decrease marking to 1. You take that 7x leftover and make 20 dribbling/finishing/long shot beasts instead and utilize them with a knap forward-throwing tactic
I've come to these conclusions by trying to get a 1 CA team to win the premier league. Here's a brief summary of how it's progressed:
Base my 1 CA players off my combined HarvestGreen22/Orion/etc templates - Near bottom of table. Base it more on Orion's attribute coefficients - Mid table finish. Try Orion's + decrease pace/acc to ~15 to put some 7s and 8s on some key mentals/technicals - Back to bottom of table. Do the opposite, try to get pace/acc/jump 20 for most players while preserving what I can of what Orion & manual says - High mid table finish (6th, 66 points). Reduce positioning to 1, get dribbling 20 instead, etc. - 4th, 74 points.
In your example, player X performs better. But there are some nuances. Flair and technique are generally unimportant, even detrimental in certain positions. However let me show something that astonished me:
Player X (ST): 20 pace, 19 acc, 1 jump, 1 strength, 6 finish Player Y (ST): 14 pace, 9 acc, 19 jump, 8 strength, 3 finish
You would assume that Player X is far superior. However I used these 2 players as STs in my 1 CA testing, and they got me to that 6th-66 points result. But what's more, Player Y scored 7.08 rating with 29 goals in 55 appearances, while Player X scored 6.42 rating with 15 goals in 57 appearances.
Now you could theorize and say, well that's because set piece headers are the only way you're going to score goals with 1 CA, or that perhaps the wingers are doing the work throwing it to the target man, or something else. But my point would be is that your attribute choice, even pace/acc and down to such low levels, is genuinely subject to your tactical setup in a certain minority of cases. Note that if either player were actually *bad*, the team wouldn't have ended up in 6th spot.
That does not mean we are back to where we started. I suspect ST target man is one of 2 or 3 roles that can work with low pace/acc. On the other end of the spectrum, for DC, 20 pace/acc is simply essential.
I suppose a general rule of thumb you could use is physicals over mentals, and mentals over technicals. If you choose strength 16 over 16 dribbling or 16 composure, it's almost a sideways trade and this is one of the worst you could do with this rule, whereas trading pace/acc for anything is going to be iffy or catastrophic.
I am a bit late to the party, but I have decided to play FM24 again and wait with FM26. Anyway, I was wondering if I also should team train my U21 and U19 teams + if I should individual train those players. If so, do I use the same team train schedule or a different one?
flob said: I am a bit late to the party, but I have decided to play FM24 again and wait with FM26. Anyway, I was wondering if I also should team train my U21 and U19 teams + if I should individual train those players. If so, do I use the same team train schedule or a different one? Expand Same training should be applied to all teams and players
However I see now the reason why HarvestGreen suggested full rest for young players before switching to a more balanced regime once they reach near 20 pace/acc. They need the pace/acc first to play good, but also the balanced regimes can be simply too slow to build pace/acc.
Even in a perfect test environment with 5 star coaching, pace/acc with the more balanced training is +6 after 4 years. In a more realistic test I did, it was only +1 acc and +2 pace after 3 years.
Part of what is going on here is that growth is highly influenced by CA-PA difference, so you really don't want to pump all that technical/mental CA into your player until the low CA pace/acc growth is largely done.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but I imagine the best way to go about it would be this:
First team - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack; full rest for congested weeks U21s - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack U18s - Full rest
Age 15 -> 17 (U18s) = +5 pace/acc Age 18 -> 20 (U21s) = +2 pace/acc
The thing is, certain key technicals such as dribbling are very hard to gain, so I think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you choose to start by losing drib points with full rest. But pace/acc is more important than drib. So it's debatable.
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing 2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes 3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138 115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183 Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251 200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167 DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175 GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195 outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173 outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170 no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170 outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135 GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173 outfield 1 agil - 109, +144 flair 20 - 112, +173 teamwork 20 - 114, +158 first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223 first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187 AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176 DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182 str 20 - 111, +216 DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190 AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207 DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results. Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now.
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing 2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes 3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138 115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183 Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251 200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167 DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175 GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195 outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173 outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170 no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170 outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135 GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173 outfield 1 agil - 109, +144 flair 20 - 112, +173 teamwork 20 - 114, +158 first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223 first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187 AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176 DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182 str 20 - 111, +216 DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190 AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207 DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results. Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now. Expand
How do I use this GS ratings? And what is it used for? Im using your shortlist filter in the main posting to search for new players for my squad on GS
Didico said: How do I use this GS ratings? And what is it used for? Im using your shortlist filter in the main posting to search for new players for my squad on GS Expand
Didico said: I know. I know how to download it in Genie Scout. I just dont know how to "use" this, how this ratings can help when i search for players in my squad. Expand
It helps you find the best meta players. Ratings depend on values you put in. If you don't adjust these ratings in Genie Scout then you will keep using default ones (I believe), so if you sort players out by Best rating then it's not really gonna show you the best players as you keep using default (non-meta) values for ratings. That's the gist of it.
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing 2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes 3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138 115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183 Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251 200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167 DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175 GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195 outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173 outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170 no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170 outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135 GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173 outfield 1 agil - 109, +144 flair 20 - 112, +173 teamwork 20 - 114, +158 first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223 first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187 AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176 DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182 str 20 - 111, +216 DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190 AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207 DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results. Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now. Expand
Didico said: Im using George's ratings and filtering the best U22 CB's that are south american, under value 15M. I have to go to best DC Rating, am i doing right? Expand Correct
A few extra things I left out of my post:
Genie Scout ratings will be ~70% max. This is necessary, don't try and change this, I put the weight as high as I can but Genie Scout limits it to 120 so I can't make it nicer.
