GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Jeremy Doku plays alongside some of the best at Man City, and yet is supposedly a dud 48.12% in spite of 18 acc, 17 pace.
I think even if you spent a while looking at this guy's stats, you'd have to conclude there's something wrong with that low 48.12% rating..
..and yet Doku gets a measly 6.9 average rating before being sold off. Expand
So what is it in this case that is dragging Doku down? I see he has the 10 temperament and good natural fitness, pace, acceleration. Is it mostly the consistency?
LightningFlik said: Does this lad get 90 minutes or come off the bench? Expand Mostly full appearances
Rain said: So what is it in this case that is dragging Doku down? I see he has the 10 temperament and good natural fitness, pace, acceleration. Is it mostly the consistency? Expand
We can see that Doku is lacking in anticipation, concentration, jumping reach, and is a bit lower on a few physicals. Rashford also has significantly better hiddens & personality, but Doku's personality/hiddens aren't particularly bad.
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed I've been thinking recently about an experiment to measure the importance of attributes for a given role (e.g. Striker); could you tell me if you think this is worthwhile?
Create a test league (maybe 10 or so teams) with identical coaching staffs (Assistant Manager is probably sufficient, since he'll be the one managing games), and identical players in all positions. That is, all the teams' goalkeepers are identical (copied from a real player), as are their fullbacks, their centrebacks and so on. None of the players ought to be able to play the position you're testing (e.g. Striker).
All teams are set up to play the same formation (if this can't be done in the pre-game editor, it would require ten human managers on holiday, hence identical Assistant Managers). All players have their attributes and conditions frozen.
The experiment is taking real-world strikers (e.g. Haaland, Mbappe, Vini, Goncalo Ramos) and putting multiple copies of them on to different teams, meaning all teams are identical except for their different strikers. If they're all playing the same tactics with the same coaches, the only variation will come from their strikers.
And I don't even think you necessarily need to look at the league table at the end of the experiment to determine which striker is better, since games can be won and lost by other players too. I'd look at the goals scored by the strikers, their assist count and possibly their average match ratings (or other things like key passes, xG, if you don't trust how match ratings are generated).
From here, you would perform a linear regression to assess what attributes / personality values are important in affecting the things we care about. I have to think that if was useful, someone would have done it by now but I can't see what's wrong with it.
LightningFlik said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed I've been thinking recently about an experiment to measure the importance of attributes for a given role (e.g. Striker); could you tell me if you think this is worthwhile?
Create a test league (maybe 10 or so teams) with identical coaching staffs (Assistant Manager is probably sufficient, since he'll be the one managing games), and identical players in all positions. That is, all the teams' goalkeepers are identical (copied from a real player), as are their fullbacks, their centrebacks and so on. None of the players ought to be able to play the position you're testing (e.g. Striker).
All teams are set up to play the same formation (if this can't be done in the pre-game editor, it would require ten human managers on holiday, hence identical Assistant Managers). All players have their attributes and conditions frozen.
The experiment is taking real-world strikers (e.g. Haaland, Mbappe, Vini, Goncalo Ramos) and putting multiple copies of them on to different teams, meaning all teams are identical except for their different strikers. If they're all playing the same tactics with the same coaches, the only variation will come from their strikers.
And I don't even think you necessarily need to look at the league table at the end of the experiment to determine which striker is better, since games can be won and lost by other players too. I'd look at the goals scored by the strikers, their assist count and possibly their average match ratings (or other things like key passes, xG, if you don't trust how match ratings are generated).
From here, you would perform a linear regression to assess what attributes / personality values are important in affecting the things we care about. I have to think that if was useful, someone would have done it by now but I can't see what's wrong with it. Expand My view is that doing tests in situ is better than these artificial simulations. For example, if you make every player have flat 10 in everything, then the results would show you that Mbappe does worse than Ramos because both have pace/acc far exceeding 10, but Ramos has better mentals than Mbappe. I don't know if it would actually happen that way, but it's just an example to illustrate what can go wrong. Also if you freeze morale, condition, etc. then that impairs the effect of temperament, natural fitness, and so on. I can think of 100 ways things could wrong, and that's just what we know.. what if there's things we don't know about, such as rock-paper-scissors situations that occur in standard gameplay?
It's like taking this guy and sticking him in the Ukraine war:
Yes, he's the world's best finisher under controlled conditions, but context matters. And the following isn't part of my response to you, but I just want to point out that we don't need to send this guy to Ukraine 1000+ times to have an inkling - clone and send him in 5-10 times, and we'll end up with a pretty solid idea.
If you just test for what actually works in a real league, with standard play conditions, then you can skip all that and yet know what works for certain.
