GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Both have downsides. For instance, if you filtered using my template, ter Stegen would be excluded due to his 13 Aerial Reach, and there's also the classic problem of if you filter for more than ~3 attributes no one would qualify.
Obviously the best solution would be some combination of both. A lenient set of filters combined with attribute weightings. But the practical reality I think for most of us is that we're rarely bothered to use filters at all. I think most of us just want a list sorted by rating % to look at. Expand
Is it all about team overall performance or not? Cuz what i've seen on my long real save, as example, Courtouis were bad (with my high def line at least) Yeah i won alot, and gd was insane, but he's avg rating was like 6.8 or something like that haha
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Interesting that you give all hidden attributes 0 weighting even though you claim Genie Scout isn't bugged.
According to those weights, Donnarumma is ranked 9th, while Muric is 202nd.
Meanwhile, actual Premier League test results in reality:
Muric - 3rd 6.81, Sacked March (10th) 6.67, Sacked Febuary (10th) 6.78 = Average 7.666th 6.75 Oblak - 6th 6.87, 7th 6.76, 1st 7.03 = Average 4.666th 6.88 Donnarumma - Sacked November (16th) 6.51, Sacked December (7th) 6.83, 5th 6.91 = Average 9.333th 6.75
For the outfield, the big problems come up where he strays from convention. For instance, he gives 0 weighting to concentration for STs, resulting in this player being rank 40th ST (classed alongside Kane and de Bruyne):
He is limited by his low concentration. I have him ranked 114th alongside Danny Ings at West Ham, rather than Kane at Bayern.
He has Mbappe rated higher than Haaland. You can see on Youtube or my own test results that Haaland does significantly better than Mbappe when Mbappe is put in the same division.
And this is whom he reckons is the 7th best DC in the world:
This is what you get when you weight dribbling at 0, composure at 5, and strength at 50.. or conversely, when you put pace/acc to 100 and don't factor in other attributes properly.
For comparison, this is what my weightings say is the 8th best DC in the world (John Stones was 7th; a little too old to do):
Zouma isn't bad, I have him at 65th. But he's not an absolute top player.. he's a West Ham player. Expand
Corrrr this is some tantrum. I love you way you are disingenuous or just flat out lie in a lot of this. Its hilarious.
Genie scout isn't bugged in the way you continuously made out. It isn't giving Mbappe a rating of 70 or whatever it was because its bugged. Its because your ratings file is awful. I've always known it cant handle the hidden attributes and minus values. I posted several times thats why your file was wrong. You still dont understand the game or GS.
You keep saying and believing your tests are valid hahaha. They aren't. Other people have said to you they aren't. Quoting a video on youtube from someone who was probably trying to become a content creator is embarrassing. How is it any evidence at all??? Whats worse is you're conducting the same tests thinking they're good haahaha.
TS has 10 for concentration. I put the file together in 5 minutes. But forwards dont need it and top players will have it anyway. Its a defensive attribute. Mbappe is not rated higher than Haaland, so thats a lie. Why do you have to lie in response? I did need to increase TS weight so thanks for pointing that out though.
Zouma is top quality. There was a guy on here a few years ago who was very knowledgeable about the game, but a total prick. He loved Zouma at centre back. Saying he's a West Ham player means nothing. David Ozoh is a Palace player. He's often a top DM for cheap. Not always the same player every save though. There has and always will be players from smaller clubs who excel in FM.
Again do you even play this game? As I said from day one, you're a wanna be. But you know nothing.
iezzex said: Is it all about team overall performance or not? Cuz what i've seen on my long real save, as example, Courtouis were bad (with my high def line at least) Yeah i won alot, and gd was insane, but he's avg rating was like 6.8 or something like that haha Expand To clarify, my template, and therefore the weightings, are based on team position at end of season, not match ratings.
iezzex said: Is it all about team overall performance or not? Cuz what i've seen on my long real save, as example, Courtouis were bad (with my high def line at least) Yeah i won alot, and gd was insane, but he's avg rating was like 6.8 or something like that haha Expand
Keepers wont get a high rating if they aren't doing much. And you will concede. Ratings in FM are based on goals, assists and keepers struggle to get 9-10 ratings. They can make ten saves and still only be in the 8's.
