Kriek said: If I'm managing a national team, what are the hard filters I should use appart the hidden ones? Also 15 Speed and Acc?
So if I'm compairing those 3 MDC/MC, I shouldn't take Kimmich?
Of should I use another value as hard limit for speed and acceleration? Expand Kimmich is superior to those other two in all aspects except pace/acc/jump, and even then he has 20 natural fitness + 17 stamina + 3 injury proneness to mostly offset this downside.
I would like to be able to make the good decision myself, how should I select the players? Is 12 speed and acceleration ok if the rest of attributes is high? I thought that speed and acceleration was the only things that matters
Kriek said: I would like to be able to make the good decision myself, how should I select the players? Is 12 speed and acceleration ok if the rest of attributes is high? I thought that speed and acceleration was the only things that matters Expand Here are the necessary attributes
For Premier League you can get away with 14 pace/acc. If the player has very high stamina, then as low as 12 is viable.
For winning the Premier League, or tough international competition, you'd need 18+ pace/acc. You also need someone with very high jumping reach on the field, and at least decent levels of jumping reach across the team in general.
I'm currently doing some testing using the following personal estimations of how 'essential' attributes are:
Jumping reach 100% essential - 17 min ST/DC, 13 min rest of team = 99, 63 weight Acceleration/Pace 85% essential - 14 min = 61 Dribbling 45% essential - 13 min = 28 Anticipation 35% essential - 13 min = 22 Concentration 35% essential - 13 min = 22 Determination 25% essential - 14 min = 18 Work Rate 15% essential - 11 min = 7 Agility 15% essential - 10 min = 5 Balance 20% essential - 12 min = 11 Stamina 25% essential - 13 min = 16 Strength 2% essential - 8 min = 1 Finishing 2% essential - 7 min = 1 (ST only) Vision 2% essential - 7 min = 1
How 'essential' they are is just based on my intuitive feel for the data. So for instance, jumping reach is 100% essential because going below the requirement quickly gets you relegated. Acc/Pace I know can go down to ~12 in certain circumstances (i.e. Harry Kane), so a little leeway there. Work Rate, we know is ok down to 6, and the requirement of 11 isn't high to begin with, so you don't even really need to put it in your weights much (as most players will be 8+ anyway).
( edited 7 days, 20 hours ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#366
Link to the post:
Using the weights in the above post, I've done testing of my Genie Scout weights vs. Orion's weights.
I think it's the first time a results-based comparison of the Genie Scout rating files has been attempted.
Method:
- Luton in Premier League - Remove all players - Filter in Genie Scout for CA-PA gap of 0-3 and current reputation 0-6000 and green proficiency in relevant position - Take top 3-4 in each position - Move them to Luton - Change age, personality, natural fitness, consistency, important matches, nationality, height, weight, etc. so that there is control where there needs to be - Position proficiency is deliberately *not* controlled (this has pros and cons) - One season with Knap tactic and Blue routines (Premier League, FA Cup & Carabao Cup @ full detail)
Extra info:
Player overlap - 13 of 27 players Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 18/18/19/15 Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 18/18/19/13 Median acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 14/14/13/12 Median acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 14/14/14/11
The results:
My weights - 10th, 9th, 4th, 9th, 9th, 9th = 8.333th average Orion's weights - 18th, 12th, 16th, 10th, 10th, 13th = 13.166th average
Now I would caution against reading into these results too much at the moment, but I think it's safe to say at least that Orion's weights do not do significantly better than mine. To my mind, it's further suggestive evidence that all positions share the same necessary attributes; there are not position-specific attributes.
The main reason for caution is that it could simply be that my weights ended up having a higher jumping reach player on the field. The Orion team did start their 19 jump DC most games though, and if my weights are selecting more frequently for high jumping reach players who win then that's a feature not a bug. When I do this test with my Premier League 1.0 weights and one or two others, that will shed more light on this more conclusively.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Using the weights in the above post, I've done testing of my Genie Scout weights vs. Orion's weights.
I think it's the first time a results-based comparison of the Genie Scout rating files has been attempted.