What I'm currently trying to grapple with is how to weight pace/acc vs. the rest of what matters. Neither alone works. Pace/acc is more all-or-nothing, so you can't weight it at '15' like concentration '13' is weighted. Filtering pace/acc at ~14 instead of weighting it works, but then you end up with Ramos being better than Mbappe which isn't really what we want. And it doesn't help that ratings aren't a reliably solid measure of actual performance. And we also have to consider that pace/acc gains through training of +4 are achievable.
As touched on before, we also have to consider that someone like Ramos probably does great because his league (I only assume here) generally has low pace/acc to allow him to thrive. If you stuck him in the Premier league, the situation would switch where high pace/acc is required and therefore dominates over high mentals/technicals. So dealing with apples & oranges discrepancies as well as possible.
As I'm testing to find the right balance, I realize that Genie Scout seems to have something f'd up going on with how it calculates ratings again. Might try FMRTE for now to see if the calculation is different.
@LightningFlik You were right about the discrepancy between Genie Scout's ratings and your own calculated ones.
Something is really out of wack with Genie Scout. I don't know how many players it affects, but it's just unacceptable to me.
I realized that according to Genie Scout, Osimhen (91.65%) is better than Haaland (89.86%):
It is also the case with Nunez (88.54%) vs. Haaland. I couldn't find any way in Genie Scout to solve it, but looking around I did find that you can see progress rate for players in the free version by clicking 'compare with' on the player screen, which is useless nowadays but something I didn't know before.
The issue appears to be with the general & positional rating. If I click 'show potential', suddenly Haaland goes from 89% to 99%, even though he has very little room to grow. For other players, their potential rating is ~2% less than their current rating. So I think the way it's calculating things is just bugged, at least when using my custom weights.
Unfortunately there is no proper substitute for Genie Scout. I've been considering FMRTE, but the free version doesn't allow you to save weight changes, and only some people will be willing to pay money for FMRTE.
Thankfully 'FM26 Player Scoring System' is a free alternative that can get the job done. Ignore the version in the name, it can do both FM24 & FM26. The main problem with it is that it doesn't load from memory, so it's a bit less convienant (though Genie Scout takes time to load anyway) and it can't use/view hidden attributes (including CA/PA). It does at least give personality & footedness descriptions to go by, but you can't put it in the weightings. Nonetheless I find it viable and actually quite pleasant to use, and you could use it in conjunction with Genie Scout if need be.
Just follow the instructions to load it up, then input these weights into any role ('add roles' green button > 'edit weightings' small button):
acc 78 agg 42 agi 34 ant 50 bal 46 cnt 50 cmp 44 det 52 dri 50 fin 27 fir 7 hea 4 jum 53 lon 10 otb 2 pac 78 pas 4 sta 35 str 30 vis 27 wor 43
Where values are 10 or less, I added them in because they should have an effect, but I found they are non-essential attributes.
Initially pace/acc was 57, but I adjusted this according to observed data, such as these results someone on youtube got from putting the following at Man City:
goals/matches/rating
Haaland 40/38 7.57 Lewandowski 38/38 7.52 Mbappe 35/36 7.30 Messi 26/38 7.26 Ronaldo 23/33 7.19 Kane 28/38 7.12
I also observed other kinds of players. I couldn't get it 100% accurate, and Kane's rating is oddly low there (the goals scored seem more accurate), but overall I'm pleased with the result. Their scores:
Haaland 16.7 (1st) Lewandowski 15.3 (4th) Mbappe 15.3 (6th) Kane 15.0 (9th) Messi 14.5 (17th) Ronaldo 13.3
What was said about players like Doku still appears to be true. Doku is only 13.4.
Some fascinating things can occur at the edges. For instance this is the best player (7.8) at near zero wage/value:
We can see here he was a dud in Div 5, but got picked up by a Premier League team probably because he was the best young freebie option, before being dumped until eventually ending up being a dud even in Div 8.
The highest rated (12.2) ultra-low salary ($50/wk) option was in Chile and got picked up later by Nottm Forest:
Maybe I could adjust the Genie Scout values until the player lists become closely aligned, so that even though the weights will become non-sensical the results will be accurate, we'll see.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Unfortunately there is no proper substitute for Genie Scout. I've been considering FMRTE, but the free version doesn't allow you to save weight changes, and only some people will be willing to pay money for FMRTE. Expand
I actually bought FMRTE to try it out and you can enter weights like on genie scout for the most part, but there really isn't a good way of looking through all players who are on your list. Usually I will just look through all players willing to join me, but there didn't seem to be a way to do that there it only showed "All Players" or shortlists.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Unfortunately there is no proper substitute for Genie Scout. I've been considering FMRTE, but the free version doesn't allow you to save weight changes, and only some people will be willing to pay money for FMRTE. Expand I've just bought a house and after I get myself situated I'll have access to my Windows PC again so I can port the tool I've been developing on my laptop. It'll let you read your team from in-game memory and search the player database based on a number of constraints.