keithb said: Keepers wont get a high rating if they aren't doing much. And you will concede. Ratings in FM are based on goals, assists and keepers struggle to get 9-10 ratings. They can make ten saves and still only be in the 8's. Expand
I meant for example Courtouis always perfrom bad for me, Diogo Costa perfrom way better in same tactis, less concided, better rating etc and i can see that he actually make saves, while Courtouis wont save his only 1 1v1 in a match xd
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: To clarify, my template, and therefore the weightings, are based on team position at end of season, not match ratings. Expand
So heres my question If i still win, but i wanna find a keeper that actually saves, what i shall look for Rn Chevalier looks good for me, best keeper for me yet, but he's old in my save, so i wanna find or make a good regen, waht to look for?
iezzex said: So heres my question If i still win, but i wanna find a keeper that actually saves, what i shall look for Rn Chevalier looks good for me, best keeper for me yet, but he's old in my save, so i wanna find or make a good regen, waht to look for? Expand
If you use the genie scout rating file I posted on the page before that will show you the top keepers and who will be the best in the future.
iezzex said: So heres my question If i still win, but i wanna find a keeper that actually saves, what i shall look for Rn Chevalier looks good for me, best keeper for me yet, but he's old in my save, so i wanna find or make a good regen, waht to look for? Expand I may have a look into it later, but I suspect that it's fundamentally your tactic and overall level of quality of your players, not the attributes of your GK, that determine the number of goals he concedes.
We can influence who scores goals in a team, but that's because at the end of the day a goal is going to be scored. But you can't reduce the number of goals your GK concedes, because he's the only one who can concede them.
keithb said: I've always known it cant handle the hidden attributes and minus values. I posted several times thats why your file was wrong. You still dont understand the game or GS. Expand
So consistency gets nothing at all? I've got mine at 16 in GenieScout, based on the FM-Arena attribute testing.
kvasir said: So consistency gets nothing at all? I've got mine at 16 in GenieScout, based on the FM-Arena attribute testing. Expand
16/20 or filtered at 16? Both would be way too high. Its worth ten points?
I wouldn't set any values for attributes that dont go upto 100. By all means filter for them. For example I do injury proneness maximum 17, pressure minimum 5 and professionalism 12-15.
You could set consistency at 5/20 if you wish in the filter. I dont bother. Of course I dont want players who have 1, but it never seems to be too big a deal if they're around 8.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I may have a look into it later, but I suspect that it's fundamentally your tactic and overall level of quality of your players, not the attributes of your GK, that determine the number of goals he concedes.
We can influence who scores goals in a team, but that's because at the end of the day a goal is going to be scored. But you can't reduce the number of goals your GK concedes, because he's the only one who can concede them. Expand
The same tactic, only GK difference, but once i got 0.8 xga and 0.4 conceded and with other GK i got 0.8 conceded And it looks like it matters But idk, need a huge amount of tests to realise
Idea for a test case High line and possesion based tactic with two different GK's In my long term saves for example Couroutis always perform bad, and Costa perfroms well So the idea is to look for xga / conceded and pts for a same team with diff GK for a few times
Anyways i yet look for main params as Aeiral Reach, Agility and Reaction for a GK But with additional focus on Handling and One on ones
Also FM generates pretty stupid new GK's and Defenders 180 and below xD
keithb said: If you use the genie scout rating file I posted on the page before that will show you the top keepers and who will be the best in the future. Expand
I dont use Genie tho, i scout with ingame things and everything is fine at least for top club with good scouting % of saves and good attributes is enough for me
keithb said: 16/20 or filtered at 16? Both would be way too high. Its worth ten points?
I wouldn't set any values for attributes that dont go upto 100. By all means filter for them. For example I do injury proneness maximum 17, pressure minimum 5 and professionalism 12-15.
You could set consistency at 5/20 if you wish in the filter. I dont bother. Of course I dont want players who have 1, but it never seems to be too big a deal if they're around 8. Expand
16 out of 100 as a weight in Genie, not as a value out of 20.
kvasir said: 16 out of 100 as a weight in Genie, not as a value out of 20. Expand
Sorry I forget they're lumped in with the other attributes.
