I'm sure many of you, including me, have wondered many times how much worse a player plays at a position if he doesn't have the highest( 'Natural' ) rating for it so to answer this question we've done some tests.
Please note, testing the position rating is a quite complicated task due to many factors so the numbers below aren't exact but quite accurate.
'Natural' rating is the highest position rating. If a player has 'Natural' rating for a position then he plays at full of his ability without any penalty.
'Accomplished' rating is about 10% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Competent' rating is about 15% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Unconvincing' rating is about 20% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Awkward' rating is about 35% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Ineffectual' rating is about 40% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
So a Striker who is unconvincing in the AM C position, but who is 20% better on their important attributes (Pace, Acc, Agility and Dribbling) will be as good if not better than a Natural AM C
Mark said: So a Striker who is unconvincing in the AM C position, but who is 20% better on their important attributes (Pace, Acc, Agility and Dribbling) will be as good if not better than a Natural AM C Expand
If we reduce the 'Acceleration' attribute of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 20%.
If we reduce the 'Acceleration' and 'Pace' attributes of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 40%.
If we reduce the 'Acceleration', 'Pace' and 'Agility' attributes of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 55%.
If we reduce the 'Acceleration', 'Pace', 'Agility' and 'Dribbling' attributes of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 67%.
ZaZ said: In other words, faster is better. Expand
ta2199 said: So to conclude: Attributes > Position familarity ? Expand
A 1% increase in 'Acceleration' increases the effectiveness of a player by about 2.1%.
If the attributes of two players are the same, except the Acceleration attribute and the 'Acceleration' attribute of the first player is '16' and the have the Acceleration attribute of the second player is '12' then the first player should be about 25% more effective than the second player.
If the first player is a 'Competent' AMC and the second player is a 'Natural' AMC then the first player should be about 12% more effective AMC.
But if the first player is an 'Ineffectual' AMC then the second player should be about 15% more effective AMC.
That means that if you have a player with much higher stats for those 4 attributes than the league average, you could play them anywhere in attack, regardless of their role ratings
Mark said: regardless of their role ratings Expand
The role rating and the position rating are different things and they should not be mixed.
The role rating is a quite irrelevant thing and can be safely ignored.
Mark said: That means that if you have a player with much higher stats for those 4 attributes than the league average, you could play them anywhere in attack. Expand
I don't know maybe you can play your players anywhere in attack only if you are Barca and only when you play vs amateurs otherwise I don't think it would be a smart thing to do. For example, when we test ZaZ - Blue 3.0 with 'Ineffectual' position rating instead 'Natural' position rating for all positions then the PPG drop from 2.1 to 1.2, which means the rating drops from 7.2 to 4.0.
Zippo said: I don't know maybe you can play your players anywhere in attack only if you are Barca and only when you play vs amateurs otherwise I don't think it would be a smart thing to do. For example, when we test ZaZ - Blue 3.0 with 'Ineffectual' position rating instead 'Natural' position rating for all positions then the PPG drop from 2.1 to 1.2, which means the rating drops from 7.2 to 4.0. Expand
Ok, I just bought a Natural Striker with Pace 15 (League Ave (LA) 10.2), Acc 13 (LA 10.3), Agility 13 (LA 9.7), and Dribbling 10 (LA 6.8). These are the best I currently have and as you can see well above the League Average. His Genie Scout Position rating for Striker is 50.0 and is listed as Natural in Training. There is no striker in ZaZ Blue 3.0 which is what I am using.
Here are his position ratings against the relevant attacking positions - AM C 41.6 and Makeshift, M C 39.8 and Ineffectual, ML 41,4 and Ineffectual, and MR 41.4 and Ineffectual.
Here are my current best rated against each position:
AM C Genie Scout rated 45.5, Natural, Pac 10, Acc 9, Agi 8, Dri 8 M C rated 52.3, Natural, Pac 4, Acc 4, Agi 7, Dri 7 M L rated 49.3, Natural, Pac 11, Acc 13, Agi 11, Dri 7 M R rated 51.3, Natural, Pac 12, Acc 13, Agi 10, Dri 8
I also got a new Accomplished M L and M R (Genie position ratings for both 44.7) with Pac 16, Acc 15, Agi 9, Dri 10
So, given your calcs above I would rate the Striker better than my AM C and M C and my new winger better than the existing M L and M R, even though they are not Natural to the positions.