Method:
- Luton in Premier League - Remove all players - Filter in Genie Scout for CA-PA gap of 0-3 and current reputation 0-6000 and green proficiency in relevant position - Take top 3-4 in each position - Move them to Luton - Change age, personality, natural fitness, consistency, important matches, nationality, height, weight, etc. so that there is control where there needs to be - Position proficiency is deliberately *not* controlled (this has pros and cons) - One season with Knap tactic and Blue routines (Premier League, FA Cup & Carabao Cup @ full detail)
Extra info:
Player overlap - 13 of 27 players Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 18/18/19/15 Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 18/18/19/13 Median acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 14/14/13/12 Median acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 14/14/14/11
The results:
My weights - 10th, 9th, 4th, 9th, 9th, 9th = 8.333th average Orion's weights - 18th, 12th, 16th, 10th, 10th, 13th = 13.166th average
Now I would caution against reading into these results too much at the moment, but I think it's safe to say at least that Orion's weights do not do significantly better than mine. To my mind, it's further suggestive evidence that all positions share the same necessary attributes; there are not position-specific attributes.
The main reason for caution is that it could simply be that my weights ended up having a higher jumping reach player on the field. The Orion team did start their 19 jump DC most games though, and if my weights are selecting more frequently for high jumping reach players who win then that's a feature not a bug. When I do this test with my Premier League 1.0 weights and one or two others, that will shed more light on this more conclusively. Expand
Can you do this against your max performance rating as I found that to be the best, I just removed injury proneness as I don’t require imo
I did 10 season test on fc Metz and that one out preformed the newest file set but might be some rng possibly please test.
You were absolutely right, it was discovered in the new thread that Genie Scout indeed has bugs. For example, the higher the height, the higher the rating.
OpticFawn said: Can you do this against your max performance rating as I found that to be the best, I just removed injury proneness as I don’t require imo
I did 10 season test on fc Metz and that one out preformed the newest file set but might be some rng possibly please test. Expand FM24 Pure Performance results:
5th*, 6th*, 8th*, 6th, 4th, 10th = 6.5 average
Asterisked results are where I forgot to set injury proneness to 1 as control
Premier League 1.0 results:
6th, 9th, 7th = 7.33 average
I also tried a few alternative tactics with one of these squads, to see if something does better than the Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC tactic I use. The first few did worse, but 424 Classic v164 got 3rd, 3rd, 9th, 5th. Maybe it's just circumstantial, but I'll be taking a closer look at it.
Exellent said: You were absolutely right, it was discovered in the new thread that Genie Scout indeed has bugs. For example, the higher the height, the higher the rating. Expand The thing is, that program isn't actually Genie Scout as far as I can tell..
The bug he encountered is valid though, but also it may be that he hasn't taken into account footedness and position proficiency which is the more likely cause if not ruled out.
I can't take credit for finding Genie Scout is bugged, LightningFlik clued me onto this.
I decided to give this a shout in a new save on FM26. I picked Leicester City because I like to play Strikerless and even at 16 this gives Jeremy Monga a good overall rating. He is my SS and in the league before injury played 5 and scored 5. I was sceptical with the ratings file, sold players with high wages and brought in low value players. Signed a goalkeeper for £375 from bodo/glimt.
I normally player my moneyball ratings file. Involves taking data picking top performers find common high value attributes and then weighting them. But honestly having way more success with this
I forgot to mention something very important. With my GS Rating tests, I have removed all the problematic (bugged) attribute weightings - personality, consistency, important matches, dirtiness, natural fitness, injury proneness.
So for the Premier League 1.0 weightings, what you see is what you get. But for the test of my Pure Performance weightings, you will not get what you see in the test result. The intention here is to compare non-bugged weights between my files, to see which performs better, so that further deductions can be made.
This doesn't remove the GS bugs 100% either, but I think it should reduce it by a lot. If I wanted completely accurate comparison, I would use the weights in FM26 scoring system, but since the idea here is to continue using Genie Scout anyway.. one may as well test to see what does well using Genie Scout.
Premier League 1.0, Pure Performance overlap = 10/27 players Premier League 1.0, 'Essential' weights from further up this page overlap = 14/27 players
Pure Performance: Peak acc/pace/jump/drib = 18/18/19/14 Median acc/pace/jump/drib = 14/14/12/11
Prem 1.0: Peak acc/pace/jump/drib = 15/17/17/14 Median acc/pace/jump/drib = 13/13/13/11
BTW I didn't realize until just a few days ago that you can get the FM26 pre-game editor with the FM26 database for free without buying FM26. You can get it from the Microsoft store.