Rain said: I actually bought FMRTE to try it out and you can enter weights like on genie scout for the most part, but there really isn't a good way of looking through all players who are on your list. Usually I will just look through all players willing to join me, but there didn't seem to be a way to do that there it only showed "All Players" or shortlists.
Are you using the same weights for all positions? Expand I've only been looking at the ST position, but you can use the same weights (removing the ones '10' or less) for all other positions except GK. I will look into positional differences more later, but it wouldn't be much different from what I've tested so far.
LightningFlik said: I've just bought a house and after I get myself situated I'll have access to my Windows PC again so I can port the tool I've been developing on my laptop. It'll let you read your team from in-game memory and search the player database based on a number of constraints.
No fee, no weird start-up time.
It'll just take a little bit longer. Expand That sounds great, even if it's further down the track.
I was thinking of asking for your Linux tool before, but I didn't want to put any pressure on you. And then I found 'FM26 Player Scoring System' mostly does the job anyway.
In my searches, I did come across your posts on reddit. I think you said you used the original version 'FM26 Player Scoring System' is derived from but worked out how to read direct from memory.
So I decided to try the FM26 Player Scoring System and found this striker for just 800k. He went on to score 42 goals in League One, despite being rated only 13.4 in the app. I used the weights mentioned in post #215.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I think you said you used the original version 'FM26 Player Scoring System' is derived from but worked out how to read direct from memory. Expand Yeah version 1 was using their same penalties and goals rating system (or whatever the non-standard mode is called) except without the need to export stuff. Then I switched to your blended weights.
I'll make it possible to edit the weights used in my app too so people can use it to find players and you can use it to experiment.
Kamas1 said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed so for fm 26 the best way to find meta players is still the file from the first post of this topic? Expand I just tried to test the 15 pace/acc template in FM26 demo. Gave up after I realized it would take all day without the editor.
So I don't have any knowledge on this, but I would guess that the weights for the FM26 scoring system app would work about as well in FM26.
If you look at what HarvestGreen's data shows changed in FM26, the only important one missing from my template is long shots. Finishing is also boosted in FM26. So I would just change the following weights: Finishing '48', Long Shots '34'.
You can also plug these weights into Genie Scout, but there are serious issues with Genie Scout. I would say for FM26 it's these latest weights (in FM26 scoring system tool) > these latest weights in Genie Scout > FM26 first file > Blended file. For FM24 it's these latest weights (in FM26 scoring system tool) > these latest weights in Genie Scout > Blended/Performance file > FM24 first file.
BTW these are the weights for hiddens:
Pressure '49' Professionalism '49'
Injury Proneness and dirtiness '50', but I think I just set these pretty arbitrarily for now. Basically means aiming for no higher than 13 in each.
The rest matter too little for performance, but you may also want to want to give some weight to ambition, loyalty, adaptability (if buying foreign players).
BaZuKa said: So I decided to try the FM26 Player Scoring System and found this striker for just 800k. He went on to score 42 goals in League One, despite being rated only 13.4 in the app. I used the weights mentioned in post #215. Expand Not quite sure if you're praising the weights or saying they're invalid lol. But 13.4 is Doku's rating, and he got 6.9 (above average) in Premier League, so the results for that player seem about right.
Rain said: Using the Scoring System I can't seem to get the ratings on my list to change even when editing and adding my own role. Any idea how to fix? Expand I edited an existing FM24 (legacy) role. Whenever I save it I have to refresh the page in my browser due to some bug where there's a remaining overlay I can't close. Maybe try different browser, or have you missed pressing the 'calculate' button again?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I edited an existing FM24 (legacy) role. Whenever I save it I have to refresh the page in my browser due to some bug where there's a remaining overlay I can't close. Maybe try different browser, or have you missed pressing the 'calculate' button again? Expand
Yeah I had the same thing as well. Yeah I recalculated and double checked the weights stayed correct, but for some reason the ratings just stay the same for me weird. I'll probably just stick with genie scout for the time being at least especially since it cant export the players and ratings while using a skin on FM26 lol
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You can also plug these weights into Genie Scout, but there are serious issues with Genie Scout. I would say for FM26 it's these latest weights (in FM26 scoring system tool) > these latest weights in Genie Scout > FM26 first file > Blended file. For FM24 it's these latest weights (in FM26 scoring system tool) > these latest weights in Genie Scout > Blended/Performance file > FM24 first file. Expand
How do you edit weights for FM26 roles in that tool? I just get empy non-editable bar
For FM24 (Legacy) roles I do get tables with attributes as expected
Lariato said: How do you edit weights for FM26 roles in that tool? I just get empy non-editable bar
For FM24 (Legacy) roles I do get tables with attributes as expected Expand Yeah I have the same issue, I didn't even realize before because I used FM24 legacy role only. If you can apply the FM24 legacy roles to your import, then it should make no difference.
