I can't see any pictures you post. But I'm sure it's nonsense anyway.
You never answer any questions. How exactly is genie scout bugged? It clearly isn't. Just your ratings are awful and you don't understand how to use it. So you make a claim that it's broken as it couldn't possibly be anything to do with you.
Nozdormu said: 1. If pressure has a weight 52, then it is super important, it is as important as acceleration and pace, isn't it? how much pressure is good? probably at least 15?
2. Are there any other attributes (just as pressure) which are important but you are not putting them into Genie Scout's calculations? I mean what else attributes (besides pressure) we need to manually filter them?
3. You use two ST with jump 17 to do the test, not DC, Did you ever use two DC with jumping 17 or 18 to test it?
4. Why give so much weight to balance and dribbling for DC? Expand
There's no way that pressure is eight behind speed. But then in the latest file it seems a lot of attributes are, which is simply not right. Speed is still so superior to every other attribute, or even 2-3 attributes combined, that you can't take these tests seriously.
Centre backs should have decent balance, it's another attribute every player should have a decent amount of, but they don't need dribbling. Dribbling is for wingers, 10's and full backs and fast strikers. Why you would want your centre back dribbling up the pitch I have no idea. Dribbling is strong in FM 24 for attacking. Speed is still more important but the truly elite wingers will have high dribbling, balance and agility.
If you have fast player's you won't get relegated if your centre backs have 13 jumping reach. Just more bonus testing. Recently Lockjaw ridiculed me for saying stamina was important in certain positions. Now he has the set at 52 also. He doesn't know what he's doing and changes his mind from tests using Knapp's best formations and blue set pieces. You can sometimes get Luton into Europe using that setup with no transfers. I mean come on.
BulldozerJokic said: Saying that wingers don't need jumping is absolutely ridiculous. The way top FM24 tactics work is that jumping on wingers is more important than jumping on strikers or even centrebacks. Just watch a couple of games to see it for yourself Expand
How many goals are these wingers scoring each season from headers?
Looking forward to your file for genie scout that has jumping reach 100 for wingers, 50 for centre backs and 25 for target striker. Sounds great!!
keithb said: How exactly is genie scout bugged? It clearly isn't. Just your ratings are awful and you don't understand how to use it. So you make a claim that it's broken as it couldn't possibly be anything to do with you. Expand I don't have access to Genie Scout so I've been calculating ratings manually using weights from different people. I multiply each attribute by its coefficient (assuming the attribute has a coefficient, sum the values and divide by a scaling value.
Doing this, I found the order of resultant players if different to the order Genie Scout presents, leading me to believe maybe it's factoring in footedness or height or positional familiarity, or maybe just not normalising personality values.
It's clearly doing something right because people have used it for years to build winning teams, I just noted that if you've taken care to tweak the weights then GS is going to do something you can't predict with them.
( edited 14 hours, 59 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#335
Link to the post:
Nozdormu said: 1. If pressure has a weight 52, then it is super important, it is as important as acceleration and pace, isn't it? how much pressure is good? probably at least 15?
2. Are there any other attributes (just as pressure) which are important but you are not putting them into Genie Scout's calculations? I mean what else attributes (besides pressure) we need to manually filter them?
3. You use two ST with jump 17 to do the test, not DC, Did you ever use two DC with jumping 17 or 18 to test it?
4. Why give so much weight to balance and dribbling for DC? Expand Yes, pressure is important. I first saw this when I came across Orion's FM22 test on it, and I think HarvestGreen has recently posted data for this for FM24 too. It's not as critical as pace/acc, because it seems that 10 or a bit even lower can be sufficient. I would speculate that it's going to be like work rate where 6 is the point beyond which returns start to tail off. But as we can see from the chart, pressure 10 > 20 is a 10% boost which is still highly significant (equivalent to 1 > 10 consistency or determination).