The height values I give on the positions mean something. They are the minimum height you need to have a chance of getting 20 jumping reach off the bat, but more importantly what you need if you intend to train to 20, as the meta training only increases jump reach by ~2 over 4 years. Kudos to ClaudeJ for pointing out this interesting find that comes from an Italian official FM researcher guide page. They tell the low-level researchers to assign jump reach according to this table:
And Aerial Reach for GK:
I put pace/acc as 20 in my templates, but I'll re-emphasize that the rest of the attributes represent high/low attribute values in existing players. I think it's kinda useful, because while we know now that 1 decisions and 20 dribbling is ideal, what we really need to know is whether or not a player with 6 decisions or 14 dribbling is the best we're going to be able to realistically find. With these templates, you can look at a DC with 13 dribbling and realize, this is actually a valuable find.
Tested the old templates to compare, and also tested the new templates without attribute availability limits (i.e. 20 agil for GK instead of 17; 1 decisions instead of 6):
119.6 CA average (new templates) no limits - 114, +223 | 114, +204 Old templates 139.2 CA average - 110, +221 | 112, +172 | 114, +177 | 114, +167 | 114, +206
To make it fair I made all 0 CA attributes for the old templates the same, except flair and aggression. The results were a bit all over the place, not sure why.
+182.2 for new templates, +188.6 for old templates, but +17% CA cost for old templates, so overall the new templates are about ~14% better.
My 1 CA testing was run with the same conditions, so you can also add this to compare:
I forgot to mention that I did a quick test of my Genie Scout ratings before posting, as I'm really not sure if it works as intended.
I took Luton (relegation candidate in premier league), removed their players, and added 15 players who cost 3mil pounds or less who were high in the Genie Scout ratings. Average value *after* transferring to Luton was 3.1mil pounds. Value of top 15 default players was ~10mil pounds average. Using the knap tactic and blue set piece routines, results were:
Unlike the attribute template results, this isn't clear cut enough to be certain it's working as intended. Seems like it's doing alright though.
Samet2772 said: **Hello, if I use this file in FM 26 Genie Scout, will it work?** Expand I assume the ratings files are compatible between versions
My data is for FM24, but I don't think much changed for FM26. I heard long shots got a boost in particular, so maybe make long shots '3' instead of '1' say.
That's a 32% drop in performance. It is important to note though that Orion found the difference between 10 pressure and 20 pressure to only be 10%, but even that is significant.
This doesn't effect my templates, as they have 20 pressure, but I will have to update my Genie Scout ratings file.
The other one I'm particularly interested in is important matches. Orion said important matches makes ~6% difference. My results:
115 CA templates important matches 1 - 107, +168 | 108, +175
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If I search in genie scout for players >140 PA w/ det 10< I get 472 players, 598 for pro 10<. So I still think it's clear if you had to choose one to search for, it would be high professionalism. Expand
Check how many do you have newgens/players with det<5 and then how many with prof<5 - then we can talk - btw 9/10 are medium values - of course if tests are not only editor generated theory. And not only PA>140 because this filter information is nothing. Especially if applied to newgens.
tam1236 said: Check how many do you have newgens/players with det<5 and then how many with prof<5 - then we can talk - btw 9/10 are medium values - of course if tests are not only editor generated theory. And not only PA>140 because this filter information is nothing. Especially if applied to newgens. Expand Interesting.. I had assumed that after they got rid of national personality templates, they replaced it with a purely random assignment of them.
SI said at the time:
Rather than using a template based on the averages of existing players of a certain nationality, all personality attributes of newgen players are now generated randomly for every nationality
The new system Sports Interactive moved to abandoned the nation-based averages and replaced them with a system that gives newgens a random set of attributes based on their role and position
If I search for pro 5< there seems to be an equal representation of positions, but I do notice that 80% of them also have det 5<. I also notice that for both 5< pro and >18 pro, there are often repeating clubs (i.e. 3-5 players from the same club in the list).
One club I looked at (San Francisco City FC) that had 2 x 19 pro newgens, they had no staff, not even a manager. They have terrible facilities. I couldn't work out any possible correlates.
You are quite right in the points you make and there are indeed a lot more low 5< det newgens than 5< pro newgens. They seem to converge at ~12, and going by Orion's FM22 test of hidden attributes, pro actually matters less than det at this point (20 vs 10 pro = +5.6%, 20 vs 10 det = +12.7%, whereas 10 vs 1 pro = +46.3%, 10 vs 1 det = +10.2%). It holds true for existing players too, not just newgens. Then again, from memory pro does better for training than det.
Putting it all together, I guess det should be weighted in genie scout say 1.5x pro.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I forgot to mention that I did a quick test of my Genie Scout ratings before posting, as I'm really not sure if it works as intended.
I took Luton (relegation candidate in premier league), removed their players, and added 15 players who cost 3mil pounds or less who were high in the Genie Scout ratings. Average value *after* transferring to Luton was 3.1mil pounds. Value of top 15 default players was ~10mil pounds average. Using the knap tactic and blue set piece routines, results were:
Unlike the attribute template results, this isn't clear cut enough to be certain it's working as intended. Seems like it's doing alright though.
I assume the ratings files are compatible between versions
My data is for FM24, but I don't think much changed for FM26. I heard long shots got a boost in particular, so maybe make long shots '3' instead of '1' say. Expand
What is the average rating of the players that you bought?
Didico said: What is the average rating of the players that you bought? Expand Taking one from the middle and applying latest genie scout ratings I haven't uploaded yet (position is AMR):
mohamed salah 77.28% messi 71.13% jack grealish 66.83% my player 66.30%
rank 102nd
Highest valued player (ST) was:
mbappe 77.59% haaland 77.25% raheem sterling 69.09% my player 68.08%
For the FM26 version I've simply made some changes to a few of the attributes based on HarvestGreen's FM26 testing, so it may be less accurate.