Injury Proneness and dirtiness '50', but I think I just set these pretty arbitrarily for now. Basically means aiming for no higher than 13 in each.
The rest matter too little for performance, but you may also want to want to give some weight to ambition, loyalty, adaptability (if buying foreign players). Expand
Would you still recommend using anything for Consistency?
I decided to test full detail simulation, since I always use holiday. I was pretty sure it was confirmed before that holiday is the same, but since I found that a lot of attributes are completely unnecessary, I was worried I might be wrong.
So I played my 15 pace/acc template team manually until 31st December, with all England divs loaded and all international & club competition detail set to 'maximum'. The results:
So holiday and playing manually with full detail are the same, which means I think we can reasonably conclude they are also the same in terms of what attributes factor into the calculations.
Of course it is probably different with 'none' detail, but the league you play in is greyed out and always full detail anyway.
I also thought I'd test HarvestGreen's claim that GK is only worth 20% of an outfield player. I use a well-rounded 104 CA GK for my 15 pace/acc team that has 14 agil/ref/aer. I increased agil/ref/aer to 20 (135 CA) and the team did no better (5th). So it seems the GK isn't a game changer.
Lastly, I tried a bunch of positional changes. I've already done every attribute as team-wide change, but I tried changing the ones listed (or missing) in Orion's top 8 for each position:
DM pace 13 > 8 - Relegated (20th, 18th) DL/DR/AML/AMR crossing 8 > 14 - No difference (7th, 4th) DC passing, positioning 8 > 14 + DM long shots 8 > 14 - No difference (4th, 6th, 5th)
I thought I'd test strength again too, as it's the only unnecessary physical and I know from previous testing that strength is costly but makes some impact at very high team performance levels.
Team strength 8 > 13 - No difference (6th)
I'll probably try a few more later, maybe try only slight adjustments (i.e. team balance 13 > 12) to optimize further, but I think it's then time to integrate training & CA considerations.
The first half are the changes from meta training (MatchPract + Quick + 2xAttack + Quick Focus) over ~4 years in realistic setting. Pace & Acc I've put on the safer side.. with some players, you can get as high as +6 or even +7, but usually those players are starting from low pace/acc (i.e. 8), and I think ~2-3 covers most player's actual gains.
In any case, the goal is to go from ~14-15 to 18+, which is the point at which pace/acc simply dominates.
For the other attributes, I will adjust their weightings accordingly later. You can see in the second half their required starting attribute to become the minimal perfect player later. I don't think this should be weighted as shown, because the template weights are necessary immediately. I might give the attribute changes say a 25% weighting. Then I will also add in weighting changes for CA costs, which again will end up being minor changes.
Rain said: Would you still recommend using anything for Consistency? Expand Yes, if I forgot to mention it, very important:
Consistency 13 (49 weight for tool) Important Matches ~10-13 ('13' guarantees ~5th, '10' does 5th half the time, ~10th other half the time. Recommend weight of 42 or so.)
Consistency 13 (49 weight for tool) Important Matches ~10-13 ('13' guarantees ~5th, '10' does 5th half the time, ~10th other half the time. Recommend weight of 42 or so.) Expand
Worth adding these hidden weights (along with pressure and professionalism) to your GK ratings from blended you said to just use on 26? You had slightly lower on those in that file for GK's. Thanks
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Jeremy Doku plays alongside some of the best at Man City, and yet is supposedly a dud 48.12% in spite of 18 acc, 17 pace.
I think even if you spent a while looking at this guy's stats, you'd have to conclude there's something wrong with that low 48.12% rating..
..and yet Doku gets a measly 6.9 average rating before being sold off.
So what is it in this case that is dragging Doku down? I see he has the 10 temperament and good natural fitness, pace, acceleration. Is it mostly the consistency?
LightningFlik said: Does this lad get 90 minutes or come off the bench?
Mostly full appearances
Rain said: So what is it in this case that is dragging Doku down? I see he has the 10 temperament and good natural fitness, pace, acceleration. Is it mostly the consistency?
We can see that Doku is lacking in anticipation, concentration, jumping reach, and is a bit lower on a few physicals. Rashford also has significantly better hiddens & personality, but Doku's personality/hiddens aren't particularly bad.
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed I've been thinking recently about an experiment to measure the importance of attributes for a given role (e.g. Striker); could you tell me if you think this is worthwhile?