The weights are simply their values x 4 right now. So pressure 52/4 = 13. I'm actually yet to test pressure less than 13 yet, I suspect it could drop a point or two. You haven't asked about how weightings should be derived from attribute levels that work, but it touches on the matter. I don't want to get into this anyway, but let's just say there's no one way of approaching it. At the moment, I'm going for a transparent, simple approach, and I will be giving this more thought later. To give you a straightforward example of what I mean, consider pace/acc. 14-15 is necessary to finish ~5th, but a team of 13 will get you relegated. So perhaps one would say let's make that 56 weighting 100 instead, just to ensure you get at least 14 pace/acc. And for pressure, it's 52 weighting, but you only *really* need say ~6-10, with little benefit for 14+, so maybe let's make that 45 instead of 52. In a way that produces better results, but the formula is more opaque and perhaps more whimsical, and yet there are also other downsides/trade-offs too when you start thinking about this deeply.
I think I have accidentally used 4xDC 17 with 2xST (out of 4) 17 and the result wasn't noticeably different (hence I didn't realize until a bit later).
I've answered the balance & dribbling for DC question, it's because the key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions.
LightningFlik said: I don't have access to Genie Scout so I've been calculating ratings manually using weights from different people. I multiply each attribute by its coefficient (assuming the attribute has a coefficient, sum the values and divide by a scaling value.
Doing this, I found the order of resultant players if different to the order Genie Scout presents, leading me to believe maybe it's factoring in footedness or height or positional familiarity, or maybe just not normalising personality values.
It's clearly doing something right because people have used it for years to build winning teams, I just noted that if you've taken care to tweak the weights then GS is going to do something you can't predict with them. Expand
Thanks a for a decent and genuine reply.
I dont ever set consistency, important matches or any of the hidden with the scoring/weighting. Its not perfect and sometimes I wonder how a physical player isn't rated him. But its definitely accurate, not bugged with the scores and it will identify the elite and world class players if you set it up correctly.
I dont agree that GS is going to do something you cant predict. Again I've never had an issue, never missed a player.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, pressure is important. I first saw this when I came across Orion's FM22 test on it, and I think HarvestGreen has recently posted data for this for FM24 too. It's not as critical as pace/acc, because it seems that 10 or a bit even lower can be sufficient. I would speculate that it's going to be like work rate where 6 is the point beyond which returns start to tail off. But as we can see from the chart, pressure 10 > 20 is a 10% boost which is still highly significant (equivalent to 1 > 10 consistency or determination).
The weights are simply their values x 4 right now. So pressure 52/4 = 13. I'm actually yet to test pressure less than 13 yet, I suspect it could drop a point or two. You haven't asked about how weightings should be derived from attribute levels that work, but it touches on the matter. I don't want to get into this anyway, but let's just say there's no one way of approaching it. At the moment, I'm going for a transparent, simple approach, and I will be giving this more thought later. To give you a straightforward example of what I mean, consider pace/acc. 14-15 is necessary to finish ~5th, but a team of 13 will get you relegated. So perhaps one would say let's make that 56 weighting 100 instead, just to ensure you get at least 14 pace/acc. And for pressure, it's 52 weighting, but you only *really* need say ~6-10, with little benefit for 14+, so maybe let's make that 45 instead of 52. In a way that produces better results, but the formula is more opaque and perhaps more whimsical, and yet there are also other downsides/trade-offs too when you start thinking about this deeply.
I think I have accidentally used 4xDC 17 with 2xST (out of 4) 17 and the result wasn't noticeably different (hence I didn't realize until a bit later).
I've answered the balance & dribbling for DC question, it's because the key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions. Expand
harvestgreen22 said: The influence of pressure mainly focuses on 1-6. That is, similar to Work Rate, when the pressure is lower than 6, the players will face severe penalties (18.2%). However, when it is above 6, there are benefits, but the benefits are not as significant (8.9%). Expand
Who knew eh?!?! Once again we thank you for groundbreaking research(which was initially wrong. As always!!!)
keithb said: Who knew eh?!?! Once again we thank you for groundbreaking research(which was initially wrong. As always!!!) Expand What you don't realize is that I stated this before HarvestGreen said anything about pressure.
HarvestGreen's post was 29 March 2026.
15 December 2025:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I was surprised and intrigued by this finding by Orion in FM22 that pressure 1 supposedly results in 47% less performance than pressure 10.
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. Expand 19 December 2025:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 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. Expand Both in this very thread.