To select the player for the national team, I'm doing the following: I'm first filtering the players based on the hidden attributes. For a national team, how important are the injury proneness and dirtiness?
Then I'm filtering on speed, selecting first the players with 15 speed and acceleration. Then, for the missing spots, I'm selecting the ones with at least 14 and the 13 and so on.
For the DC, I'm following the same logic but with 17 jump. Should I then look for 14 speed/acc and 16 jump or should I only pick players with 17 jump? I'm playing without targetman but with 3 DC.
Kriek said: To select the player for the national team, I'm doing the following: I'm first filtering the players based on the hidden attributes. For a national team, how important are the injury proneness and dirtiness?
Then I'm filtering on speed, selecting first the players with 15 speed and acceleration. Then, for the missing spots, I'm selecting the ones with at least 14 and the 13 and so on.
For the DC, I'm following the same logic but with 17 jump. Should I then look for 14 speed/acc and 16 jump or should I only pick players with 17 jump? I'm playing without targetman but with 3 DC.
Is this a good way to use your findings? Expand I would think the key thing to select for, especially for a national team, would be match fitness. Low match fitness increases losses and injuries drastically, and can't be fixed in a short amount of time either (i.e. even if you have 1 friendly in advance).
Injury proneness isn't such a huge deal, as it means you're playing a 67% player instead of a 70% one.
Dirtiness should be inversely proportional to aggression. Again it doesn't impact performance severely, because even if a player is red carded, the game doesn't count it as you fielding a 0% player.
In my 'essential' weights, I make the target man/DC 99 jump/61 pace. That's 1.62x for jump, or expressed another way, I would trade 1.62 pace for 1 jump on them. So I would choose 17 jump 13 pace over 16 jump 14 pace, but not 17 jump 12 pace over 16 jump 14 pace.
lossantos said: What do you think about daveincid realism mod for fm24? Expand Coincidentally just a week ago I was about to cite him specifically as the example of what I don't want to be.
I was going to say that I know how frustrating it is when certain people make big claims but don't actually do the testing. And it seems what happens is that because these people are the few bold enough to make these claims (since nobody is bothered to do testing), the ordinary users assume they must be an expert on the matter, and this feeds into their ego where - often with years of reinforcement of this - they actually come to believe they are the experts, and they will start lying in order to maintain their status if challenged.
That is the story of many SI staff/mods and users like BusttheNet.
With daveincid, my beef with him goes back to years ago. It was something like he had claimed he had fixed up FM's youth generation, but I took a look at it and could see that he did not understand how the newgen factors work and was therefore applying them as one would play a game of chess if you believed the pieces move like in checkers. He was just making the same assumptions as other people before him who also didn't know any better.
But I guess that was around his beginning, so I thought I'd investigate a file of his now.
I looked at his SI forums page, and in the side bio it said:
I had a rough start when I opened my eyes for the first time. Struggling through life since 28 years. Finally I know the reason. FM gave me so much hold through the years. I accept my dissabilities and will always have a smile on my face
So then I felt sorry for the guy, and decided I wouldn't attempt to put a hole in what gives his life meaning. Then I ended up on his patreon, where he paywalls his files, and saw he's making $2500/month. I thought blimey, maybe I should have monetized those Genie Scout rating files! And the sob story unraveled for me, as it turned out he was using it for moneygrubbing. You see, he isn't 'able to work' (and instead needs you to make monthly payments to him) because:
My life has not always been easy. I was born three months too early
Struggled for many years with...anxiety and the feeling that something was different
at the age of 28, I was diagnosed with autism
Ok I know it sounds like I'm obsessed with the guy, but you asked me what I think about his realism mod, and my instinctive response is I don't trust him, and I wanted to paint the full picture for you as to why. I ended up not writing all this a week ago, because I decided to omit the rant, and instead just do comparison tests of the genie scout files and post the results.
Now addressing his file pack directly, I glanced at recent explanations by him saying that he adjusts edits until they produce the results he wants. I'm skeptical, but in theory this could work, and it would be too great an undertaking by me to investigate it adequately.
The files with names that promise a lot are the first to pique my interest. One is 'Daveincid's PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS'. How can an editor file, improve FM performance exactly? I already guessed correctly before I opened it, it seems to be mostly deleted entries in the database. But I've tested this before, deleting entries has no effect on FM performance.