I've also updated WB/MC/AMC so they're reasonably usable now, but they're just copies of FB & DM.
The main changes have been to the hidden attributes. Some very important changes here.
For those interested, here is also some rationale behind the weightings I've chosen:
Let's take long shots as first example, because I've given long shots very low weighting (1 or 2) in spite of both HarvestGreen22's findings (low moderate positive effect, similar to finishing or composure, which I give around ~8) and the fact that long shots have low CA cost in pretty much every position. Well in my 1 CA testing, I found that switching between 20 and 1 long shots made no observable difference in performance. And when I looked where goals were scored from in the in-game analytics, virtually none from long shots, and my DC with 20 long shots scored 1 or 2 at most over the season. And then there is also my own purely speculative theory that the knap tactic isn't designed for throwing the ball away on distant pot shots, and even if it is, it probably requires high levels of 'vision' and whatnot to pull off. Contrast all this info to pace, which it's clear as day even 1 point extra in makes a difference. So I figure my starting point is, I wouldn't trade 1 point of pace on a DC for 20 points of long shots - that makes it's weighting a maximum of '4' when pace is '100'. Now if I look at DL, long shots has a CA weight of just '1' and I gave it weighting of '1' in genie scout, whereas for DC I gave it '2' - and of course, neither of these are '4'. Consider that for DL, dribbling is also '1' CA weight, and it does actually matter. But I also have to weigh up what other attributes take precedence before long shots. Take strength - it's a fairly costly attribute ('4' weight), but it demonstrably has at least has some performance effect. Would I rather 5 strength on my DL, or 20 long shots? I think the 5 strength is going to perform a little better, but I wouldn't even trade 20 strength for 1 pace partly because of performance, partly because of the high CA cost (we can't have everything). So I give pace 100 weight, strength 3, and long shots 1.
Now if you read all that, you will realize that what I'm doing is quite subjective and prone to imprecision. I prefer precision, and this is largely possible with attribute testing, but unfortunately filtering methods don't work that way - the more precise you are, the less results you get, or conversely you start trawling through a few hundred laxly bounded results but only get as far as the 7th player you pick out and unwittingly choose a 17 long 16 pace 15 acc player over a 8 long 18 pace 18 acc player that was further down the list because it was too tedious to go through them all. Filter weightings alleviate this somewhat by creating a kind of hierarchy of attributes, so those 18 pace/acc players will be near top of your list no matter what. But if you assign too much high (or even moderate) weights to too many attributes, you muddy the hierarchy and end up with at the top of your list a complete dog's breakfast of a player that is 18 long 16 tack 17 str 12 pac 14 acc 20 ant and apparently a 78.41% rating.
And sometimes the attributes are almost purely subjective or circumstantial in ways you cannot pin down to a precise number. For instance, natural fitness technically doesn't affect performance much, so long as you manage it right - but managing a squad's match fitness I find requires you to have say ~30% of your players with high natural fitness so they can skip games to allow for a sizable squad without ill consequence. Loyalty.. I'm not aware it has any impact on performance at all, yet we all know the value of a loyal player - personally I figure I'd be willing to trade 1 each of pace & acc for it. For someone else it might be more or less, but I have to put some figure there.
One more I will make an example of is professionalism. I've reduced it to '16' in this update, which is relatively low now. Professionalism is actually very important for both performance and training, and it's 0 CA cost. But it turns out professionalism under 12 is quite rare, and the benefits of 12 -> 20 are much less than 1 -> 12. I do calculations based on all of this info to get a true relative figure. Although again a bit wishy washy, this type is actually quite solidly grounded in the performance stats.
Thanks for the update and the file, will test it out!
Just have to ask on the topic of certain attributes, do you have like a summary of what you would consider the minimum viable value for certain attributes. For example, you have the example of 12 for professionalism being what you would consider a minimum value for 'good' player.
I guess what I am asking is to combine your ratings file with a filter for certain attributes as well, although file will do a great job by itself and this may be unnecessary. Apologies if I've missed it in another post.
tom8 said: Thanks for the update and the file, will test it out!
Just have to ask on the topic of certain attributes, do you have like a summary of what you would consider the minimum viable value for certain attributes. For example, you have the example of 12 for professionalism being what you would consider a minimum value for 'good' player.
I guess what I am asking is to combine your ratings file with a filter for certain attributes as well, although file will do a great job by itself and this may be unnecessary. Apologies if I've missed it in another post. Expand
GK - agil 11, pace 4, work 6, aer 15, ref 9, comp 4 DL/DR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, work 6 DC - acc 12, pace 12, jump 16, drib 13 DM - acc 13, pace 13, work 6 AML/AMR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, pos 13, work 6 ST - acc 13, pace 13, work 6
Minimum 0 CA attributes for all positions (these I'm more guesstimating than the above): 6 det, 6 nat, 8 pressure, 8 pro, 14< dirt, 14< injury, 6 loyal, 8 consist, 6 imp match.
Attributes in italics will be difficult to find and you should probably leave out of your filter, even though they are important.
The idea here is that with training, you will reach what I consider the minimums for what accounts for the bulk of max performance. I actually wanted to make 'pre-training' templates, but I found the effects of training to be too variable when comparing idealized isolated tests vs realistic premier league use, and I don't know yet what is actually realistic or typical. But with this filter here, I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training over 4 years, resulting in pace 12 > 16, which is the bare minimum I believe to get tangible victories (for premier league). It may fall short, but it will still serve it's function of separating most of the chaff from the wheat.
In regards to pro 12 being necessary, what I meant was that primarily pro 12< is rare, and we also know the following (source: Orion's FM22 testing):
So actually it's pro ~10 that is necessary, but I would guess that ~8 is not too bad either, based on how work rate matters a great deal up to just 6 then it tails off.