I believe the attributes you can see on the screen when playing FM are out of 100, hence GS is. But all hidden attributes are out of 20. I dont know why consistency and important matches are in with the visible attributes.
So I wouldn't set them at all or use a filter, because I think its another problem with GS. But easy to fix/avoid and you can still see the values when looking at players.
You guys are really still arguing about ratings files for a 3 year old game that anyone with a pulse can do well in without genie scout... Complaining about players who have played for 3 clubs since the one being brought up. What an insane waste of free time. It's not that hard either get players with already high meta attributes or players with good everything else and train quickness.
( edited 12 hours, 11 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#468
Link to the post:
Although I don't agree with the reasoning given as critique of my weightings, I do believe the underlying idea that the precise rankings may be somewhat impaired.
I attempted to address this with weighting the weights, but it produced worse results, or at least no better.
I've tried comparative deduction by comparing several players match ratings & goal tallies with their attributes. Some key problems with this approach:
- Match ratings have been demonstrated to favor presence of technical/mental ability over actual wins - Goals scored can simply reflect finishing, and poor finishing has minimal effect on the team win rate (it simply means someone else with higher finishing in the team scores the goals) - I actually managed to get the players to 'line up' with the ratings/goals a lot better, but it took a very strange set of GS weightings to get there. Either I'm on the wrong track, or even if it's right, I would be building a house without being able to know the foundations.
I concluded that what's actually needed is more result-based data, but on individual players. It's more tedious, and will require a fair amount of samples for good accuracy, but I think it's the best approach.
Method
I use my meta team at Man City, but replace a position with duplicates of a particular player. If I'm testing ST, I remove proficiency in other positions so as not to mess up the results, as what I'm most interested in is deducing what constitutes the precise ranking of STs. Full detail is used for all first team competitions.
Results
Here's some data I've collected so far (ranked by team performance with player as ST):
The reason I picked Le Fondre to include is because I saw him compared in a Youtube video, and even though he's a 36-year-old with 9 pace/acc, he managed the results you see here. A takeaway from this for me is that pace/acc isn't strictly necessary. Using the comparative deduction I mentioned before, I found that anticipation and composure are more critical than pace/acc.. as I said, these are strange conclusions, so rather than make the facts fit the theory, I'm going to be getting the facts straight first and then seeing what theory fits the data.
I'll probably do about 5-6 samples each of ~10 players for ST and then see if I can deduce consistent patterns to create accurate weightings.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Although I don't agree with the reasoning given as critique of my weightings, I do believe the underlying idea that the precise rankings may be somewhat impaired.
I attempted to address this with weighting the weights, but it produced worse results, or at least no better.
I've tried comparative deduction by comparing several players match ratings & goal tallies with their attributes. Some key problems with this approach:
- Match ratings have been demonstrated to favor presence of technical/mental ability over actual wins - Goals scored can simply reflect finishing, and poor finishing has minimal effect on the team win rate (it simply means someone else with higher finishing in the team scores the goals) - I actually managed to get the players to 'line up' with the ratings/goals a lot better, but it took a very strange set of GS weightings to get there. Either I'm on the wrong track, or even if it's right, I would be building a house without being able to know the foundations.
I concluded that what's actually needed is more result-based data, but on individual players. It's more tedious, and will require a fair amount of samples for good accuracy, but I think it's the best approach.
Method
I use my meta team at Man City, but replace a position with duplicates of a particular player. If I'm testing ST, I remove proficiency in other positions so as not to mess up the results, as what I'm most interested in is deducing what constitutes the precise ranking of STs. Full detail is used for all first team competitions.
Results
Here's some data I've collected so far (ranked by team performance with player as ST):
The reason I picked Le Fondre to include is because I saw him compared in a Youtube video, and even though he's a 36-year-old with 9 pace/acc, he managed the results you see here. A takeaway from this for me is that pace/acc isn't strictly necessary. Using the comparative deduction I mentioned before, I found that anticipation and composure are more critical than pace/acc.. as I said, these are strange conclusions, so rather than make the facts fit the theory, I'm going to be getting the facts straight first and then seeing what theory fits the data.