I was ready to unleash on the rest of the files, but after examining a few, I can't find anything else disagreeable apart from the newgen changes obviously.
In 'GEOGRAPHICS & LANGUAGES' I scrolled randomly to find Cairo had been changed from 0 > 223 (feet) elevation. Thought it was worth a check. Apparently Cairo is a city with a great variation in elevation, from 2m to 522m. Daveincid has given it 68m. I checked the stadium for a top team, which is Cairo International Stadium, and google says that is 23m but this is wrong. A topographic map website shows it to be ~104m. But this just shows the kind of dilemmas that can arise, it's not always clear cut what the data should be.
A few things raised an eyebrow. Indonesia is a developed state? Depression should be included as an injury? But these are minor quibbles, and there are always going to be mistakes with tens of thousands of changes.
I noticed that the attribute changes to players and clubs were modest and yet questionable. For instance, some club in Bumfuckistan get its youth coaching increased from 3 to 5, and this seems repeated thousands of times for no-name clubs across the world. I doubt this information can be accurately ascertained, but at least the changes are going to be pretty harmless in the case they are wrong or risk upsetting the balance of the game.
I think the upside of these files are mainly in their corrections of grossly inaccurate or inadequate data. For instance where hundreds of clubs have altitude of 0, founding date of 1800, and wrong nicknames. And it seems very comprehensive in this regard. And it's not just fluff either, because weather & altitude actually do have impacts on match performance, both in the game and in real life. And the data on these aspects seems researched rather than guesstimated.
So maybe my initial presumptions were too critical. Overall I would personally give the files a go, except for that which affects newgens, and probably transfers too.
If I'm managing a national team, what are the hard filters I should use appart the hidden ones?
Also 15 Speed and Acc?
So if I'm compairing those 3 MDC/MC, I shouldn't take Kimmich?
Of should I use another value as hard limit for speed and acceleration?
Kriek said: If I'm managing a national team, what are the hard filters I should use appart the hidden ones?
Also 15 Speed and Acc?
So if I'm compairing those 3 MDC/MC, I shouldn't take Kimmich?
Of should I use another value as hard limit for speed and acceleration?
Nmecha every day
Kriek said: If I'm managing a national team, what are the hard filters I should use appart the hidden ones?
Also 15 Speed and Acc?
So if I'm compairing those 3 MDC/MC, I shouldn't take Kimmich?
Of should I use another value as hard limit for speed and acceleration?
Kimmich is superior to those other two in all aspects except pace/acc/jump, and even then he has 20 natural fitness + 17 stamina + 3 injury proneness to mostly offset this downside.
I would like to be able to make the good decision myself, how should I select the players?
Is 12 speed and acceleration ok if the rest of attributes is high? I thought that speed and acceleration was the only things that matters
Kriek said: I would like to be able to make the good decision myself, how should I select the players?
Is 12 speed and acceleration ok if the rest of attributes is high? I thought that speed and acceleration was the only things that matters
Here are the necessary attributes
For Premier League you can get away with 14 pace/acc. If the player has very high stamina, then as low as 12 is viable.
For winning the Premier League, or tough international competition, you'd need 18+ pace/acc. You also need someone with very high jumping reach on the field, and at least decent levels of jumping reach across the team in general.
I'm currently doing some testing using the following personal estimations of how 'essential' attributes are:
Jumping reach 100% essential - 17 min ST/DC, 13 min rest of team = 99, 63 weight
Acceleration/Pace 85% essential - 14 min = 61
Dribbling 45% essential - 13 min = 28
Anticipation 35% essential - 13 min = 22
Concentration 35% essential - 13 min = 22
Determination 25% essential - 14 min = 18
Work Rate 15% essential - 11 min = 7
Agility 15% essential - 10 min = 5
Balance 20% essential - 12 min = 11
Stamina 25% essential - 13 min = 16
Strength 2% essential - 8 min = 1
Finishing 2% essential - 7 min = 1 (ST only)
Vision 2% essential - 7 min = 1
How 'essential' they are is just based on my intuitive feel for the data. So for instance, jumping reach is 100% essential because going below the requirement quickly gets you relegated. Acc/Pace I know can go down to ~12 in certain circumstances (i.e. Harry Kane), so a little leeway there. Work Rate, we know is ok down to 6, and the requirement of 11 isn't high to begin with, so you don't even really need to put it in your weights much (as most players will be 8+ anyway).