For reference, it took around 6 months for my players to be trained from Ineffectual to Natural, playing more than half the matches. It obviously depends in player adaptability and other attributes, with some players taking over a year while others can take just a couple of months. For example, I have some players still unconvincing, that played less than half the matches, as well as others that didn't move from accomplished after all this time, even playing most matches.
I came across an old thread on sigames from FM14 where a user had calculated the cost of all attributes on current ability by position, which is pretty much giving the value of each attribute to each position. The interesting thing was how highly Pace and Acceleration were even back then. It made me think that perhaps the attribute weighting had not changed much over the years.
There have been many questions on FM Arena forums asking about attributes required by position, and it also interests me when searching for players. The attributes testing table here certainly is a great starting point, but it is an average over all the positions. I decided I would take the old weightings and try and derive from them the importance of each key attribute to each position. Clearly my assumption is that the attribute weightings haven’t changed substantially. If I am wrong, it still has been a bit of fun.
I selected the attributes from the best 10 or 12 from the attributes table, and checked them against the ones that sigames ones. There were 9 that seemed to be very high in both, so I have used them. I took the sigames weightings of each position and calculated the average for each attribute. And then calculated a multiplier for each position for each attribute. The rate was then applied to the proportional change from the attributes table.
I then calculated the proportion of the total for each attribute for each position to see which ones mattered the most.
Reading back, all that sounds like drivel. Anyhow, here are the results:
I have grouped (colour coded) the attributes by above 15%, 10-15%, 5-10% and doesn’t matter. I can hear you say “What does that mean for searching for players?”. All good to know which attributes matter, but how do we determine the value of each attribute we need for each position.
My theory here is to look at the league averages for these 9 attributes. Then calculate the search values using the table above. Base value is league average rounded up to the next number ie 10.2 is 11. All attributes where the attribute value on the table is above 15% use the base value. For the attribute values 10-15% subtract 1 from the attribute table. For the attribute values 5-10% subtract 2 from the attribute table. Those below 5% don’t count.
By way of example, Vanarama South, the averages from my save are as follows:
Here is a table of the minimum search values based on the calculation above for each attribute for each position:
So there it is. Next step is to use my current test save, cull all the players that don’t meet the criteria above in terms of attribute value, buy in cheap players that do, so we have a squad of 20 ie one reserve for each position. I will post results when I get a chance to set that up.
Thanks @Mark this actually helps me a lot. Would it be good idea to expand to something like 20 attributes? I know this actually takes you a lot of time, but I feel like we are missing some possible important attributes in some positions. Example: In my save I have Haaland with 34 years old and he has something like 10 acc + pace and 18 Finishing, with the numbers you've shared it would make sense that he doesnt score much (lack of pace and acc), but the reality is that even though he's not a scoring machine as he used to be, he's still scoring 20+ goals in a season (which is pretty good for his age). Btw, im with Real Madrid (so yea, he's not beating league 2 teams )
Gracolas said: Thanks @Mark this actually helps me a lot. Would it be good idea to expand to something like 20 attributes? I know this actually takes you a lot of time, but I feel like we are missing some possible important attributes in some positions. Example: In my save I have Haaland with 34 years old and he has something like 10 acc + pace and 18 Finishing, with the numbers you've shared it would make sense that he doesnt score much (lack of pace and acc), but the reality is that even though he's not a scoring machine as he used to be, he's still scoring 20+ goals in a season (which is pretty good for his age). Btw, im with Real Madrid (so yea, he's not beating league 2 teams ) Expand
To be honest, 20 goals a season in Real Madrid is not that impressive, specially for someone like Haaland, with over 15 in almost everything.
Im talking out of my ass, because im at work and with no access to FM - later on i can check the stats and let you know the numbers.. The point is, he was still performing at same level as my world class prime Strikers and he has low physical attributes
I have now done a bit of experimenting and think that the green and blue attributes above are the ones that matter for each position. Yes, if you have a player like Haaland who has exceptional stats across the board he will still be great, but like @ZaZ we generally start with lower leagues and are looking at where we can find decent players for not much money.
My first test failed for 2 of the teams because the board blocked letting players go and stopped trades coming in for 2 of the teams. This meant I carried players with bad stats into the holiday saves. The other was Leyton Orient where the Board still stopped some players leaving. Was still the best test I have had for Leyton using ZaZ Blue.