Not that I discovered the effect of pressure of course, I've always credited Orion for that from the get go. My point is that I have long hypothesized that pressure functions as work rate does, and also I think it's fair to say that Orion's findings had been largely ignored and forgotten, so I think I will give myself a pat on the back for breathing fresh life into this piece of knowledge.
Or is keithb going to claim that, as with everything else, everybody already knew pressure was the most important personality attribute?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: What you don't realize is that I stated this before HarvestGreen said anything about pressure.
HarvestGreen's post was 29 March 2026.
15 December 2025:
19 December 2025:
Both in this very thread.
Not that I discovered the effect of pressure of course, I've always credited Orion for that from the get go. My point is that I have long hypothesized that pressure functions as work rate does, and also I think it's fair to say that Orion's findings had been largely ignored and forgotten, so I think I will give myself a pat on the back for breathing fresh life into this piece of knowledge.
Or is keithb going to claim that, as with everything else, everybody already knew pressure was the most important personality attribute? Expand
hahah you literally said after new testing it was worth 52. People knew pressure was important years ago. Anyway yes give yourself a well-deserved pat on the back haha. Bloody Bozo
Anyway are you going to explain how genie scout is bugged? Or is that just another thing you made up to excuse your crap weighting.
As a regular follower of this thread, I’ve grown tired of seeing your constantly argumentative, aggressive posts. The fact that you keep slinging mud at people who are trying to carry out analyses—even if some of them are wrong—without conducting any analysis or testing yourself, and that your posts now make up the bulk of this thread, is becoming highly annoying.
As a regular follower of this thread, I’ve grown tired of seeing your constantly argumentative, aggressive posts. The fact that you keep slinging mud at people who are trying to carry out analyses—even if some of them are wrong—without conducting any analysis or testing yourself, and that your posts now make up the bulk of this thread, is becoming highly annoying. Expand
Im sorry you feel that way.
I am merely exposing the truths(something Lockjaw loves and implores others to do) about testing from Lockjaw whilst simultaneously trying not to piss in my own face as they once put it. Its vital work and Im happy to do it. I dont need to do my own testing as others who are good testers have already done it. Using their test results and others before them I made my own weightings and these consistently produce the best results in genie scout. Something Lockjaw cant do and then falsely claims that genie scout is bugged. However he wont say how its bugged. Just another excuse from a long list to cover his rather turgid tracks.
Id say most if not nearly all Bozo's testing is wrong. You'd be a fool to follow any of it. We're now into the realms of speed isn't as important as we, correctly, thought and actually other useless attributes really aren't that far behind it at all. And im the one who is pissing in my own face apparently? Blimey
keithb said: Using their test results and others before them I made my own weightings and these consistently produce the best results in genie scout. Expand You could go ahead and share these Genie Scout weightings of yours for the benefit of the people here
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, pressure is important. I first saw this when I came across Orion's FM22 test on it, and I think HarvestGreen has recently posted data for this for FM24 too. It's not as critical as pace/acc, because it seems that 10 or a bit even lower can be sufficient. I would speculate that it's going to be like work rate where 6 is the point beyond which returns start to tail off. But as we can see from the chart, pressure 10 > 20 is a 10% boost which is still highly significant (equivalent to 1 > 10 consistency or determination).
The weights are simply their values x 4 right now. So pressure 52/4 = 13. I'm actually yet to test pressure less than 13 yet, I suspect it could drop a point or two. You haven't asked about how weightings should be derived from attribute levels that work, but it touches on the matter. I don't want to get into this anyway, but let's just say there's no one way of approaching it. At the moment, I'm going for a transparent, simple approach, and I will be giving this more thought later. To give you a straightforward example of what I mean, consider pace/acc. 14-15 is necessary to finish ~5th, but a team of 13 will get you relegated. So perhaps one would say let's make that 56 weighting 100 instead, just to ensure you get at least 14 pace/acc. And for pressure, it's 52 weighting, but you only *really* need say ~6-10, with little benefit for 14+, so maybe let's make that 45 instead of 52. In a way that produces better results, but the formula is more opaque and perhaps more whimsical, and yet there are also other downsides/trade-offs too when you start thinking about this deeply.