YildizAli said: Where do I paste this? Expand .grf file goes into (FM Genie Scout folder) > Ratings. Then in Genie Scout, press top left button > Rating and load the file.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: DL/DR - (...) work 6 DM - (...) work 6 AML/AMR - (...) work 6 ST - (...) work 6 Expand I think it was HarvestGreen22, who proposed, after testing , not to accept field players under 7 work rate because of fatal negative impact. This attributes in italics for these positions (presume the rest are ok too) will be actually nearly impossible to find outside the editor or top stars, I'm afraid. And with such unreal demandings You still didn't get jumping for ST and only 13 pac/acc and 12 for DC?
Yarema said: Pretty sure you can get a new position to 20/20 unless they changed something in FM26, quite easily actually. New position might trigger some attribute relocation though due to different CA weights.
tam1236 said: You can - tested many times. Especially at youngsters and with close positions. Of course it depends on versatility hidden attribute.
In theory professionalism is better - somebody on yt tested that there is no chance to make a good player with low prof. and sometimes it happens when a determination is low. But irl players with really low profess. are very, very few and very, very far between in FM base and in newgen. Balotelli is a lonely knight. And low determination you can see quite often
I'll take your word for it on the position proficiency. I haven't done any testing on it, I've just always had the assumption from way back that 18 is the limit and I don't retrain players to new positions in my own saves.
I'll probably do a quick test of it to make sure later and update my main post later to reflect the fact that 20 proficiency can be trained.
In regards to pro vs det, aren't both just random generated for newgens now? To me, newgens are the main source of high PA signings. If I search in genie scout for players >140 PA w/ det 10< I get 472 players, 598 for pro 10<. So I still think it's clear if you had to choose one to search for, it would be high professionalism.
I've been having a rethink on my ideal player templates, trying to improve them. In testing certain changes to attributes one-by-one I've had some interesting results.
I'll explain my process a bit first. Let's take a more nuanced attribute, 'dribbling'.
First I look at other people's findings:
HarvestGreen22, using a very artificial setup method (all attributes 10 bar the one being tested) and assessing without regard for position, claims dribbling is 4th most impactful attribute and follows a largely but not entirely linear benefit through 1-20.
And then there's the FM Arena testing of course.
Orion uses a different method, he derives his attribute values from the match ratings from the actual leagues as they exist in the game, and he does it for each position. For the DR position, dribbling is ranked 6th. For DC, it is not in the top 8.
But for DR and DC, I plan to give them perhaps ~14 and ~16 dribbling respectively in my updated ideal templates. This is for several reasons:
1. With the Knap tactic I'm using, DC has 'dribble more' instruction. Normally this would be an automatic ~2 boost for me.
2. Dribbling has a very low 1.0 weighting for DC. After doing the math on it's relative value once weighted, it's clear this is worth setting very high.
3. I've read a comment that perhaps the match engine favors dribbling in general, not necessarily because dribbling is good in itself, but because simply continuing to run with the ball prevents other calculations coming into play. For instance, if a player decides to pass instead, then a decision/technique/etc error may occur, and all these calculations cause time delays.
4. According to the SI staff hints from long ago, dribbling combines well with high pace & acceleration. It intriguingly adds 'don't have too many dribblers as they'll tend to ignore any passing tactic you might have'.
5. Someone (HarvestGreen22?) theorized that attributes are simultaneously ability and tendency. Given that I expect my DC and DR to still do a fair bit of passing, that means dribbling needs to very high to take precedence.
6. A dampening factor must be applied, which is the actual availability of the attribute value. In a save I've loaded up, there are 489 DCs who are 100+ PA w/ 12+ dribbling. There are only 18 who have 14+ dribbling. Technicals decline or stagnate with HarvestGreen22's optimal training. Let's say you could take 1 of the 120 players (or newgen) with 13 drib and boost it by 1-2 with training, that's 14-15 max dribbling you're looking at. For DR it's a bit better, a small handful already start with 16. If it were not for this reason, I would get 20 drib for both positions (this is what I'm trying to communicate through my 'high' ideal templates).
In this case it's quite clear that regardless of whether the speculations are true or not, it's well established that dribbling is high performance and/or low cost. You can safely assume it without even running tests.
But sometimes there are contradictions, or nuances that haven't been explored enough, and these I perform tests to clarify.
I seem to be finding that technique and flair aren't always bad as HarvestGreen22 found them to be. Technique seems best at ~6 for most positions, flair I have around ~12. I get at least about ~10% performance loss if I drop either to 1, and 20 technique comes at high CA cost but does no better. I'm not sure what is going on here exactly. Perhaps it is that technique increases the number and quality of so-called 'tricky passes' - too much would detract from dribbling, too little would result in exponentially more lost possession, '6' takes advantage of only the most assured & promising tricky passes to nab a few extra goals that make up for any lost possession - particularly in top leagues, where the easier chances are very few and far between. Pure speculation of course.
Some others I wonder about are strength, agility and stamina. I figure that knap tactics can be weaponized against you in just the same way by certain AI managers, and that attributes have direct counters. So the counter to your AML with 20 speed (acc then pace) making a 10m charge towards goal cutting in from the left flank may be 15 agility (rapid direction change to sideways left) + 10 acc/pace to reach your AML in 3m the time it takes him to do the 10m. So if your DC has 20 agil/acc/pace, good luck to your opponent.
Yet we also see that HarvestGreen22's results show high agil/strength does relatively little. But then again, in his test his opponent has DCs with 10 agil/strength. In a tussle or direction change, they'll neither totally dominate you nor lose every contest. And what is clear is that 10 - that is, equaling them - does the job. Now in the premier league the best DCs you'll be coming up against have agil/pace/acc/strength around ~15. My theory is that it's probably best to at least equal that for optimal play, as your chance of winning a tussle probably exponentially decreases the wider the gap between the DC's strength and your striker's strength.. so agil/strength 15 on a striker. And if you put strength down to 6, because strength doesn't seem to overall matter much, are you sure you know what you're getting yourself into, because HarvestGreen never put a 6 strength striker up against a 15 strength DC.