I'll probably do about 5-6 samples each of ~10 players for ST and then see if I can deduce consistent patterns to create accurate weightings. Expand
Incredible how you keep trying to prove your point to someone who cant read lmao
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: The reason I picked Le Fondre to include is because I saw him compared in a Youtube video, and even though he's a 36-year-old with 9 pace/acc, he managed the results you see here. A takeaway from this for me is that pace/acc isn't strictly necessary. Using the comparative deduction I mentioned before, I found that anticipation and composure are more critical than pace/acc.. as I said, these are strange conclusions, so rather than make the facts fit the theory, I'm going to be getting the facts straight first and then seeing what theory fits the data. Expand
Also, strange thing i've faced Everyone here says about acc/pace, but for me rn the most scoring person in my team is 33 y.o. Florian Wirtz, with almost destroyed physical attributes And he's not just scoring, he also nake key passes, assists and having the best average rating in a league And yeah there's also Haaland in my team (even older, but Haaland is a Haaland right) He's pacey then wirtz and physically better, have same dribbling, better finishing etc, but scores equal or less
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Although I don't agree with the reasoning given as critique of my weightings, I do believe the underlying idea that the precise rankings may be somewhat impaired.
I attempted to address this with weighting the weights, but it produced worse results, or at least no better.
I've tried comparative deduction by comparing several players match ratings & goal tallies with their attributes. Some key problems with this approach:
- Match ratings have been demonstrated to favor presence of technical/mental ability over actual wins - Goals scored can simply reflect finishing, and poor finishing has minimal effect on the team win rate (it simply means someone else with higher finishing in the team scores the goals) - I actually managed to get the players to 'line up' with the ratings/goals a lot better, but it took a very strange set of GS weightings to get there. Either I'm on the wrong track, or even if it's right, I would be building a house without being able to know the foundations.
I concluded that what's actually needed is more result-based data, but on individual players. It's more tedious, and will require a fair amount of samples for good accuracy, but I think it's the best approach.
Method
I use my meta team at Man City, but replace a position with duplicates of a particular player. If I'm testing ST, I remove proficiency in other positions so as not to mess up the results, as what I'm most interested in is deducing what constitutes the precise ranking of STs. Full detail is used for all first team competitions.
Results
Here's some data I've collected so far (ranked by team performance with player as ST):
The reason I picked Le Fondre to include is because I saw him compared in a Youtube video, and even though he's a 36-year-old with 9 pace/acc, he managed the results you see here. A takeaway from this for me is that pace/acc isn't strictly necessary. Using the comparative deduction I mentioned before, I found that anticipation and composure are more critical than pace/acc.. as I said, these are strange conclusions, so rather than make the facts fit the theory, I'm going to be getting the facts straight first and then seeing what theory fits the data.
I'll probably do about 5-6 samples each of ~10 players for ST and then see if I can deduce consistent patterns to create accurate weightings. Expand
Do you remember when you didn't have Haaland top of your ratings and thought they were correct š.
No one thinks this testing is reliable btw. Just you in your own world.
Of course pace and acceleration aren't needed they're just the best. People have been playing and succeeding for years thinking all attributes are important.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Both have downsides. For instance, if you filtered using my template, ter Stegen would be excluded due to his 13 Aerial Reach, and there's also the classic problem of if you filter for more than ~3 attributes no one would qualify.
Obviously the best solution would be some combination of both. A lenient set of filters combined with attribute weightings. But the practical reality I think for most of us is that we're rarely bothered to use filters at all. I think most of us just want a list sorted by rating % to look at.
Is it all about team overall performance or not?
Cuz what i've seen on my long real save, as example, Courtouis were bad (with my high def line at least)
Yeah i won alot, and gd was insane, but he's avg rating was like 6.8 or something like that haha
johnconnerson said: This looks like an FM file, not a Genie Scout ratings file.
you just rename the fmf to grf
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Interesting that you give all hidden attributes 0 weighting even though you claim Genie Scout isn't bugged.
According to those weights, Donnarumma is ranked 9th, while Muric is 202nd.