I think I have accidentally used 4xDC 17 with 2xST (out of 4) 17 and the result wasn't noticeably different (hence I didn't realize until a bit later).
I've answered the balance & dribbling for DC question, it's because the key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions. Expand
Besdies pressure, what about other attributes, which need to do the manually filter? "important match"=10? 15?
I am merely exposing the truths(something Lockjaw loves and implores others to do) about testing from Lockjaw whilst simultaneously trying not to piss in my own face as they once put it. Its vital work and Im happy to do it. I dont need to do my own testing as others who are good testers have already done it. Using their test results and others before them I made my own weightings and these consistently produce the best results in genie scout. Something Lockjaw cant do and then falsely claims that genie scout is bugged. However he wont say how its bugged. Just another excuse from a long list to cover his rather turgid tracks.
Id say most if not nearly all Bozo's testing is wrong. You'd be a fool to follow any of it. We're now into the realms of speed isn't as important as we, correctly, thought and actually other useless attributes really aren't that far behind it at all. And im the one who is pissing in my own face apparently? Blimey Expand
Tapeworm is right, pal this become ridiculous, you said it once, you said it twice, you say the same things all the time. If you don't like the thread or the author and his findings or whatever else JUST DON'T FOLLOW THIS THREAD, it's as simple as this. And let the others decide for themselves. And if you want, start a thread on your own, to share your findings.
keithb said: Something Lockjaw cant do and then falsely claims that genie scout is bugged. However he wont say how its bugged. Just another excuse from a long list to cover his rather turgid tracks. Expand I explained this earlier; changing weights in Genie Scout changes the results in unpredictable ways, as described in my edit in this post.
I used the Blended weights from this post and calculated the ratings for players manually. In Genie Scout they produce this list:
1. Erling Haaland 2. Mohamed Salah 3. Kylian Mbappé 4. Lautaro Martínez 5. Marcus Rashford 6. Victor Osimhen 7. Robert Lewandowski 8. Lionel Messi 9. Randal Kolo Muani 10. Romelu Lukaku
This is what I meant when I said Genie Scout was doing something unanticipated on top of the weights you give it, or it's just not using a straightforward weighted average.
1. Erling Haaland 2. Mohamed Salah 3. Kylian Mbappé 4. Lautaro Martínez 5. Marcus Rashford 6. Victor Osimhen 7. Robert Lewandowski 8. Lionel Messi 9. Randal Kolo Muani 10. Romelu Lukaku
This is what I meant when I said Genie Scout was doing something unanticipated on top of the weights you give it, or it's just not using a straightforward weighted average. Expand
The input is wrong as its simple as that. I blame the person who made the file. I've NEVER had that issue.
Noct said: Tapeworm is right, pal this become ridiculous, you said it once, you said it twice, you say the same things all the time. If you don't like the thread or the author and his findings or whatever else JUST DON'T FOLLOW THIS THREAD, it's as simple as this. And let the others decide for themselves. And if you want, start a thread on your own, to share your findings. Expand
Well if jocklaw hadn't spoken to me in certain ways I wouldn't even be bothering. But its a good job I am as the testing results are atrocious.
I was bit sceptical about new ratings as i was picking my team and doing my transfers based on them and choices was bit unusual but im following it anyway in my Darmstad save and sitting top of the league after 23 games, which is great for team media predictions 18th, i will upload some SS when i finish the season.
keithb said: Well if jocklaw hadn't spoken to me in certain ways I wouldn't even be bothering. But its a good job I am as the testing results are atrocious. Expand
Are you genuinely retarded? You sit around waiting for him to post and instead of making your own thread on your findings you just spam this thread and annoy EVERYONE else who's reading. Half the posts on each page are you just spewing bs for no reason. Get a life already.
I can't see any pictures you post. But I'm sure it's nonsense anyway.
You never answer any questions. How exactly is genie scout bugged? It clearly isn't. Just your ratings are awful and you don't understand how to use it. So you make a claim that it's broken as it couldn't possibly be anything to do with you.