In all cases I intentional lowered the ratings for the sides picking the lowest rating players that met the criteria. I am inclined to go up a point on all the calculations, but think this approach is the way to go.
Gracolas said: Im talking out of my ass, because im at work and with no access to FM - later on i can check the stats and let you know the numbers.. The point is, he was still performing at same level as my world class prime Strikers and he has low physical attributes Expand
There are also other factors that contribute to goals, like hidden stats. If I recall correctly, Haaland is a model citizen, meaning his mental status are nearly perfect.
Grimlock said: If you mean hidden attributes then only "Consistency" and "Important Matches" are somehow involved into the calculation of match result. Expand
I thought Pressure, Temperament and Professionalism were useful to control the players body language. Don't they play worse when they get nervous or complacent, for example?
ZaZ said: I thought Pressure, Temperament and Professionalism were useful to control the players body language. Don't they play worse when they get nervous or complacent, for example? Expand
"Pressure" attribute is how well a player can handle comments of the opposition manager before the match.
"Temperament" attribute is how well react on what you said about his training level, performance level or how he react when you leave him on the bench.
"Professionalism" attribute is how hard a players train, it determines his development rate and how close his CA can be to his PA.
Decided to do another run and just focus on St Albans and ensure all the players that didn't meet the criteria were gone and at least get some decent back up, with all players in the squad meeting the criteria I explained above. Went on Holiday on 1 August. St Albans was rated last in the league by Genie Scout with a rating of 45.6, next worse was 50.0. End of the season we were 6 points behind the second last team in the ratings on Genie Scout but we were premiers. Reckon ZaZ Blue also helps - thanks @ZaZ
I think the rating system I explained above works well.
How about Max Baxter, our worst Genie Scout rated player with a season rating of 7.15.
@Gracolas I have spent a bit of time refining the weightings and testing them and now think I have the most important attributes for each position. I have only included the ones above 6% in for each position otherwise it becomes a bit too large to fathom. But here goes
Most of the attacking positions only have a few attributes that have a major impact, but the central and defensive positions appear to be a bit more complex in terms of the attributes that matter. Hope this helps someone.
I am now rebuilding my squads for next season. Playing 3 different teams in vastly different comps in my current save. Holstein Kiel in Bundasliga 2, just promoted to the top league, A League side Macarthur, won this year and now in Asian Champions League, and St Albans, won Vanarama South and up to Vanarama National next season. This save has been going a while so started with many slow players, restructured when the attributes testing table came out and now realigning with the table above.
Mark said: @Gracolas I have spent a bit of time refining the weightings and testing them and now think I have the most important attributes for each position. I have only included the ones above 6% in for each position otherwise it becomes a bit too large to fathom. But here goes
Most of the attacking positions only have a few attributes that have a major impact, but the central and defensive positions appear to be a bit more complex in terms of the attributes that matter. Hope this helps someone.
I am now rebuilding my squads for next season. Playing 3 different teams in vastly different comps in my current save. Holstein Kiel in Bundasliga 2, just promoted to the top league, A League side Macarthur, won this year and now in Asian Champions League, and St Albans, won Vanarama South and up to Vanarama National next season. This save has been going a while so started with many slow players, restructured when the attributes testing table came out and now realigning with the table above. Expand
@Mark Have you redone your Genie Scout ratings from the above? If so, could you share? I found them very helpful.
saycarramrod said: @Mark Have you redone your Genie Scout ratings from the above? If so, could you share? I found them very helpful.
Thanks! Expand
I have indeed updated the GS ratings - see below. I use a 300 scale instead of 100 because you cant use decimal places. GS recalculates it back to 100. That's why the numbers are slightly different to me table.
Up-to-date data on the subject - https://fm-arena.com/table/19-fm23-playing-position-ratings/
Outdated Data under the poiler.
Spoiler Hey guys,
I'm sure many of you, including me, have wondered many times how much worse a player plays at a position if he doesn't have the highest( 'Natural' ) rating for it so to answer this question we've done some tests.
Please note, testing the position rating is a quite complicated task due to many factors so the numbers below aren't exact but quite accurate.
'Natural' rating is the highest position rating. If a player has 'Natural' rating for a position then he plays at full of his ability without any penalty.