Meanwhile, actual Premier League test results in reality:
Muric - 3rd 6.81, Sacked March (10th) 6.67, Sacked Febuary (10th) 6.78 = Average 7.666th 6.75
Oblak - 6th 6.87, 7th 6.76, 1st 7.03 = Average 4.666th 6.88
Donnarumma - Sacked November (16th) 6.51, Sacked December (7th) 6.83, 5th 6.91 = Average 9.333th 6.75
For the outfield, the big problems come up where he strays from convention. For instance, he gives 0 weighting to concentration for STs, resulting in this player being rank 40th ST (classed alongside Kane and de Bruyne):
He is limited by his low concentration. I have him ranked 114th alongside Danny Ings at West Ham, rather than Kane at Bayern.
He has Mbappe rated higher than Haaland. You can see on Youtube or my own test results that Haaland does significantly better than Mbappe when Mbappe is put in the same division.
And this is whom he reckons is the 7th best DC in the world:
This is what you get when you weight dribbling at 0, composure at 5, and strength at 50.. or conversely, when you put pace/acc to 100 and don't factor in other attributes properly.
For comparison, this is what my weightings say is the 8th best DC in the world (John Stones was 7th; a little too old to do):
Zouma isn't bad, I have him at 65th. But he's not an absolute top player.. he's a West Ham player.
Corrrr this is some tantrum. I love you way you are disingenuous or just flat out lie in a lot of this. Its hilarious.
Genie scout isn't bugged in the way you continuously made out. It isn't giving Mbappe a rating of 70 or whatever it was because its bugged. Its because your ratings file is awful. I've always known it cant handle the hidden attributes and minus values. I posted several times thats why your file was wrong. You still dont understand the game or GS.
You keep saying and believing your tests are valid hahaha. They aren't. Other people have said to you they aren't. Quoting a video on youtube from someone who was probably trying to become a content creator is embarrassing. How is it any evidence at all??? Whats worse is you're conducting the same tests thinking they're good haahaha.
TS has 10 for concentration. I put the file together in 5 minutes. But forwards dont need it and top players will have it anyway. Its a defensive attribute. Mbappe is not rated higher than Haaland, so thats a lie. Why do you have to lie in response? I did need to increase TS weight so thanks for pointing that out though.
Zouma is top quality. There was a guy on here a few years ago who was very knowledgeable about the game, but a total prick. He loved Zouma at centre back. Saying he's a West Ham player means nothing. David Ozoh is a Palace player. He's often a top DM for cheap. Not always the same player every save though. There has and always will be players from smaller clubs who excel in FM.
Again do you even play this game? As I said from day one, you're a wanna be. But you know nothing.
iezzex said: Is it all about team overall performance or not?
Cuz what i've seen on my long real save, as example, Courtouis were bad (with my high def line at least)
Yeah i won alot, and gd was insane, but he's avg rating was like 6.8 or something like that haha
To clarify, my template, and therefore the weightings, are based on team position at end of season, not match ratings.
iezzex said: Is it all about team overall performance or not?
Cuz what i've seen on my long real save, as example, Courtouis were bad (with my high def line at least)
Yeah i won alot, and gd was insane, but he's avg rating was like 6.8 or something like that haha
Keepers wont get a high rating if they aren't doing much. And you will concede. Ratings in FM are based on goals, assists and keepers struggle to get 9-10 ratings. They can make ten saves and still only be in the 8's.
keithb said: Keepers wont get a high rating if they aren't doing much. And you will concede. Ratings in FM are based on goals, assists and keepers struggle to get 9-10 ratings. They can make ten saves and still only be in the 8's.
I meant for example Courtouis always perfrom bad for me, Diogo Costa perfrom way better in same tactis, less concided, better rating etc and i can see that he actually make saves, while Courtouis wont save his only 1 1v1 in a match xd
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: To clarify, my template, and therefore the weightings, are based on team position at end of season, not match ratings.
So heres my question
If i still win, but i wanna find a keeper that actually saves, what i shall look for
Rn Chevalier looks good for me, best keeper for me yet, but he's old in my save, so i wanna find or make a good regen, waht to look for?
iezzex said: So heres my question
If i still win, but i wanna find a keeper that actually saves, what i shall look for
Rn Chevalier looks good for me, best keeper for me yet, but he's old in my save, so i wanna find or make a good regen, waht to look for?