Nozdormu said: 1. If pressure has a weight 52, then it is super important, it is as important as acceleration and pace, isn't it? how much pressure is good? probably at least 15?
2. Are there any other attributes (just as pressure) which are important but you are not putting them into Genie Scout's calculations? I mean what else attributes (besides pressure) we need to manually filter them?
3. You use two ST with jump 17 to do the test, not DC, Did you ever use two DC with jumping 17 or 18 to test it?
4. Why give so much weight to balance and dribbling for DC?
There's no way that pressure is eight behind speed. But then in the latest file it seems a lot of attributes are, which is simply not right. Speed is still so superior to every other attribute, or even 2-3 attributes combined, that you can't take these tests seriously.
Centre backs should have decent balance, it's another attribute every player should have a decent amount of, but they don't need dribbling. Dribbling is for wingers, 10's and full backs and fast strikers. Why you would want your centre back dribbling up the pitch I have no idea. Dribbling is strong in FM 24 for attacking. Speed is still more important but the truly elite wingers will have high dribbling, balance and agility.
If you have fast player's you won't get relegated if your centre backs have 13 jumping reach. Just more bonus testing. Recently Lockjaw ridiculed me for saying stamina was important in certain positions. Now he has the set at 52 also. He doesn't know what he's doing and changes his mind from tests using Knapp's best formations and blue set pieces. You can sometimes get Luton into Europe using that setup with no transfers. I mean come on.
BulldozerJokic said: Saying that wingers don't need jumping is absolutely ridiculous. The way top FM24 tactics work is that jumping on wingers is more important than jumping on strikers or even centrebacks. Just watch a couple of games to see it for yourself
How many goals are these wingers scoring each season from headers?
Looking forward to your file for genie scout that has jumping reach 100 for wingers, 50 for centre backs and 25 for target striker. Sounds great!!
keithb said: How exactly is genie scout bugged? It clearly isn't. Just your ratings are awful and you don't understand how to use it. So you make a claim that it's broken as it couldn't possibly be anything to do with you.
I don't have access to Genie Scout so I've been calculating ratings manually using weights from different people. I multiply each attribute by its coefficient (assuming the attribute has a coefficient, sum the values and divide by a scaling value.
Doing this, I found the order of resultant players if different to the order Genie Scout presents, leading me to believe maybe it's factoring in footedness or height or positional familiarity, or maybe just not normalising personality values.
It's clearly doing something right because people have used it for years to build winning teams, I just noted that if you've taken care to tweak the weights then GS is going to do something you can't predict with them.
Nozdormu said: 1. If pressure has a weight 52, then it is super important, it is as important as acceleration and pace, isn't it? how much pressure is good? probably at least 15?
2. Are there any other attributes (just as pressure) which are important but you are not putting them into Genie Scout's calculations? I mean what else attributes (besides pressure) we need to manually filter them?
3. You use two ST with jump 17 to do the test, not DC, Did you ever use two DC with jumping 17 or 18 to test it?
4. Why give so much weight to balance and dribbling for DC?
Yes, pressure is important. I first saw this when I came across Orion's FM22 test on it, and I think HarvestGreen has recently posted data for this for FM24 too. It's not as critical as pace/acc, because it seems that 10 or a bit even lower can be sufficient. I would speculate that it's going to be like work rate where 6 is the point beyond which returns start to tail off. But as we can see from the chart, pressure 10 > 20 is a 10% boost which is still highly significant (equivalent to 1 > 10 consistency or determination).
The weights are simply their values x 4 right now. So pressure 52/4 = 13. I'm actually yet to test pressure less than 13 yet, I suspect it could drop a point or two. You haven't asked about how weightings should be derived from attribute levels that work, but it touches on the matter. I don't want to get into this anyway, but let's just say there's no one way of approaching it. At the moment, I'm going for a transparent, simple approach, and I will be giving this more thought later. To give you a straightforward example of what I mean, consider pace/acc. 14-15 is necessary to finish ~5th, but a team of 13 will get you relegated. So perhaps one would say let's make that 56 weighting 100 instead, just to ensure you get at least 14 pace/acc. And for pressure, it's 52 weighting, but you only *really* need say ~6-10, with little benefit for 14+, so maybe let's make that 45 instead of 52. In a way that produces better results, but the formula is more opaque and perhaps more whimsical, and yet there are also other downsides/trade-offs too when you start thinking about this deeply.