Using the weights in the above post, I've done testing of my Genie Scout weights vs. Orion's weights.
I think it's the first time a results-based comparison of the Genie Scout rating files has been attempted.
Method:
- Luton in Premier League
- Remove all players
- Filter in Genie Scout for CA-PA gap of 0-3 and current reputation 0-6000 and green proficiency in relevant position
- Take top 3-4 in each position
- Move them to Luton
- Change age, personality, natural fitness, consistency, important matches, nationality, height, weight, etc. so that there is control where there needs to be
- Position proficiency is deliberately *not* controlled (this has pros and cons)
- One season with Knap tactic and Blue routines (Premier League, FA Cup & Carabao Cup @ full detail)
Extra info:
Player overlap - 13 of 27 players
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 18/18/19/15
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 18/18/19/13
Median acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 14/14/13/12
Median acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 14/14/14/11
The results:
My weights - 10th, 9th, 4th, 9th, 9th, 9th = 8.333th average
Orion's weights - 18th, 12th, 16th, 10th, 10th, 13th = 13.166th average
Now I would caution against reading into these results too much at the moment, but I think it's safe to say at least that Orion's weights do not do significantly better than mine. To my mind, it's further suggestive evidence that all positions share the same necessary attributes; there are not position-specific attributes.
The main reason for caution is that it could simply be that my weights ended up having a higher jumping reach player on the field. The Orion team did start their 19 jump DC most games though, and if my weights are selecting more frequently for high jumping reach players who win then that's a feature not a bug. When I do this test with my Premier League 1.0 weights and one or two others, that will shed more light on this more conclusively.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Using the weights in the above post, I've done testing of my Genie Scout weights vs. Orion's weights.
I think it's the first time a results-based comparison of the Genie Scout rating files has been attempted.
Method:
- Luton in Premier League
- Remove all players
- Filter in Genie Scout for CA-PA gap of 0-3 and current reputation 0-6000 and green proficiency in relevant position
- Take top 3-4 in each position
- Move them to Luton
- Change age, personality, natural fitness, consistency, important matches, nationality, height, weight, etc. so that there is control where there needs to be
- Position proficiency is deliberately *not* controlled (this has pros and cons)
- One season with Knap tactic and Blue routines (Premier League, FA Cup & Carabao Cup @ full detail)
Extra info:
Player overlap - 13 of 27 players
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 18/18/19/15
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 18/18/19/13
Median acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 14/14/13/12
Median acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 14/14/14/11
The results:
My weights - 10th, 9th, 4th, 9th, 9th, 9th = 8.333th average
Orion's weights - 18th, 12th, 16th, 10th, 10th, 13th = 13.166th average
Now I would caution against reading into these results too much at the moment, but I think it's safe to say at least that Orion's weights do not do significantly better than mine. To my mind, it's further suggestive evidence that all positions share the same necessary attributes; there are not position-specific attributes.
The main reason for caution is that it could simply be that my weights ended up having a higher jumping reach player on the field. The Orion team did start their 19 jump DC most games though, and if my weights are selecting more frequently for high jumping reach players who win then that's a feature not a bug. When I do this test with my Premier League 1.0 weights and one or two others, that will shed more light on this more conclusively.
Can you do this against your max performance rating as I found that to be the best, I just removed injury proneness as I don’t require imo
I did 10 season test on fc Metz and that one out preformed the newest file set but might be some rng possibly please test.
You were absolutely right, it was discovered in the new thread that Genie Scout indeed has bugs. For example, the higher the height, the higher the rating.
OpticFawn said: Can you do this against your max performance rating as I found that to be the best, I just removed injury proneness as I don’t require imo
I did 10 season test on fc Metz and that one out preformed the newest file set but might be some rng possibly please test.
FM24 Pure Performance results:
5th*, 6th*, 8th*, 6th, 4th, 10th = 6.5 average
Asterisked results are where I forgot to set injury proneness to 1 as control
Premier League 1.0 results:
6th, 9th, 7th = 7.33 average
I also tried a few alternative tactics with one of these squads, to see if something does better than the Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC tactic I use. The first few did worse, but 424 Classic v164 got 3rd, 3rd, 9th, 5th. Maybe it's just circumstantial, but I'll be taking a closer look at it.