So that is why I am in two minds about these attributes in particular. What I've found so far is that 6 str/11 agil is significantly worse than 15 str/agil, but it's not that bad (~7% worse maybe). For comparison, I found difference in off the ball to be fairly negligible.
Note that in the SI staff notes, it says of agility 'agility is an attribute which is most necessary for players in top flight football...combined with high acceleration and dribbling a high agility rating can make for a great attacking footballer'. And if you look at top goalscorers, they seem to have high agil/str - Haaland has 17 agil/17 str.
I have also tried to replicate the success of the Chinese forum member who won the Premier League with 1 CA players a few years ago. I've managed to nab a few wins and draws, but overall no cigar. This tells me that there are indeed certain non-meta attributes that you need to have certain minimums in for success, which makes me feel more justified in being wary of 6 strength and 1 technique.
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed
How much do the latest findings indicate the importance of pace/acc/dribbling and overall physical attributes?
Let me explain what I mean:
Player X: 18 Dribbling, 18 Pace, 3 Flair, 2 Technique
Player Y: 15 Dribbling, 15 Pace, 6 Flair, 12 Technique
In this scenario, Player X would clearly perform better than Player Y, right?
Sanfierro said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed
How much do the latest findings indicate the importance of pace/acc/dribbling and overall physical attributes?
Let me explain what I mean:
Player X: 18 Dribbling, 18 Pace, 3 Flair, 2 Technique
Player Y: 15 Dribbling, 15 Pace, 6 Flair, 12 Technique
In this scenario, Player X would clearly perform better than Player Y, right?
My impression is:
Orion's attribute coefficients are most accurate to use for each position, more effective than HarvestGreen22's attribute ratios
HOWEVER Pace/acc/jump 20 will override this (possibly some other attributes in certain positions too)
Pace/acc 15 will not be sufficient for the override. But this doesn't mean they still aren't highly valuable attributes, I'm just talking about having it override other attributes to the point where you could have a DC with 1 tackling, marking & positioning and it wouldn't matter, the 20 pace/acc player would still be better than the more balanced pace/acc 15 one
Details from old SI staff-written manuals, such as [forward runs - stamina, anticipation, off the ball] seem generally correct
HOWEVER such rules/combos can and should be broken to shift valuable high weighting attributes to valuable low weighting attributes. I.e. [DC - Positioning 2, Dribbling 1] should be changed to [DC - Positioning 1, Dribbling 20] (same CA cost) even though both Orion's attributes and the guides tell you to get positioning
My theory is that putting high weights on key attributes for the relevant position carries an implicit necessary corollary: those attributes are so heavily weighted simply to dissuade you from making 20 marking/tackling/strength DC beasts out of thin air, not because marking has 8x performance and your DC will actually only be hampered by ~1x performance if you decrease marking to 1. You take that 7x leftover and make 20 dribbling/finishing/long shot beasts instead and utilize them with a knap forward-throwing tactic
I've come to these conclusions by trying to get a 1 CA team to win the premier league. Here's a brief summary of how it's progressed:
Base my 1 CA players off my combined HarvestGreen22/Orion/etc templates - Near bottom of table.
Base it more on Orion's attribute coefficients - Mid table finish.
Try Orion's + decrease pace/acc to ~15 to put some 7s and 8s on some key mentals/technicals - Back to bottom of table.
Do the opposite, try to get pace/acc/jump 20 for most players while preserving what I can of what Orion & manual says - High mid table finish (6th, 66 points).
Reduce positioning to 1, get dribbling 20 instead, etc. - 4th, 74 points.
In your example, player X performs better. But there are some nuances. Flair and technique are generally unimportant, even detrimental in certain positions. However let me show something that astonished me:
Player X (ST): 20 pace, 19 acc, 1 jump, 1 strength, 6 finish
Player Y (ST): 14 pace, 9 acc, 19 jump, 8 strength, 3 finish
You would assume that Player X is far superior. However I used these 2 players as STs in my 1 CA testing, and they got me to that 6th-66 points result. But what's more, Player Y scored 7.08 rating with 29 goals in 55 appearances, while Player X scored 6.42 rating with 15 goals in 57 appearances.
Now you could theorize and say, well that's because set piece headers are the only way you're going to score goals with 1 CA, or that perhaps the wingers are doing the work throwing it to the target man, or something else. But my point would be is that your attribute choice, even pace/acc and down to such low levels, is genuinely subject to your tactical setup in a certain minority of cases. Note that if either player were actually *bad*, the team wouldn't have ended up in 6th spot.
That does not mean we are back to where we started. I suspect ST target man is one of 2 or 3 roles that can work with low pace/acc. On the other end of the spectrum, for DC, 20 pace/acc is simply essential.
I suppose a general rule of thumb you could use is physicals over mentals, and mentals over technicals. If you choose strength 16 over 16 dribbling or 16 composure, it's almost a sideways trade and this is one of the worst you could do with this rule, whereas trading pace/acc for anything is going to be iffy or catastrophic.
Steelwood said: I don't think "GeorgeFloydOverdosed" is a particularly acceptable name for a Football Manager forum, do you?
wokeness is not acceptable in a football manager discussion. focus on the content of his post.
I am a bit late to the party, but I have decided to play FM24 again and wait with FM26. Anyway, I was wondering if I also should team train my U21 and U19 teams + if I should individual train those players. If so, do I use the same team train schedule or a different one?
flob said: I am a bit late to the party, but I have decided to play FM24 again and wait with FM26. Anyway, I was wondering if I also should team train my U21 and U19 teams + if I should individual train those players. If so, do I use the same team train schedule or a different one?