Create a test league (maybe 10 or so teams) with identical coaching staffs (Assistant Manager is probably sufficient, since he'll be the one managing games), and identical players in all positions. That is, all the teams' goalkeepers are identical (copied from a real player), as are their fullbacks, their centrebacks and so on. None of the players ought to be able to play the position you're testing (e.g. Striker).
All teams are set up to play the same formation (if this can't be done in the pre-game editor, it would require ten human managers on holiday, hence identical Assistant Managers). All players have their attributes and conditions frozen.
The experiment is taking real-world strikers (e.g. Haaland, Mbappe, Vini, Goncalo Ramos) and putting multiple copies of them on to different teams, meaning all teams are identical except for their different strikers. If they're all playing the same tactics with the same coaches, the only variation will come from their strikers.
And I don't even think you necessarily need to look at the league table at the end of the experiment to determine which striker is better, since games can be won and lost by other players too. I'd look at the goals scored by the strikers, their assist count and possibly their average match ratings (or other things like key passes, xG, if you don't trust how match ratings are generated).
From here, you would perform a linear regression to assess what attributes / personality values are important in affecting the things we care about. I have to think that if was useful, someone would have done it by now but I can't see what's wrong with it.
LightningFlik said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed I've been thinking recently about an experiment to measure the importance of attributes for a given role (e.g. Striker); could you tell me if you think this is worthwhile?
Create a test league (maybe 10 or so teams) with identical coaching staffs (Assistant Manager is probably sufficient, since he'll be the one managing games), and identical players in all positions. That is, all the teams' goalkeepers are identical (copied from a real player), as are their fullbacks, their centrebacks and so on. None of the players ought to be able to play the position you're testing (e.g. Striker).
All teams are set up to play the same formation (if this can't be done in the pre-game editor, it would require ten human managers on holiday, hence identical Assistant Managers). All players have their attributes and conditions frozen.
The experiment is taking real-world strikers (e.g. Haaland, Mbappe, Vini, Goncalo Ramos) and putting multiple copies of them on to different teams, meaning all teams are identical except for their different strikers. If they're all playing the same tactics with the same coaches, the only variation will come from their strikers.
And I don't even think you necessarily need to look at the league table at the end of the experiment to determine which striker is better, since games can be won and lost by other players too. I'd look at the goals scored by the strikers, their assist count and possibly their average match ratings (or other things like key passes, xG, if you don't trust how match ratings are generated).
From here, you would perform a linear regression to assess what attributes / personality values are important in affecting the things we care about. I have to think that if was useful, someone would have done it by now but I can't see what's wrong with it.
My view is that doing tests in situ is better than these artificial simulations. For example, if you make every player have flat 10 in everything, then the results would show you that Mbappe does worse than Ramos because both have pace/acc far exceeding 10, but Ramos has better mentals than Mbappe. I don't know if it would actually happen that way, but it's just an example to illustrate what can go wrong. Also if you freeze morale, condition, etc. then that impairs the effect of temperament, natural fitness, and so on. I can think of 100 ways things could wrong, and that's just what we know.. what if there's things we don't know about, such as rock-paper-scissors situations that occur in standard gameplay?
It's like taking this guy and sticking him in the Ukraine war:
Yes, he's the world's best finisher under controlled conditions, but context matters. And the following isn't part of my response to you, but I just want to point out that we don't need to send this guy to Ukraine 1000+ times to have an inkling - clone and send him in 5-10 times, and we'll end up with a pretty solid idea.
If you just test for what actually works in a real league, with standard play conditions, then you can skip all that and yet know what works for certain.
What I'm currently trying to grapple with is how to weight pace/acc vs. the rest of what matters. Neither alone works. Pace/acc is more all-or-nothing, so you can't weight it at '15' like concentration '13' is weighted. Filtering pace/acc at ~14 instead of weighting it works, but then you end up with Ramos being better than Mbappe which isn't really what we want. And it doesn't help that ratings aren't a reliably solid measure of actual performance. And we also have to consider that pace/acc gains through training of +4 are achievable.
As touched on before, we also have to consider that someone like Ramos probably does great because his league (I only assume here) generally has low pace/acc to allow him to thrive. If you stuck him in the Premier league, the situation would switch where high pace/acc is required and therefore dominates over high mentals/technicals. So dealing with apples & oranges discrepancies as well as possible.
As I'm testing to find the right balance, I realize that Genie Scout seems to have something f'd up going on with how it calculates ratings again. Might try FMRTE for now to see if the calculation is different.
@LightningFlik You were right about the discrepancy between Genie Scout's ratings and your own calculated ones.