Exellent said: You were absolutely right, it was discovered in the new thread that Genie Scout indeed has bugs. For example, the higher the height, the higher the rating.
The thing is, that program isn't actually Genie Scout as far as I can tell..
The bug he encountered is valid though, but also it may be that he hasn't taken into account footedness and position proficiency which is the more likely cause if not ruled out.
I can't take credit for finding Genie Scout is bugged, LightningFlik clued me onto this.
Falbravv said: Use this, simple and efficient
https://www.mediafire.com/file/vsv3fgyulro0htq/META_FMA.grf/file
I decided to give this a shout in a new save on FM26. I picked Leicester City because I like to play Strikerless and even at 16 this gives Jeremy Monga a good overall rating. He is my SS and in the league before injury played 5 and scored 5. I was sceptical with the ratings file, sold players with high wages and brought in low value players. Signed a goalkeeper for £375 from bodo/glimt.
I normally player my moneyball ratings file. Involves taking data picking top performers find common high value attributes and then weighting them. But honestly having way more success with this
The signings
I forgot to mention something very important. With my GS Rating tests, I have removed all the problematic (bugged) attribute weightings - personality, consistency, important matches, dirtiness, natural fitness, injury proneness.
So for the Premier League 1.0 weightings, what you see is what you get. But for the test of my Pure Performance weightings, you will not get what you see in the test result. The intention here is to compare non-bugged weights between my files, to see which performs better, so that further deductions can be made.
This doesn't remove the GS bugs 100% either, but I think it should reduce it by a lot. If I wanted completely accurate comparison, I would use the weights in FM26 scoring system, but since the idea here is to continue using Genie Scout anyway.. one may as well test to see what does well using Genie Scout.
Premier League 1.0, Pure Performance overlap = 10/27 players
Premier League 1.0, 'Essential' weights from further up this page overlap = 14/27 players
Pure Performance:
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib = 18/18/19/14
Median acc/pace/jump/drib = 14/14/12/11
Prem 1.0:
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib = 15/17/17/14
Median acc/pace/jump/drib = 13/13/13/11
BTW I didn't realize until just a few days ago that you can get the FM26 pre-game editor with the FM26 database for free without buying FM26. You can get it from the Microsoft store.
To select the player for the national team, I'm doing the following:
I'm first filtering the players based on the hidden attributes.
For a national team, how important are the injury proneness and dirtiness?
Then I'm filtering on speed, selecting first the players with 15 speed and acceleration.
Then, for the missing spots, I'm selecting the ones with at least 14 and the 13 and so on.
For the DC, I'm following the same logic but with 17 jump.
Should I then look for 14 speed/acc and 16 jump or should I only pick players with 17 jump?
I'm playing without targetman but with 3 DC.
Is this a good way to use your findings?
Kriek said: To select the player for the national team, I'm doing the following:
I'm first filtering the players based on the hidden attributes.
For a national team, how important are the injury proneness and dirtiness?
Then I'm filtering on speed, selecting first the players with 15 speed and acceleration.
Then, for the missing spots, I'm selecting the ones with at least 14 and the 13 and so on.
For the DC, I'm following the same logic but with 17 jump.
Should I then look for 14 speed/acc and 16 jump or should I only pick players with 17 jump?
I'm playing without targetman but with 3 DC.
Is this a good way to use your findings?
I would think the key thing to select for, especially for a national team, would be match fitness. Low match fitness increases losses and injuries drastically, and can't be fixed in a short amount of time either (i.e. even if you have 1 friendly in advance).
Injury proneness isn't such a huge deal, as it means you're playing a 67% player instead of a 70% one.
Dirtiness should be inversely proportional to aggression. Again it doesn't impact performance severely, because even if a player is red carded, the game doesn't count it as you fielding a 0% player.
In my 'essential' weights, I make the target man/DC 99 jump/61 pace. That's 1.62x for jump, or expressed another way, I would trade 1.62 pace for 1 jump on them. So I would choose 17 jump 13 pace over 16 jump 14 pace, but not 17 jump 12 pace over 16 jump 14 pace.