If you use the genie scout rating file I posted on the page before that will show you the top keepers and who will be the best in the future.
iezzex said: So heres my question
If i still win, but i wanna find a keeper that actually saves, what i shall look for
Rn Chevalier looks good for me, best keeper for me yet, but he's old in my save, so i wanna find or make a good regen, waht to look for?
I may have a look into it later, but I suspect that it's fundamentally your tactic and overall level of quality of your players, not the attributes of your GK, that determine the number of goals he concedes.
We can influence who scores goals in a team, but that's because at the end of the day a goal is going to be scored. But you can't reduce the number of goals your GK concedes, because he's the only one who can concede them.
keithb said: I've always known it cant handle the hidden attributes and minus values. I posted several times thats why your file was wrong. You still dont understand the game or GS.
So consistency gets nothing at all? I've got mine at 16 in GenieScout, based on the FM-Arena attribute testing.
kvasir said: So consistency gets nothing at all? I've got mine at 16 in GenieScout, based on the FM-Arena attribute testing.
16/20 or filtered at 16? Both would be way too high. Its worth ten points?
I wouldn't set any values for attributes that dont go upto 100. By all means filter for them. For example I do injury proneness maximum 17, pressure minimum 5 and professionalism 12-15.
You could set consistency at 5/20 if you wish in the filter. I dont bother. Of course I dont want players who have 1, but it never seems to be too big a deal if they're around 8.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I may have a look into it later, but I suspect that it's fundamentally your tactic and overall level of quality of your players, not the attributes of your GK, that determine the number of goals he concedes.
We can influence who scores goals in a team, but that's because at the end of the day a goal is going to be scored. But you can't reduce the number of goals your GK concedes, because he's the only one who can concede them.
The same tactic, only GK difference, but once i got 0.8 xga and 0.4 conceded and with other GK i got 0.8 conceded
And it looks like it matters
But idk, need a huge amount of tests to realise
Idea for a test case
High line and possesion based tactic with two different GK's
In my long term saves for example Couroutis always perform bad, and Costa perfroms well
So the idea is to look for xga / conceded and pts for a same team with diff GK for a few times
Anyways i yet look for main params as Aeiral Reach, Agility and Reaction for a GK
But with additional focus on Handling and One on ones
Also FM generates pretty stupid new GK's and Defenders 180 and below xD
keithb said: If you use the genie scout rating file I posted on the page before that will show you the top keepers and who will be the best in the future.
I dont use Genie tho, i scout with ingame things and everything is fine at least for top club with good scouting
% of saves and good attributes is enough for me
keithb said: 16/20 or filtered at 16? Both would be way too high. Its worth ten points?
I wouldn't set any values for attributes that dont go upto 100. By all means filter for them. For example I do injury proneness maximum 17, pressure minimum 5 and professionalism 12-15.
You could set consistency at 5/20 if you wish in the filter. I dont bother. Of course I dont want players who have 1, but it never seems to be too big a deal if they're around 8.
16 out of 100 as a weight in Genie, not as a value out of 20.
kvasir said: 16 out of 100 as a weight in Genie, not as a value out of 20.
Sorry I forget they're lumped in with the other attributes.
I believe the attributes you can see on the screen when playing FM are out of 100, hence GS is. But all hidden attributes are out of 20. I dont know why consistency and important matches are in with the visible attributes.
So I wouldn't set them at all or use a filter, because I think its another problem with GS. But easy to fix/avoid and you can still see the values when looking at players.
You guys are really still arguing about ratings files for a 3 year old game that anyone with a pulse can do well in without genie scout... Complaining about players who have played for 3 clubs since the one being brought up. What an insane waste of free time. It's not that hard either get players with already high meta attributes or players with good everything else and train quickness.
Arguing? I am being entertained by a clown and having a bloody good laugh thanks.
Although I don't agree with the reasoning given as critique of my weightings, I do believe the underlying idea that the precise rankings may be somewhat impaired.
I attempted to address this with weighting the weights, but it produced worse results, or at least no better.