'Accomplished' rating is about 10% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Competent' rating is about 15% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Unconvincing' rating is about 20% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Awkward' rating is about 35% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Ineffectual' rating is about 40% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
So a Striker who is unconvincing in the AM C position, but who is 20% better on their important attributes (Pace, Acc, Agility and Dribbling) will be as good if not better than a Natural AM C
Mark said: So a Striker who is unconvincing in the AM C position, but who is 20% better on their important attributes (Pace, Acc, Agility and Dribbling) will be as good if not better than a Natural AM C
According to this table - https://fm-arena.com/table/9-important-attributes/
If we reduce the 'Acceleration' attribute of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 20%.
If we reduce the 'Acceleration' and 'Pace' attributes of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 40%.
If we reduce the 'Acceleration', 'Pace' and 'Agility' attributes of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 55%.
If we reduce the 'Acceleration', 'Pace', 'Agility' and 'Dribbling' attributes of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 67%.
and so on...
In other words, faster is better.
ZaZ said: In other words, faster is better.
So to conclude: Attributes > Position familarity ?
ZaZ said: In other words, faster is better.
ta2199 said: So to conclude: Attributes > Position familarity ?
A 1% increase in 'Acceleration' increases the effectiveness of a player by about 2.1%.
If the attributes of two players are the same, except the Acceleration attribute and the 'Acceleration' attribute of the first player is '16' and the have the Acceleration attribute of the second player is '12' then the first player should be about 25% more effective than the second player.
If the first player is a 'Competent' AMC and the second player is a 'Natural' AMC then the first player should be about 12% more effective AMC.
But if the first player is an 'Ineffectual' AMC then the second player should be about 15% more effective AMC.
That's a great insight, Zippo.
Thank you for your efforts.
That means that if you have a player with much higher stats for those 4 attributes than the league average, you could play them anywhere in attack, regardless of their role ratings
Mark said: regardless of their role ratings
The role rating and the position rating are different things and they should not be mixed.
The role rating is a quite irrelevant thing and can be safely ignored.
Mark said: That means that if you have a player with much higher stats for those 4 attributes than the league average, you could play them anywhere in attack.
I don't know maybe you can play your players anywhere in attack only if you are Barca and only when you play vs amateurs otherwise I don't think it would be a smart thing to do. For example, when we test ZaZ - Blue 3.0 with 'Ineffectual' position rating instead 'Natural' position rating for all positions then the PPG drop from 2.1 to 1.2, which means the rating drops from 7.2 to 4.0.
Zippo said: I don't know maybe you can play your players anywhere in attack only if you are Barca and only when you play vs amateurs otherwise I don't think it would be a smart thing to do. For example, when we test ZaZ - Blue 3.0 with 'Ineffectual' position rating instead 'Natural' position rating for all positions then the PPG drop from 2.1 to 1.2, which means the rating drops from 7.2 to 4.0.
Ok, I just bought a Natural Striker with Pace 15 (League Ave (LA) 10.2), Acc 13 (LA 10.3), Agility 13 (LA 9.7), and Dribbling 10 (LA 6.8). These are the best I currently have and as you can see well above the League Average. His Genie Scout Position rating for Striker is 50.0 and is listed as Natural in Training. There is no striker in ZaZ Blue 3.0 which is what I am using.
Here are his position ratings against the relevant attacking positions - AM C 41.6 and Makeshift, M C 39.8 and Ineffectual, ML 41,4 and Ineffectual, and MR 41.4 and Ineffectual.
Here are my current best rated against each position:
AM C Genie Scout rated 45.5, Natural, Pac 10, Acc 9, Agi 8, Dri 8
M C rated 52.3, Natural, Pac 4, Acc 4, Agi 7, Dri 7
M L rated 49.3, Natural, Pac 11, Acc 13, Agi 11, Dri 7
M R rated 51.3, Natural, Pac 12, Acc 13, Agi 10, Dri 8
I also got a new Accomplished M L and M R (Genie position ratings for both 44.7) with Pac 16, Acc 15, Agi 9, Dri 10
So, given your calcs above I would rate the Striker better than my AM C and M C and my new winger better than the existing M L and M R, even though they are not Natural to the positions.
For reference, it took around 6 months for my players to be trained from Ineffectual to Natural, playing more than half the matches. It obviously depends in player adaptability and other attributes, with some players taking over a year while others can take just a couple of months. For example, I have some players still unconvincing, that played less than half the matches, as well as others that didn't move from accomplished after all this time, even playing most matches.