What do you think about daveincid realism mod for fm24?
lossantos said: What do you think about daveincid realism mod for fm24?
Coincidentally just a week ago I was about to cite him specifically as the example of what I don't want to be.
I was going to say that I know how frustrating it is when certain people make big claims but don't actually do the testing. And it seems what happens is that because these people are the few bold enough to make these claims (since nobody is bothered to do testing), the ordinary users assume they must be an expert on the matter, and this feeds into their ego where - often with years of reinforcement of this - they actually come to believe they are the experts, and they will start lying in order to maintain their status if challenged.
That is the story of many SI staff/mods and users like BusttheNet.
With daveincid, my beef with him goes back to years ago. It was something like he had claimed he had fixed up FM's youth generation, but I took a look at it and could see that he did not understand how the newgen factors work and was therefore applying them as one would play a game of chess if you believed the pieces move like in checkers. He was just making the same assumptions as other people before him who also didn't know any better.
But I guess that was around his beginning, so I thought I'd investigate a file of his now.
I looked at his SI forums page, and in the side bio it said:
I had a rough start when I opened my eyes for the first time. Struggling through life since 28 years. Finally I know the reason. FM gave me so much hold through the years. I accept my dissabilities and will always have a smile on my face
So then I felt sorry for the guy, and decided I wouldn't attempt to put a hole in what gives his life meaning. Then I ended up on his patreon, where he paywalls his files, and saw he's making $2500/month. I thought blimey, maybe I should have monetized those Genie Scout rating files! And the sob story unraveled for me, as it turned out he was using it for moneygrubbing. You see, he isn't 'able to work' (and instead needs you to make monthly payments to him) because:
My life has not always been easy. I was born three months too early
Struggled for many years with...anxiety and the feeling that something was different
at the age of 28, I was diagnosed with autism
Ok I know it sounds like I'm obsessed with the guy, but you asked me what I think about his realism mod, and my instinctive response is I don't trust him, and I wanted to paint the full picture for you as to why. I ended up not writing all this a week ago, because I decided to omit the rant, and instead just do comparison tests of the genie scout files and post the results.
Now addressing his file pack directly, I glanced at recent explanations by him saying that he adjusts edits until they produce the results he wants. I'm skeptical, but in theory this could work, and it would be too great an undertaking by me to investigate it adequately.
The files with names that promise a lot are the first to pique my interest. One is 'Daveincid's PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS'. How can an editor file, improve FM performance exactly? I already guessed correctly before I opened it, it seems to be mostly deleted entries in the database. But I've tested this before, deleting entries has no effect on FM performance.
I was ready to unleash on the rest of the files, but after examining a few, I can't find anything else disagreeable apart from the newgen changes obviously.
In 'GEOGRAPHICS & LANGUAGES' I scrolled randomly to find Cairo had been changed from 0 > 223 (feet) elevation. Thought it was worth a check. Apparently Cairo is a city with a great variation in elevation, from 2m to 522m. Daveincid has given it 68m. I checked the stadium for a top team, which is Cairo International Stadium, and google says that is 23m but this is wrong. A topographic map website shows it to be ~104m. But this just shows the kind of dilemmas that can arise, it's not always clear cut what the data should be.
A few things raised an eyebrow. Indonesia is a developed state? Depression should be included as an injury? But these are minor quibbles, and there are always going to be mistakes with tens of thousands of changes.
I noticed that the attribute changes to players and clubs were modest and yet questionable. For instance, some club in Bumfuckistan get its youth coaching increased from 3 to 5, and this seems repeated thousands of times for no-name clubs across the world. I doubt this information can be accurately ascertained, but at least the changes are going to be pretty harmless in the case they are wrong or risk upsetting the balance of the game.
I think the upside of these files are mainly in their corrections of grossly inaccurate or inadequate data. For instance where hundreds of clubs have altitude of 0, founding date of 1800, and wrong nicknames. And it seems very comprehensive in this regard. And it's not just fluff either, because weather & altitude actually do have impacts on match performance, both in the game and in real life. And the data on these aspects seems researched rather than guesstimated.
So maybe my initial presumptions were too critical. Overall I would personally give the files a go, except for that which affects newgens, and probably transfers too.
Good to see you've not lost that world class irony haha.
No one in their right mind is paying for a file which doesn't have Mbappe in the top 20 players. And you say other people have ego's.