I think I have accidentally used 4xDC 17 with 2xST (out of 4) 17 and the result wasn't noticeably different (hence I didn't realize until a bit later).
I've answered the balance & dribbling for DC question, it's because the key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions.
LightningFlik said: I don't have access to Genie Scout so I've been calculating ratings manually using weights from different people. I multiply each attribute by its coefficient (assuming the attribute has a coefficient, sum the values and divide by a scaling value.
Doing this, I found the order of resultant players if different to the order Genie Scout presents, leading me to believe maybe it's factoring in footedness or height or positional familiarity, or maybe just not normalising personality values.
It's clearly doing something right because people have used it for years to build winning teams, I just noted that if you've taken care to tweak the weights then GS is going to do something you can't predict with them.
Thanks a for a decent and genuine reply.
I dont ever set consistency, important matches or any of the hidden with the scoring/weighting. Its not perfect and sometimes I wonder how a physical player isn't rated him. But its definitely accurate, not bugged with the scores and it will identify the elite and world class players if you set it up correctly.
I dont agree that GS is going to do something you cant predict. Again I've never had an issue, never missed a player.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, pressure is important. I first saw this when I came across Orion's FM22 test on it, and I think HarvestGreen has recently posted data for this for FM24 too. It's not as critical as pace/acc, because it seems that 10 or a bit even lower can be sufficient. I would speculate that it's going to be like work rate where 6 is the point beyond which returns start to tail off. But as we can see from the chart, pressure 10 > 20 is a 10% boost which is still highly significant (equivalent to 1 > 10 consistency or determination).
The weights are simply their values x 4 right now. So pressure 52/4 = 13. I'm actually yet to test pressure less than 13 yet, I suspect it could drop a point or two. You haven't asked about how weightings should be derived from attribute levels that work, but it touches on the matter. I don't want to get into this anyway, but let's just say there's no one way of approaching it. At the moment, I'm going for a transparent, simple approach, and I will be giving this more thought later. To give you a straightforward example of what I mean, consider pace/acc. 14-15 is necessary to finish ~5th, but a team of 13 will get you relegated. So perhaps one would say let's make that 56 weighting 100 instead, just to ensure you get at least 14 pace/acc. And for pressure, it's 52 weighting, but you only *really* need say ~6-10, with little benefit for 14+, so maybe let's make that 45 instead of 52. In a way that produces better results, but the formula is more opaque and perhaps more whimsical, and yet there are also other downsides/trade-offs too when you start thinking about this deeply.
I think I have accidentally used 4xDC 17 with 2xST (out of 4) 17 and the result wasn't noticeably different (hence I didn't realize until a bit later).
I've answered the balance & dribbling for DC question, it's because the key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions.
harvestgreen22 said: The influence of pressure mainly focuses on 1-6. That is, similar to Work Rate, when the pressure is lower than 6, the players will face severe penalties (18.2%).
However, when it is above 6, there are benefits, but the benefits are not as significant (8.9%).
Who knew eh?!?! Once again we thank you for groundbreaking research(which was initially wrong. As always!!!)
keithb said: Who knew eh?!?! Once again we thank you for groundbreaking research(which was initially wrong. As always!!!)
What you don't realize is that I stated this before HarvestGreen said anything about pressure.
HarvestGreen's post was 29 March 2026.
15 December 2025:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 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.
19 December 2025:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 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.
Both in this very thread.
Not that I discovered the effect of pressure of course, I've always credited Orion for that from the get go. My point is that I have long hypothesized that pressure functions as work rate does, and also I think it's fair to say that Orion's findings had been largely ignored and forgotten, so I think I will give myself a pat on the back for breathing fresh life into this piece of knowledge.
Or is keithb going to claim that, as with everything else, everybody already knew pressure was the most important personality attribute?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: What you don't realize is that I stated this before HarvestGreen said anything about pressure.
HarvestGreen's post was 29 March 2026.