Something is really out of wack with Genie Scout. I don't know how many players it affects, but it's just unacceptable to me.
I realized that according to Genie Scout, Osimhen (91.65%) is better than Haaland (89.86%):
It is also the case with Nunez (88.54%) vs. Haaland. I couldn't find any way in Genie Scout to solve it, but looking around I did find that you can see progress rate for players in the free version by clicking 'compare with' on the player screen, which is useless nowadays but something I didn't know before.
The issue appears to be with the general & positional rating. If I click 'show potential', suddenly Haaland goes from 89% to 99%, even though he has very little room to grow. For other players, their potential rating is ~2% less than their current rating. So I think the way it's calculating things is just bugged, at least when using my custom weights.
Unfortunately there is no proper substitute for Genie Scout. I've been considering FMRTE, but the free version doesn't allow you to save weight changes, and only some people will be willing to pay money for FMRTE.
Thankfully 'FM26 Player Scoring System' is a free alternative that can get the job done. Ignore the version in the name, it can do both FM24 & FM26. The main problem with it is that it doesn't load from memory, so it's a bit less convienant (though Genie Scout takes time to load anyway) and it can't use/view hidden attributes (including CA/PA). It does at least give personality & footedness descriptions to go by, but you can't put it in the weightings. Nonetheless I find it viable and actually quite pleasant to use, and you could use it in conjunction with Genie Scout if need be.
Just follow the instructions to load it up, then input these weights into any role ('add roles' green button > 'edit weightings' small button):
acc 78
agg 42
agi 34
ant 50
bal 46
cnt 50
cmp 44
det 52
dri 50
fin 27
fir 7
hea 4
jum 53
lon 10
otb 2
pac 78
pas 4
sta 35
str 30
vis 27
wor 43
Where values are 10 or less, I added them in because they should have an effect, but I found they are non-essential attributes.
Initially pace/acc was 57, but I adjusted this according to observed data, such as these results someone on youtube got from putting the following at Man City:
goals/matches/rating
Haaland 40/38 7.57
Lewandowski 38/38 7.52
Mbappe 35/36 7.30
Messi 26/38 7.26
Ronaldo 23/33 7.19
Kane 28/38 7.12
I also observed other kinds of players. I couldn't get it 100% accurate, and Kane's rating is oddly low there (the goals scored seem more accurate), but overall I'm pleased with the result. Their scores:
Haaland 16.7 (1st)
Lewandowski 15.3 (4th)
Mbappe 15.3 (6th)
Kane 15.0 (9th)
Messi 14.5 (17th)
Ronaldo 13.3
What was said about players like Doku still appears to be true. Doku is only 13.4.
Some fascinating things can occur at the edges. For instance this is the best player (7.8) at near zero wage/value:
We can see here he was a dud in Div 5, but got picked up by a Premier League team probably because he was the best young freebie option, before being dumped until eventually ending up being a dud even in Div 8.
The highest rated (12.2) ultra-low salary ($50/wk) option was in Chile and got picked up later by Nottm Forest:
Maybe I could adjust the Genie Scout values until the player lists become closely aligned, so that even though the weights will become non-sensical the results will be accurate, we'll see.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Unfortunately there is no proper substitute for Genie Scout. I've been considering FMRTE, but the free version doesn't allow you to save weight changes, and only some people will be willing to pay money for FMRTE.
I actually bought FMRTE to try it out and you can enter weights like on genie scout for the most part, but there really isn't a good way of looking through all players who are on your list. Usually I will just look through all players willing to join me, but there didn't seem to be a way to do that there it only showed "All Players" or shortlists.
Also this calculator that has been posted here is similar
https://fm-arena.com/thread/15561-player-attribute-calculator-aggregator/
Are you using the same weights for all positions?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Unfortunately there is no proper substitute for Genie Scout. I've been considering FMRTE, but the free version doesn't allow you to save weight changes, and only some people will be willing to pay money for FMRTE.
I've just bought a house and after I get myself situated I'll have access to my Windows PC again so I can port the tool I've been developing on my laptop. It'll let you read your team from in-game memory and search the player database based on a number of constraints.
No fee, no weird start-up time.
It'll just take a little bit longer.
Rain said: I actually bought FMRTE to try it out and you can enter weights like on genie scout for the most part, but there really isn't a good way of looking through all players who are on your list. Usually I will just look through all players willing to join me, but there didn't seem to be a way to do that there it only showed "All Players" or shortlists.
Also this calculator that has been posted here is similar
https://fm-arena.com/thread/15561-player-attribute-calculator-aggregator/
Are you using the same weights for all positions?
I've only been looking at the ST position, but you can use the same weights (removing the ones '10' or less) for all other positions except GK. I will look into positional differences more later, but it wouldn't be much different from what I've tested so far.