Same training should be applied to all teams and players
However I see now the reason why HarvestGreen suggested full rest for young players before switching to a more balanced regime once they reach near 20 pace/acc. They need the pace/acc first to play good, but also the balanced regimes can be simply too slow to build pace/acc.
Even in a perfect test environment with 5 star coaching, pace/acc with the more balanced training is +6 after 4 years. In a more realistic test I did, it was only +1 acc and +2 pace after 3 years.
Part of what is going on here is that growth is highly influenced by CA-PA difference, so you really don't want to pump all that technical/mental CA into your player until the low CA pace/acc growth is largely done.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but I imagine the best way to go about it would be this:
First team - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack; full rest for congested weeks
U21s - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack
U18s - Full rest
Age 15 -> 17 (U18s) = +5 pace/acc
Age 18 -> 20 (U21s) = +2 pace/acc
The thing is, certain key technicals such as dribbling are very hard to gain, so I think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you choose to start by losing drib points with full rest. But pace/acc is more important than drib. So it's debatable.
I will update the post soon with my revised ideal player templates:
115 CA average:
200 CA:
Genie Scout ratings file:
https://files.catbox.moe/f2052w.grf
GK, FB, DC, DM, Winger, Fast ST are valid.
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing
2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes
3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138
115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251
200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167
DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175
GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195
outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173
outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170
no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170
outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135
GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173
outfield 1 agil - 109, +144
flair 20 - 112, +173
teamwork 20 - 114, +158
first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223
first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187
AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176
DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182
str 20 - 111, +216
DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190
AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207
DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results.
Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I will update the post soon with my revised ideal player templates:
115 CA average:
200 CA:
Genie Scout ratings file:
https://files.catbox.moe/f2052w.grf
GK, FB, DC, DM, Winger, Fast ST are valid.
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing
2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes
3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138
115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251
200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167
DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175
GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195
outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173
outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170
no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170
outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135
GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173
outfield 1 agil - 109, +144
flair 20 - 112, +173
teamwork 20 - 114, +158
first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223
first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187
AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176
DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182
str 20 - 111, +216
DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190
AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207
DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results.
Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now.
How do I use this GS ratings? And what is it used for?
Im using your shortlist filter in the main posting to search for new players for my squad on GS
Didico said: How do I use this GS ratings? And what is it used for?
Im using your shortlist filter in the main posting to search for new players for my squad on GS
FM Genie Scout.
clox said: FM Genie Scout.
I know. I know how to download it in Genie Scout. I just dont know how to "use" this, how this ratings can help when i search for players in my squad.
Didico said: I know. I know how to download it in Genie Scout. I just dont know how to "use" this, how this ratings can help when i search for players in my squad.
It helps you find the best meta players. Ratings depend on values you put in. If you don't adjust these ratings in Genie Scout then you will keep using default ones (I believe), so if you sort players out by Best rating then it's not really gonna show you the best players as you keep using default (non-meta) values for ratings. That's the gist of it.
Im using George's ratings and filtering the best U22 CB's that are south american, under value 15M.
I have to go to best DC Rating, am i doing right?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I will update the post soon with my revised ideal player templates:
115 CA average:
200 CA:
Genie Scout ratings file:
https://files.catbox.moe/f2052w.grf
GK, FB, DC, DM, Winger, Fast ST are valid.
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing
2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes
3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138
115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251
200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167
DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175
GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195
outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173
outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170
no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170
outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135
GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173
outfield 1 agil - 109, +144
flair 20 - 112, +173
teamwork 20 - 114, +158
first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223
first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187
AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176
DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182
str 20 - 111, +216
DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190
AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207
DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results.
Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now.
wow
amazing work my friend
In Genie Scout you also need to reload your rating file every time the software updates.
Didico said: Im using George's ratings and filtering the best U22 CB's that are south american, under value 15M.
I have to go to best DC Rating, am i doing right?
Correct
A few extra things I left out of my post:
Genie Scout ratings will be ~70% max. This is necessary, don't try and change this, I put the weight as high as I can but Genie Scout limits it to 120 so I can't make it nicer.
The height values I give on the positions mean something. They are the minimum height you need to have a chance of getting 20 jumping reach off the bat, but more importantly what you need if you intend to train to 20, as the meta training only increases jump reach by ~2 over 4 years. Kudos to ClaudeJ for pointing out this interesting find that comes from an Italian official FM researcher guide page. They tell the low-level researchers to assign jump reach according to this table:
And Aerial Reach for GK:
I put pace/acc as 20 in my templates, but I'll re-emphasize that the rest of the attributes represent high/low attribute values in existing players. I think it's kinda useful, because while we know now that 1 decisions and 20 dribbling is ideal, what we really need to know is whether or not a player with 6 decisions or 14 dribbling is the best we're going to be able to realistically find. With these templates, you can look at a DC with 13 dribbling and realize, this is actually a valuable find.
How do You train jumping reach? I remember from EBFM that jumping training was the only ineffective in physical group?
Tested the old templates to compare, and also tested the new templates without attribute availability limits (i.e. 20 agil for GK instead of 17; 1 decisions instead of 6):
119.6 CA average (new templates) no limits - 114, +223 | 114, +204
Old templates 139.2 CA average - 110, +221 | 112, +172 | 114, +177 | 114, +167 | 114, +206
To make it fair I made all 0 CA attributes for the old templates the same, except flair and aggression. The results were a bit all over the place, not sure why.
+182.2 for new templates, +188.6 for old templates, but +17% CA cost for old templates, so overall the new templates are about ~14% better.