I've tried comparative deduction by comparing several players match ratings & goal tallies with their attributes. Some key problems with this approach:
- Match ratings have been demonstrated to favor presence of technical/mental ability over actual wins
- Goals scored can simply reflect finishing, and poor finishing has minimal effect on the team win rate (it simply means someone else with higher finishing in the team scores the goals)
- I actually managed to get the players to 'line up' with the ratings/goals a lot better, but it took a very strange set of GS weightings to get there. Either I'm on the wrong track, or even if it's right, I would be building a house without being able to know the foundations.
I concluded that what's actually needed is more result-based data, but on individual players. It's more tedious, and will require a fair amount of samples for good accuracy, but I think it's the best approach.
Method
I use my meta team at Man City, but replace a position with duplicates of a particular player. If I'm testing ST, I remove proficiency in other positions so as not to mess up the results, as what I'm most interested in is deducing what constitutes the precise ranking of STs. Full detail is used for all first team competitions.
Results
Here's some data I've collected so far (ranked by team performance with player as ST):
Erling Haaland š - 1st, 1st, 4th = 2nd position, 1.263 goals/match, 7.93 rating
Kylian Mbappe š© - 5th, 1st, 3rd = 3rd position, 0.708 goals/match, 7.54 rating
Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th = 3rd position, 0.533 goals/match, 7.28 rating
Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd = 3.5th position, 0.429 goals/match, 7.25 rating
Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th = 4.333th position, 0.699 goals/match, 7.27 rating
Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th = 8th position, 0.416 goals/match, 6.82 rating
The reason I picked Le Fondre to include is because I saw him compared in a Youtube video, and even though he's a 36-year-old with 9 pace/acc, he managed the results you see here. A takeaway from this for me is that pace/acc isn't strictly necessary. Using the comparative deduction I mentioned before, I found that anticipation and composure are more critical than pace/acc.. as I said, these are strange conclusions, so rather than make the facts fit the theory, I'm going to be getting the facts straight first and then seeing what theory fits the data.
I'll probably do about 5-6 samples each of ~10 players for ST and then see if I can deduce consistent patterns to create accurate weightings.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Although I don't agree with the reasoning given as critique of my weightings, I do believe the underlying idea that the precise rankings may be somewhat impaired.
I attempted to address this with weighting the weights, but it produced worse results, or at least no better.
I've tried comparative deduction by comparing several players match ratings & goal tallies with their attributes. Some key problems with this approach:
- Match ratings have been demonstrated to favor presence of technical/mental ability over actual wins
- Goals scored can simply reflect finishing, and poor finishing has minimal effect on the team win rate (it simply means someone else with higher finishing in the team scores the goals)
- I actually managed to get the players to 'line up' with the ratings/goals a lot better, but it took a very strange set of GS weightings to get there. Either I'm on the wrong track, or even if it's right, I would be building a house without being able to know the foundations.
I concluded that what's actually needed is more result-based data, but on individual players. It's more tedious, and will require a fair amount of samples for good accuracy, but I think it's the best approach.
Method
I use my meta team at Man City, but replace a position with duplicates of a particular player. If I'm testing ST, I remove proficiency in other positions so as not to mess up the results, as what I'm most interested in is deducing what constitutes the precise ranking of STs. Full detail is used for all first team competitions.
Results
Here's some data I've collected so far (ranked by team performance with player as ST):
Erling Haaland š - 1st, 1st, 4th = 2nd position, 1.263 goals/match, 7.93 rating
Kylian Mbappe š© - 5th, 1st, 3rd = 3rd position, 0.708 goals/match, 7.54 rating
Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th = 3rd position, 0.533 goals/match, 7.28 rating
Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd = 3.5th position, 0.429 goals/match, 7.25 rating
Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th = 4.333th position, 0.699 goals/match, 7.27 rating
Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th = 8th position, 0.416 goals/match, 6.82 rating
The reason I picked Le Fondre to include is because I saw him compared in a Youtube video, and even though he's a 36-year-old with 9 pace/acc, he managed the results you see here. A takeaway from this for me is that pace/acc isn't strictly necessary. Using the comparative deduction I mentioned before, I found that anticipation and composure are more critical than pace/acc.. as I said, these are strange conclusions, so rather than make the facts fit the theory, I'm going to be getting the facts straight first and then seeing what theory fits the data.