15 December 2025:
19 December 2025:
Both in this very thread.
Not that I discovered the effect of pressure of course, I've always credited Orion for that from the get go. My point is that I have long hypothesized that pressure functions as work rate does, and also I think it's fair to say that Orion's findings had been largely ignored and forgotten, so I think I will give myself a pat on the back for breathing fresh life into this piece of knowledge.
Or is keithb going to claim that, as with everything else, everybody already knew pressure was the most important personality attribute?
hahah you literally said after new testing it was worth 52. People knew pressure was important years ago. Anyway yes give yourself a well-deserved pat on the back haha. Bloody Bozo
Anyway are you going to explain how genie scout is bugged? Or is that just another thing you made up to excuse your crap weighting.
keithb,
As a regular follower of this thread, I’ve grown tired of seeing your constantly argumentative, aggressive posts. The fact that you keep slinging mud at people who are trying to carry out analyses—even if some of them are wrong—without conducting any analysis or testing yourself, and that your posts now make up the bulk of this thread, is becoming highly annoying.
Tapeworm said: keithb,
As a regular follower of this thread, I’ve grown tired of seeing your constantly argumentative, aggressive posts. The fact that you keep slinging mud at people who are trying to carry out analyses—even if some of them are wrong—without conducting any analysis or testing yourself, and that your posts now make up the bulk of this thread, is becoming highly annoying.
Im sorry you feel that way.
I am merely exposing the truths(something Lockjaw loves and implores others to do) about testing from Lockjaw whilst simultaneously trying not to piss in my own face as they once put it. Its vital work and Im happy to do it. I dont need to do my own testing as others who are good testers have already done it. Using their test results and others before them I made my own weightings and these consistently produce the best results in genie scout. Something Lockjaw cant do and then falsely claims that genie scout is bugged. However he wont say how its bugged. Just another excuse from a long list to cover his rather turgid tracks.
Id say most if not nearly all Bozo's testing is wrong. You'd be a fool to follow any of it. We're now into the realms of speed isn't as important as we, correctly, thought and actually other useless attributes really aren't that far behind it at all. And im the one who is pissing in my own face apparently? Blimey
keithb said: Using their test results and others before them I made my own weightings and these consistently produce the best results in genie scout.
You could go ahead and share these Genie Scout weightings of yours for the benefit of the people here
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, pressure is important. I first saw this when I came across Orion's FM22 test on it, and I think HarvestGreen has recently posted data for this for FM24 too. It's not as critical as pace/acc, because it seems that 10 or a bit even lower can be sufficient. I would speculate that it's going to be like work rate where 6 is the point beyond which returns start to tail off. But as we can see from the chart, pressure 10 > 20 is a 10% boost which is still highly significant (equivalent to 1 > 10 consistency or determination).
The weights are simply their values x 4 right now. So pressure 52/4 = 13. I'm actually yet to test pressure less than 13 yet, I suspect it could drop a point or two. You haven't asked about how weightings should be derived from attribute levels that work, but it touches on the matter. I don't want to get into this anyway, but let's just say there's no one way of approaching it. At the moment, I'm going for a transparent, simple approach, and I will be giving this more thought later. To give you a straightforward example of what I mean, consider pace/acc. 14-15 is necessary to finish ~5th, but a team of 13 will get you relegated. So perhaps one would say let's make that 56 weighting 100 instead, just to ensure you get at least 14 pace/acc. And for pressure, it's 52 weighting, but you only *really* need say ~6-10, with little benefit for 14+, so maybe let's make that 45 instead of 52. In a way that produces better results, but the formula is more opaque and perhaps more whimsical, and yet there are also other downsides/trade-offs too when you start thinking about this deeply.
I think I have accidentally used 4xDC 17 with 2xST (out of 4) 17 and the result wasn't noticeably different (hence I didn't realize until a bit later).
I've answered the balance & dribbling for DC question, it's because the key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions.
Besdies pressure, what about other attributes, which need to do the manually filter? "important match"=10? 15?
I play FM26, is the file "zhf2yl" for FM26?
keithb said: Im sorry you feel that way.