My 1 CA testing was run with the same conditions, so you can also add this to compare:
1 CA templates (best single result) - 91, +78
**Hello, if I use this file in FM 26 Genie Scout, will it work?**
I forgot to mention that I did a quick test of my Genie Scout ratings before posting, as I'm really not sure if it works as intended.
I took Luton (relegation candidate in premier league), removed their players, and added 15 players who cost 3mil pounds or less who were high in the Genie Scout ratings. Average value *after* transferring to Luton was 3.1mil pounds. Value of top 15 default players was ~10mil pounds average. Using the knap tactic and blue set piece routines, results were:
Luton (3mil< pound players) 7th, 70, +33
Luton default players 5th, 77, +33
Unlike the attribute template results, this isn't clear cut enough to be certain it's working as intended. Seems like it's doing alright though.
Samet2772 said: **Hello, if I use this file in FM 26 Genie Scout, will it work?**
I assume the ratings files are compatible between versions
My data is for FM24, but I don't think much changed for FM26. I heard long shots got a boost in particular, so maybe make long shots '3' instead of '1' say.
I was surprised and intrigued by this finding by Orion in FM22 that pressure 1 supposedly results in 47% less performance than pressure 10.
So I've tested it, and it really is important:
115 CA templates pressure 1 - 102, +127 | 105, +119
That's a 32% drop in performance. It is important to note though that Orion found the difference between 10 pressure and 20 pressure to only be 10%, but even that is significant.
This doesn't effect my templates, as they have 20 pressure, but I will have to update my Genie Scout ratings file.
The other one I'm particularly interested in is important matches. Orion said important matches makes ~6% difference. My results:
115 CA templates important matches 1 - 107, +168 | 108, +175
So ~6% decrease, which matches Orion's finding.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If I search in genie scout for players >140 PA w/ det 10< I get 472 players, 598 for pro 10<. So I still think it's clear if you had to choose one to search for, it would be high professionalism.
Check how many do you have newgens/players with det<5 and then how many with prof<5 - then we can talk - btw 9/10 are medium values - of course if tests are not only editor generated theory. And not only PA>140 because this filter information is nothing. Especially if applied to newgens.
tam1236 said: Check how many do you have newgens/players with det<5 and then how many with prof<5 - then we can talk - btw 9/10 are medium values - of course if tests are not only editor generated theory. And not only PA>140 because this filter information is nothing. Especially if applied to newgens.
Interesting.. I had assumed that after they got rid of national personality templates, they replaced it with a purely random assignment of them.
SI said at the time:
Rather than using a template based on the averages of existing players of a certain nationality, all personality attributes of newgen players are now generated randomly for every nationality
The new system Sports Interactive moved to abandoned the nation-based averages and replaced them with a system that gives newgens a random set of attributes based on their role and position
If I search for pro 5< there seems to be an equal representation of positions, but I do notice that 80% of them also have det 5<. I also notice that for both 5< pro and >18 pro, there are often repeating clubs (i.e. 3-5 players from the same club in the list).
One club I looked at (San Francisco City FC) that had 2 x 19 pro newgens, they had no staff, not even a manager. They have terrible facilities. I couldn't work out any possible correlates.
You are quite right in the points you make and there are indeed a lot more low 5< det newgens than 5< pro newgens. They seem to converge at ~12, and going by Orion's FM22 test of hidden attributes, pro actually matters less than det at this point (20 vs 10 pro = +5.6%, 20 vs 10 det = +12.7%, whereas 10 vs 1 pro = +46.3%, 10 vs 1 det = +10.2%). It holds true for existing players too, not just newgens. Then again, from memory pro does better for training than det.
Putting it all together, I guess det should be weighted in genie scout say 1.5x pro.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I forgot to mention that I did a quick test of my Genie Scout ratings before posting, as I'm really not sure if it works as intended.
I took Luton (relegation candidate in premier league), removed their players, and added 15 players who cost 3mil pounds or less who were high in the Genie Scout ratings. Average value *after* transferring to Luton was 3.1mil pounds. Value of top 15 default players was ~10mil pounds average. Using the knap tactic and blue set piece routines, results were:
Luton (3mil< pound players) 7th, 70, +33
Luton default players 5th, 77, +33
Unlike the attribute template results, this isn't clear cut enough to be certain it's working as intended. Seems like it's doing alright though.
I assume the ratings files are compatible between versions
My data is for FM24, but I don't think much changed for FM26. I heard long shots got a boost in particular, so maybe make long shots '3' instead of '1' say.
What is the average rating of the players that you bought?
Didico said: What is the average rating of the players that you bought?
Taking one from the middle and applying latest genie scout ratings I haven't uploaded yet (position is AMR):
mohamed salah 77.28%
messi 71.13%
jack grealish 66.83%
my player 66.30%
rank 102nd
Highest valued player (ST) was:
mbappe 77.59%
haaland 77.25%
raheem sterling 69.09%
my player 68.08%
rank 60th
Updated Genie Scout ratings file for FM24:
https://files.catbox.moe/hrvdl8.grf
New file for FM26 users:
https://files.catbox.moe/r5xm3t.grf
For the FM26 version I've simply made some changes to a few of the attributes based on HarvestGreen's FM26 testing, so it may be less accurate.
I've also updated WB/MC/AMC so they're reasonably usable now, but they're just copies of FB & DM.
The main changes have been to the hidden attributes. Some very important changes here.