I'll probably do about 5-6 samples each of ~10 players for ST and then see if I can deduce consistent patterns to create accurate weightings.
Incredible how you keep trying to prove your point to someone who cant read lmao
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: The reason I picked Le Fondre to include is because I saw him compared in a Youtube video, and even though he's a 36-year-old with 9 pace/acc, he managed the results you see here. A takeaway from this for me is that pace/acc isn't strictly necessary. Using the comparative deduction I mentioned before, I found that anticipation and composure are more critical than pace/acc.. as I said, these are strange conclusions, so rather than make the facts fit the theory, I'm going to be getting the facts straight first and then seeing what theory fits the data.
Also, strange thing i've faced
Everyone here says about acc/pace, but for me rn the most scoring person in my team is 33 y.o. Florian Wirtz, with almost destroyed physical attributes
And he's not just scoring, he also nake key passes, assists and having the best average rating in a league
And yeah there's also Haaland in my team (even older, but Haaland is a Haaland right)
He's pacey then wirtz and physically better, have same dribbling, better finishing etc, but scores equal or less
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Although I don't agree with the reasoning given as critique of my weightings, I do believe the underlying idea that the precise rankings may be somewhat impaired.
I attempted to address this with weighting the weights, but it produced worse results, or at least no better.
I've tried comparative deduction by comparing several players match ratings & goal tallies with their attributes. Some key problems with this approach:
- Match ratings have been demonstrated to favor presence of technical/mental ability over actual wins
- Goals scored can simply reflect finishing, and poor finishing has minimal effect on the team win rate (it simply means someone else with higher finishing in the team scores the goals)
- I actually managed to get the players to 'line up' with the ratings/goals a lot better, but it took a very strange set of GS weightings to get there. Either I'm on the wrong track, or even if it's right, I would be building a house without being able to know the foundations.
I concluded that what's actually needed is more result-based data, but on individual players. It's more tedious, and will require a fair amount of samples for good accuracy, but I think it's the best approach.
Method
I use my meta team at Man City, but replace a position with duplicates of a particular player. If I'm testing ST, I remove proficiency in other positions so as not to mess up the results, as what I'm most interested in is deducing what constitutes the precise ranking of STs. Full detail is used for all first team competitions.
Results
Here's some data I've collected so far (ranked by team performance with player as ST):
Erling Haaland š - 1st, 1st, 4th = 2nd position, 1.263 goals/match, 7.93 rating
Kylian Mbappe š© - 5th, 1st, 3rd = 3rd position, 0.708 goals/match, 7.54 rating
Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th = 3rd position, 0.533 goals/match, 7.28 rating
Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd = 3.5th position, 0.429 goals/match, 7.25 rating
Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th = 4.333th position, 0.699 goals/match, 7.27 rating
Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th = 8th position, 0.416 goals/match, 6.82 rating
The reason I picked Le Fondre to include is because I saw him compared in a Youtube video, and even though he's a 36-year-old with 9 pace/acc, he managed the results you see here. A takeaway from this for me is that pace/acc isn't strictly necessary. Using the comparative deduction I mentioned before, I found that anticipation and composure are more critical than pace/acc.. as I said, these are strange conclusions, so rather than make the facts fit the theory, I'm going to be getting the facts straight first and then seeing what theory fits the data.
I'll probably do about 5-6 samples each of ~10 players for ST and then see if I can deduce consistent patterns to create accurate weightings.
Do you remember when you didn't have Haaland top of your ratings and thought they were correct š.
No one thinks this testing is reliable btw. Just you in your own world.
Iām a simple man. When Iām looking for a striker, what are the 3 most important attributes: acceleration, pace, and what else?
BaZuKa said: Iām a simple man. When Iām looking for a striker, what are the 3 most important attributes: acceleration, pace, and what else?
Jumping reach in fm24
fr, just want best players to win with not to develop them into the best
Of course pace and acceleration aren't needed they're just the best. People have been playing and succeeding for years thinking all attributes are important.