I came across an old thread on sigames from FM14 where a user had calculated the cost of all attributes on current ability by position, which is pretty much giving the value of each attribute to each position. The interesting thing was how highly Pace and Acceleration were even back then. It made me think that perhaps the attribute weighting had not changed much over the years.
There have been many questions on FM Arena forums asking about attributes required by position, and it also interests me when searching for players. The attributes testing table here certainly is a great starting point, but it is an average over all the positions. I decided I would take the old weightings and try and derive from them the importance of each key attribute to each position. Clearly my assumption is that the attribute weightings haven’t changed substantially. If I am wrong, it still has been a bit of fun.
I selected the attributes from the best 10 or 12 from the attributes table, and checked them against the ones that sigames ones. There were 9 that seemed to be very high in both, so I have used them. I took the sigames weightings of each position and calculated the average for each attribute. And then calculated a multiplier for each position for each attribute. The rate was then applied to the proportional change from the attributes table.
I then calculated the proportion of the total for each attribute for each position to see which ones mattered the most.
Reading back, all that sounds like drivel. Anyhow, here are the results:
I have grouped (colour coded) the attributes by above 15%, 10-15%, 5-10% and doesn’t matter. I can hear you say “What does that mean for searching for players?”. All good to know which attributes matter, but how do we determine the value of each attribute we need for each position.
My theory here is to look at the league averages for these 9 attributes. Then calculate the search values using the table above. Base value is league average rounded up to the next number ie 10.2 is 11. All attributes where the attribute value on the table is above 15% use the base value. For the attribute values 10-15% subtract 1 from the attribute table. For the attribute values 5-10% subtract 2 from the attribute table. Those below 5% don’t count.
By way of example, Vanarama South, the averages from my save are as follows:
Here is a table of the minimum search values based on the calculation above for each attribute for each position:
So there it is. Next step is to use my current test save, cull all the players that don’t meet the criteria above in terms of attribute value, buy in cheap players that do, so we have a squad of 20 ie one reserve for each position. I will post results when I get a chance to set that up.
Thanks @Mark this actually helps me a lot. Would it be good idea to expand to something like 20 attributes? I know this actually takes you a lot of time, but I feel like we are missing some possible important attributes in some positions. Example: In my save I have Haaland with 34 years old and he has something like 10 acc + pace and 18 Finishing, with the numbers you've shared it would make sense that he doesnt score much (lack of pace and acc), but the reality is that even though he's not a scoring machine as he used to be, he's still scoring 20+ goals in a season (which is pretty good for his age).
)
Btw, im with Real Madrid (so yea, he's not beating league 2 teams
Gracolas said: Thanks @Mark this actually helps me a lot. Would it be good idea to expand to something like 20 attributes? I know this actually takes you a lot of time, but I feel like we are missing some possible important attributes in some positions. Example: In my save I have Haaland with 34 years old and he has something like 10 acc + pace and 18 Finishing, with the numbers you've shared it would make sense that he doesnt score much (lack of pace and acc), but the reality is that even though he's not a scoring machine as he used to be, he's still scoring 20+ goals in a season (which is pretty good for his age).
)
Btw, im with Real Madrid (so yea, he's not beating league 2 teams
To be honest, 20 goals a season in Real Madrid is not that impressive, specially for someone like Haaland, with over 15 in almost everything.
Im talking out of my ass, because im at work and with no access to FM - later on i can check the stats and let you know the numbers.. The point is, he was still performing at same level as my world class prime Strikers and he has low physical attributes
I have now done a bit of experimenting and think that the green and blue attributes above are the ones that matter for each position. Yes, if you have a player like Haaland who has exceptional stats across the board he will still be great, but like @ZaZ we generally start with lower leagues and are looking at where we can find decent players for not much money.
My first test failed for 2 of the teams because the board blocked letting players go and stopped trades coming in for 2 of the teams. This meant I carried players with bad stats into the holiday saves. The other was Leyton Orient where the Board still stopped some players leaving. Was still the best test I have had for Leyton using ZaZ Blue.
In all cases I intentional lowered the ratings for the sides picking the lowest rating players that met the criteria. I am inclined to go up a point on all the calculations, but think this approach is the way to go.