LightningFlik said: I've just bought a house and after I get myself situated I'll have access to my Windows PC again so I can port the tool I've been developing on my laptop. It'll let you read your team from in-game memory and search the player database based on a number of constraints.
No fee, no weird start-up time.
It'll just take a little bit longer.
That sounds great, even if it's further down the track.
I was thinking of asking for your Linux tool before, but I didn't want to put any pressure on you. And then I found 'FM26 Player Scoring System' mostly does the job anyway.
In my searches, I did come across your posts on reddit. I think you said you used the original version 'FM26 Player Scoring System' is derived from but worked out how to read direct from memory.
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed so for fm 26 the best way to find meta players is still the file from the first post of this topic?
So I decided to try the FM26 Player Scoring System and found this striker for just 800k. He went on to score 42 goals in League One, despite being rated only 13.4 in the app. I used the weights mentioned in post #215.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I think you said you used the original version 'FM26 Player Scoring System' is derived from but worked out how to read direct from memory.
Yeah version 1 was using their same penalties and goals rating system (or whatever the non-standard mode is called) except without the need to export stuff. Then I switched to your blended weights.
I'll make it possible to edit the weights used in my app too so people can use it to find players and you can use it to experiment.
Using the Scoring System I can't seem to get the ratings on my list to change even when editing and adding my own role. Any idea how to fix?
Kamas1 said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed so for fm 26 the best way to find meta players is still the file from the first post of this topic?
I just tried to test the 15 pace/acc template in FM26 demo. Gave up after I realized it would take all day without the editor.
So I don't have any knowledge on this, but I would guess that the weights for the FM26 scoring system app would work about as well in FM26.
If you look at what HarvestGreen's data shows changed in FM26, the only important one missing from my template is long shots. Finishing is also boosted in FM26. So I would just change the following weights: Finishing '48', Long Shots '34'.
You can also plug these weights into Genie Scout, but there are serious issues with Genie Scout. I would say for FM26 it's these latest weights (in FM26 scoring system tool) > these latest weights in Genie Scout > FM26 first file > Blended file. For FM24 it's these latest weights (in FM26 scoring system tool) > these latest weights in Genie Scout > Blended/Performance file > FM24 first file.
BTW these are the weights for hiddens:
Pressure '49'
Professionalism '49'
Injury Proneness and dirtiness '50', but I think I just set these pretty arbitrarily for now. Basically means aiming for no higher than 13 in each.
The rest matter too little for performance, but you may also want to want to give some weight to ambition, loyalty, adaptability (if buying foreign players).
BaZuKa said: So I decided to try the FM26 Player Scoring System and found this striker for just 800k. He went on to score 42 goals in League One, despite being rated only 13.4 in the app. I used the weights mentioned in post #215.
Not quite sure if you're praising the weights or saying they're invalid lol. But 13.4 is Doku's rating, and he got 6.9 (above average) in Premier League, so the results for that player seem about right.
Rain said: Using the Scoring System I can't seem to get the ratings on my list to change even when editing and adding my own role. Any idea how to fix?
I edited an existing FM24 (legacy) role. Whenever I save it I have to refresh the page in my browser due to some bug where there's a remaining overlay I can't close. Maybe try different browser, or have you missed pressing the 'calculate' button again?
I just scaled your table from post #215 to genie scout (I have the paid version) and I'm testing it
Acceleration 100
Pace 100
Jumping Reach 67
Determination 66
Anticipation 63
Concentration 63
Dribbling 63
Balance 58
Composure 55
Work Rate 54
Aggression 53
Stamina 44
Agility 42
Strength 37
Finishing 34
Vision 34
Long Shots 11
First Touch 8
Heading 4
Passing 4
Off The Ball 1
I set these values for each position
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I edited an existing FM24 (legacy) role. Whenever I save it I have to refresh the page in my browser due to some bug where there's a remaining overlay I can't close. Maybe try different browser, or have you missed pressing the 'calculate' button again?
Yeah I had the same thing as well. Yeah I recalculated and double checked the weights stayed correct, but for some reason the ratings just stay the same for me weird. I'll probably just stick with genie scout for the time being at least especially since it cant export the players and ratings while using a skin on FM26 lol
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You can also plug these weights into Genie Scout, but there are serious issues with Genie Scout. I would say for FM26 it's these latest weights (in FM26 scoring system tool) > these latest weights in Genie Scout > FM26 first file > Blended file. For FM24 it's these latest weights (in FM26 scoring system tool) > these latest weights in Genie Scout > Blended/Performance file > FM24 first file.