I am merely exposing the truths(something Lockjaw loves and implores others to do) about testing from Lockjaw whilst simultaneously trying not to piss in my own face as they once put it. Its vital work and Im happy to do it. I dont need to do my own testing as others who are good testers have already done it. Using their test results and others before them I made my own weightings and these consistently produce the best results in genie scout. Something Lockjaw cant do and then falsely claims that genie scout is bugged. However he wont say how its bugged. Just another excuse from a long list to cover his rather turgid tracks.
Id say most if not nearly all Bozo's testing is wrong. You'd be a fool to follow any of it. We're now into the realms of speed isn't as important as we, correctly, thought and actually other useless attributes really aren't that far behind it at all. And im the one who is pissing in my own face apparently? Blimey
Tapeworm is right, pal this become ridiculous, you said it once, you said it twice, you say the same things all the time. If you don't like the thread or the author and his findings or whatever else JUST DON'T FOLLOW THIS THREAD, it's as simple as this. And let the others decide for themselves. And if you want, start a thread on your own, to share your findings.
keithb said: Something Lockjaw cant do and then falsely claims that genie scout is bugged. However he wont say how its bugged. Just another excuse from a long list to cover his rather turgid tracks.
I explained this earlier; changing weights in Genie Scout changes the results in unpredictable ways, as described in my edit in this post.
I used the Blended weights from this post and calculated the ratings for players manually. In Genie Scout they produce this list:
1. Mbappe
2. Vinicius
3. Haaland
4. Osimhen
5. Thuram
6. Nunez
7. Jesus
8. Isak
9. Messi
10. Martinez
Manually, they produce this one:
1. Erling Haaland
2. Mohamed Salah
3. Kylian Mbappé
4. Lautaro Martínez
5. Marcus Rashford
6. Victor Osimhen
7. Robert Lewandowski
8. Lionel Messi
9. Randal Kolo Muani
10. Romelu Lukaku
This is what I meant when I said Genie Scout was doing something unanticipated on top of the weights you give it, or it's just not using a straightforward weighted average.
LightningFlik said: I explained this earlier; changing weights in Genie Scout changes the results in unpredictable ways, as described in my edit in this post.
I used the Blended weights from this post and calculated the ratings for players manually. In Genie Scout they produce this list:
1. Mbappe
2. Vinicius
3. Haaland
4. Osimhen
5. Thuram
6. Nunez
7. Jesus
8. Isak
9. Messi
10. Martinez
Manually, they produce this one:
1. Erling Haaland
2. Mohamed Salah
3. Kylian Mbappé
4. Lautaro Martínez
5. Marcus Rashford
6. Victor Osimhen
7. Robert Lewandowski
8. Lionel Messi
9. Randal Kolo Muani
10. Romelu Lukaku
This is what I meant when I said Genie Scout was doing something unanticipated on top of the weights you give it, or it's just not using a straightforward weighted average.
The input is wrong as its simple as that. I blame the person who made the file. I've NEVER had that issue.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You could go ahead and share these Genie Scout weightings of yours for the benefit of the people here
Once you've answered the near dozen questions ive asked you. Maybe
Noct said: Tapeworm is right, pal this become ridiculous, you said it once, you said it twice, you say the same things all the time. If you don't like the thread or the author and his findings or whatever else JUST DON'T FOLLOW THIS THREAD, it's as simple as this. And let the others decide for themselves. And if you want, start a thread on your own, to share your findings.
Well if jocklaw hadn't spoken to me in certain ways I wouldn't even be bothering. But its a good job I am as the testing results are atrocious.
I was bit sceptical about new ratings as i was picking my team and doing my transfers based on them and choices was bit unusual but im following it anyway in my Darmstad save and sitting top of the league after 23 games, which is great for team media predictions 18th, i will upload some SS when i finish the season.
lost to bayern in the end
keithb said: Well if jocklaw hadn't spoken to me in certain ways I wouldn't even be bothering. But its a good job I am as the testing results are atrocious.
Are you genuinely retarded? You sit around waiting for him to post and instead of making your own thread on your findings you just spam this thread and annoy EVERYONE else who's reading. Half the posts on each page are you just spewing bs for no reason. Get a life already.