Gracolas said: Im talking out of my ass, because im at work and with no access to FM - later on i can check the stats and let you know the numbers.. The point is, he was still performing at same level as my world class prime Strikers and he has low physical attributes
There are also other factors that contribute to goals, like hidden stats. If I recall correctly, Haaland is a model citizen, meaning his mental status are nearly perfect.
ZaZ said: There are also other factors that contribute to goals, like hidden stats.
If you mean hidden attributes then only "Consistency" and "Important Matches" are somehow involved into the calculation of match result.
Grimlock said: If you mean hidden attributes then only "Consistency" and "Important Matches" are somehow involved into the calculation of match result.
I thought Pressure, Temperament and Professionalism were useful to control the players body language. Don't they play worse when they get nervous or complacent, for example?
ZaZ said: I thought Pressure, Temperament and Professionalism were useful to control the players body language. Don't they play worse when they get nervous or complacent, for example?
"Pressure" attribute is how well a player can handle comments of the opposition manager before the match.
"Temperament" attribute is how well react on what you said about his training level, performance level or how he react when you leave him on the bench.
"Professionalism" attribute is how hard a players train, it determines his development rate and how close his CA can be to his PA.
ZaZ said: Don't they play worse when they get nervous or complacent, for example?
"Determination" is responsible for that.
Decided to do another run and just focus on St Albans and ensure all the players that didn't meet the criteria were gone and at least get some decent back up, with all players in the squad meeting the criteria I explained above. Went on Holiday on 1 August. St Albans was rated last in the league by Genie Scout with a rating of 45.6, next worse was 50.0. End of the season we were 6 points behind the second last team in the ratings on Genie Scout but we were premiers. Reckon ZaZ Blue also helps - thanks @ZaZ
I think the rating system I explained above works well.
How about Max Baxter, our worst Genie Scout rated player with a season rating of 7.15.
Impressive! Thanks @Mark for the time you've put into this
@Gracolas I have spent a bit of time refining the weightings and testing them and now think I have the most important attributes for each position. I have only included the ones above 6% in for each position otherwise it becomes a bit too large to fathom. But here goes
Most of the attacking positions only have a few attributes that have a major impact, but the central and defensive positions appear to be a bit more complex in terms of the attributes that matter. Hope this helps someone.
I am now rebuilding my squads for next season. Playing 3 different teams in vastly different comps in my current save. Holstein Kiel in Bundasliga 2, just promoted to the top league, A League side Macarthur, won this year and now in Asian Champions League, and St Albans, won Vanarama South and up to Vanarama National next season. This save has been going a while so started with many slow players, restructured when the attributes testing table came out and now realigning with the table above.
Mark said: @Gracolas I have spent a bit of time refining the weightings and testing them and now think I have the most important attributes for each position. I have only included the ones above 6% in for each position otherwise it becomes a bit too large to fathom. But here goes
Most of the attacking positions only have a few attributes that have a major impact, but the central and defensive positions appear to be a bit more complex in terms of the attributes that matter. Hope this helps someone.
I am now rebuilding my squads for next season. Playing 3 different teams in vastly different comps in my current save. Holstein Kiel in Bundasliga 2, just promoted to the top league, A League side Macarthur, won this year and now in Asian Champions League, and St Albans, won Vanarama South and up to Vanarama National next season. This save has been going a while so started with many slow players, restructured when the attributes testing table came out and now realigning with the table above.
@Mark Have you redone your Genie Scout ratings from the above? If so, could you share? I found them very helpful.
Thanks!
saycarramrod said: @Mark Have you redone your Genie Scout ratings from the above? If so, could you share? I found them very helpful.
Thanks!
I have indeed updated the GS ratings - see below. I use a 300 scale instead of 100 because you cant use decimal places. GS recalculates it back to 100. That's why the numbers are slightly different to me table.
GK
DRL
DC
WBRL
DM
MC
Wing
AMC
Fast Striker
Target Striker
Glad you found it useful
Enjoy
@Mark You're a fuckin hero mate
@Mark Sorry, one question, when you say you use 300 scale; does that mean you use 300 "Weight" rating?
saycarramrod said: @Mark Sorry, one question, when you say you use 300 scale; does that mean you use 300 "Weight" rating?
The Weight rating is 100, but if you add each of the attribute weightings they total 300.
Just input it as per the pictures
Mark said: The Weight rating is 100, but if you add each of the attribute weightings they total 300.
Just input it as per the pictures
What was your method for calculating the weighting of each attribute for these positions?