How do you edit weights for FM26 roles in that tool? I just get empy non-editable bar
For FM24 (Legacy) roles I do get tables with attributes as expected
Lariato said: How do you edit weights for FM26 roles in that tool? I just get empy non-editable bar
For FM24 (Legacy) roles I do get tables with attributes as expected
Yeah I have the same issue, I didn't even realize before because I used FM24 legacy role only. If you can apply the FM24 legacy roles to your import, then it should make no difference.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: BTW these are the weights for hiddens:
Pressure '49'
Professionalism '49'
Injury Proneness and dirtiness '50', but I think I just set these pretty arbitrarily for now. Basically means aiming for no higher than 13 in each.
The rest matter too little for performance, but you may also want to want to give some weight to ambition, loyalty, adaptability (if buying foreign players).
Would you still recommend using anything for Consistency?
I decided to test full detail simulation, since I always use holiday. I was pretty sure it was confirmed before that holiday is the same, but since I found that a lot of attributes are completely unnecessary, I was worried I might be wrong.
So I played my 15 pace/acc template team manually until 31st December, with all England divs loaded and all international & club competition detail set to 'maximum'. The results:
So holiday and playing manually with full detail are the same, which means I think we can reasonably conclude they are also the same in terms of what attributes factor into the calculations.
Of course it is probably different with 'none' detail, but the league you play in is greyed out and always full detail anyway.
I also thought I'd test HarvestGreen's claim that GK is only worth 20% of an outfield player. I use a well-rounded 104 CA GK for my 15 pace/acc team that has 14 agil/ref/aer. I increased agil/ref/aer to 20 (135 CA) and the team did no better (5th). So it seems the GK isn't a game changer.
Lastly, I tried a bunch of positional changes. I've already done every attribute as team-wide change, but I tried changing the ones listed (or missing) in Orion's top 8 for each position:
DM pace 13 > 8 - Relegated (20th, 18th)
DL/DR/AML/AMR crossing 8 > 14 - No difference (7th, 4th)
DC passing, positioning 8 > 14 + DM long shots 8 > 14 - No difference (4th, 6th, 5th)
I thought I'd test strength again too, as it's the only unnecessary physical and I know from previous testing that strength is costly but makes some impact at very high team performance levels.
Team strength 8 > 13 - No difference (6th)
I'll probably try a few more later, maybe try only slight adjustments (i.e. team balance 13 > 12) to optimize further, but I think it's then time to integrate training & CA considerations.
Here's some training info:
dribbling +0.1
aggression N/A
anticipation -0.25
composure -0.5
concentration -0.25
determination N/A (can be tutored -0.25)
work rate -0.25
acceleration +2.5
agility +1
balance +1
jumping reach -1
natural fitness -0.5
pace +3.5
stamina +0.25
minor:
strength +0.1
finishing -0.1
vision -0.1
-----
dribbling 12.9
aggression 11
anticipation 13.25
composure 11.5
concentration 13.25
determination 13.75
work rate 11.25
acceleration 15
agility 9
balance 12
jumping reach 14
natural fitness 14.5
pace 15
stamina 12.75
strength 7.9
finishing 7.1
vision 7.1
-----
The first half are the changes from meta training (MatchPract + Quick + 2xAttack + Quick Focus) over ~4 years in realistic setting. Pace & Acc I've put on the safer side.. with some players, you can get as high as +6 or even +7, but usually those players are starting from low pace/acc (i.e. 8), and I think ~2-3 covers most player's actual gains.
In any case, the goal is to go from ~14-15 to 18+, which is the point at which pace/acc simply dominates.
For the other attributes, I will adjust their weightings accordingly later. You can see in the second half their required starting attribute to become the minimal perfect player later. I don't think this should be weighted as shown, because the template weights are necessary immediately. I might give the attribute changes say a 25% weighting. Then I will also add in weighting changes for CA costs, which again will end up being minor changes.
Rain said: Would you still recommend using anything for Consistency?
Yes, if I forgot to mention it, very important:
Consistency 13 (49 weight for tool)
Important Matches ~10-13 ('13' guarantees ~5th, '10' does 5th half the time, ~10th other half the time. Recommend weight of 42 or so.)
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed can you share screenshot of players used in your last test?
Kma said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed can you share screenshot of players used in your last test?
The rest of the outfield are the same as the last one
Note that GK is not ideal, I just wanted to create something typical (I think I copied the stats from another GK in the game)
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, if I forgot to mention it, very important:
Consistency 13 (49 weight for tool)
Important Matches ~10-13 ('13' guarantees ~5th, '10' does 5th half the time, ~10th other half the time. Recommend weight of 42 or so.)
Worth adding these hidden weights (along with pressure and professionalism) to your GK ratings from blended you said to just use on 26? You had slightly lower on those in that file for GK's. Thanks