For those interested, here is also some rationale behind the weightings I've chosen:
Let's take long shots as first example, because I've given long shots very low weighting (1 or 2) in spite of both HarvestGreen22's findings (low moderate positive effect, similar to finishing or composure, which I give around ~8) and the fact that long shots have low CA cost in pretty much every position. Well in my 1 CA testing, I found that switching between 20 and 1 long shots made no observable difference in performance. And when I looked where goals were scored from in the in-game analytics, virtually none from long shots, and my DC with 20 long shots scored 1 or 2 at most over the season. And then there is also my own purely speculative theory that the knap tactic isn't designed for throwing the ball away on distant pot shots, and even if it is, it probably requires high levels of 'vision' and whatnot to pull off. Contrast all this info to pace, which it's clear as day even 1 point extra in makes a difference. So I figure my starting point is, I wouldn't trade 1 point of pace on a DC for 20 points of long shots - that makes it's weighting a maximum of '4' when pace is '100'. Now if I look at DL, long shots has a CA weight of just '1' and I gave it weighting of '1' in genie scout, whereas for DC I gave it '2' - and of course, neither of these are '4'. Consider that for DL, dribbling is also '1' CA weight, and it does actually matter. But I also have to weigh up what other attributes take precedence before long shots. Take strength - it's a fairly costly attribute ('4' weight), but it demonstrably has at least has some performance effect. Would I rather 5 strength on my DL, or 20 long shots? I think the 5 strength is going to perform a little better, but I wouldn't even trade 20 strength for 1 pace partly because of performance, partly because of the high CA cost (we can't have everything). So I give pace 100 weight, strength 3, and long shots 1.
Now if you read all that, you will realize that what I'm doing is quite subjective and prone to imprecision. I prefer precision, and this is largely possible with attribute testing, but unfortunately filtering methods don't work that way - the more precise you are, the less results you get, or conversely you start trawling through a few hundred laxly bounded results but only get as far as the 7th player you pick out and unwittingly choose a 17 long 16 pace 15 acc player over a 8 long 18 pace 18 acc player that was further down the list because it was too tedious to go through them all. Filter weightings alleviate this somewhat by creating a kind of hierarchy of attributes, so those 18 pace/acc players will be near top of your list no matter what. But if you assign too much high (or even moderate) weights to too many attributes, you muddy the hierarchy and end up with at the top of your list a complete dog's breakfast of a player that is 18 long 16 tack 17 str 12 pac 14 acc 20 ant and apparently a 78.41% rating.
And sometimes the attributes are almost purely subjective or circumstantial in ways you cannot pin down to a precise number. For instance, natural fitness technically doesn't affect performance much, so long as you manage it right - but managing a squad's match fitness I find requires you to have say ~30% of your players with high natural fitness so they can skip games to allow for a sizable squad without ill consequence. Loyalty.. I'm not aware it has any impact on performance at all, yet we all know the value of a loyal player - personally I figure I'd be willing to trade 1 each of pace & acc for it. For someone else it might be more or less, but I have to put some figure there.
One more I will make an example of is professionalism. I've reduced it to '16' in this update, which is relatively low now. Professionalism is actually very important for both performance and training, and it's 0 CA cost. But it turns out professionalism under 12 is quite rare, and the benefits of 12 -> 20 are much less than 1 -> 12. I do calculations based on all of this info to get a true relative figure. Although again a bit wishy washy, this type is actually quite solidly grounded in the performance stats.
Thanks for the update and the file, will test it out!
Just have to ask on the topic of certain attributes, do you have like a summary of what you would consider the minimum viable value for certain attributes. For example, you have the example of 12 for professionalism being what you would consider a minimum value for 'good' player.
I guess what I am asking is to combine your ratings file with a filter for certain attributes as well, although file will do a great job by itself and this may be unnecessary. Apologies if I've missed it in another post.
Where do I paste this?
tom8 said: Thanks for the update and the file, will test it out!
Just have to ask on the topic of certain attributes, do you have like a summary of what you would consider the minimum viable value for certain attributes. For example, you have the example of 12 for professionalism being what you would consider a minimum value for 'good' player.
I guess what I am asking is to combine your ratings file with a filter for certain attributes as well, although file will do a great job by itself and this may be unnecessary. Apologies if I've missed it in another post.
GK - agil 11, pace 4, work 6, aer 15, ref 9, comp 4
DL/DR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, work 6
DC - acc 12, pace 12, jump 16, drib 13
DM - acc 13, pace 13, work 6
AML/AMR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, pos 13, work 6
ST - acc 13, pace 13, work 6
Minimum 0 CA attributes for all positions (these I'm more guesstimating than the above): 6 det, 6 nat, 8 pressure, 8 pro, 14< dirt, 14< injury, 6 loyal, 8 consist, 6 imp match.
Attributes in italics will be difficult to find and you should probably leave out of your filter, even though they are important.
The idea here is that with training, you will reach what I consider the minimums for what accounts for the bulk of max performance. I actually wanted to make 'pre-training' templates, but I found the effects of training to be too variable when comparing idealized isolated tests vs realistic premier league use, and I don't know yet what is actually realistic or typical. But with this filter here, I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training over 4 years, resulting in pace 12 > 16, which is the bare minimum I believe to get tangible victories (for premier league). It may fall short, but it will still serve it's function of separating most of the chaff from the wheat.
In regards to pro 12 being necessary, what I meant was that primarily pro 12< is rare, and we also know the following (source: Orion's FM22 testing):
So actually it's pro ~10 that is necessary, but I would guess that ~8 is not too bad either, based on how work rate matters a great deal up to just 6 then it tails off.
YildizAli said: Where do I paste this?
.grf file goes into (FM Genie Scout folder) > Ratings. Then in Genie Scout, press top left button > Rating and load the file.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: DL/DR - (...) work 6
DM - (...) work 6
AML/AMR - (...) work 6
ST - (...) work 6
I think it was HarvestGreen22, who proposed, after testing , not to accept field players under 7 work rate because of fatal negative impact. This attributes in italics for these positions (presume the rest are ok too) will be actually nearly impossible to find outside the editor or top stars, I'm afraid. And with such unreal demandings You still didn't get jumping for ST and only 13 pac/acc and 12 for DC?