Nobody thinks your testing is good. No one. Aren't you Man City and you leave the rest of the league as it is? Yesterday you had genie scout default ratings as not that bad. No one can take you seriously.
Where did Harvest Green say attributes aren't linear? I haven't read everything he's contributed so must have missed it.
Again this testing is nonsense. In different years the players and opposition will be different. Its of no use at all unless people want to freeze the game the whole time they play it. You contradict yourself with every next master test and change your view like the wind.
Thousands of people and more have used the fm arena results and made the game too easy. Challenges such as win the champions league in 5+ nations, only taking jobs in div2 or below became incredibly easy.
You had Mbappe outside the top20 strikers and obviously lied to say it was Genie scout's fault. Complete lie as in premier league 1 you hadn't set hidden attributes. You lie a lot. And at the time you boldly declared premier league 1 to be the new gold standard. hahahaha. You do make people laugh a lot.
kvasir said: Did you find JR to be the only thing that matters on corners? I had a newgen with 20 JR, 14 STR and something like 3 heading. He scored nowhere near as much as a CB with 17 JR, 17 STR, 15 heading. Anecdotal, sure. And I dropped that save, so I can't tell you if that season was a fluke or the norm. Still, on corners at least, JR doesn't look like the whole story for aerial threat. Expand
Genuinely im not sure. I sort them by jumping reach and then if they tie add together strength and heading and the higher total goes above. But i played retro saves with players who had 20 jumping reach and they could score 50 goals a season.
He said it here, about Work Rate. Not sure about the other attributes, but I remember reading that and I've had a filter set at 6+ Work Rate ever since. Anyway, my GS rating puts Work Rate's weight at 25+ across every position, highest for DMs and fullbacks, so yeah.
Lowering the Work rate 1 , it have very serious consequences (goal difference -110),
and it should be ensured that a player has at least 6 and preferably 10 Work rate. A player with a Work rate is not desirable. But continuing to increase Work rate (from 10->20) is low effect. The difference between Work rate 10 and Work rate 20 is relative small.
The 6-point attribute seems to be the threshold for some attributes.
Core attributes are these: Special : Work rate (need to reach 10, higher is useless), Pace, Acceleration, Jumping reach, Dribbling, Balance, Concentration, Anticipation, Determination，Agility.
He said it here, about Work Rate. Not sure about the other attributes, but I remember reading that and I've had a filter set at 6+ Work Rate ever since. Anyway, my GS rating puts Work Rate's weight at 25+ across every position, highest for DMs and fullbacks, so yeah. Expand
Well if thats all he said then he didn't say it did he. But no surprise if Bozo is quoting that. He's a liar.
keithb said: Nobody thinks your testing is good. No one. Aren't you Man City and you leave the rest of the league as it is? Yesterday you had genie scout default ratings as not that bad. No one can take you seriously.
Where did Harvest Green say attributes aren't linear? I haven't read everything he's contributed so must have missed it.
Again this testing is nonsense. In different years the players and opposition will be different. Its of no use at all unless people want to freeze the game the whole time they play it. You contradict yourself with every next master test and change your view like the wind.
Thousands of people and more have used the fm arena results and made the game too easy. Challenges such as win the champions league in 5+ nations, only taking jobs in div2 or below became incredibly easy.
You had Mbappe outside the top20 strikers and obviously lied to say it was Genie scout's fault. Complete lie as in premier league 1 you hadn't set hidden attributes. You lie a lot. And at the time you boldly declared premier league 1 to be the new gold standard. hahahaha. You do make people laugh a lot. Expand
ywah, he just holiday the season with man city with a random dude as striker got second position and then he holiday the season with mbappe or harry kane got second position too.
So of course the only way to view is the random dude is as good as mbappe of course.
He said it here, about Work Rate. Not sure about the other attributes, but I remember reading that and I've had a filter set at 6+ Work Rate ever since. Lowering the Work rate 1 , it have very serious consequences (goal difference -110),
and it should be ensured that a player has at least 6 and preferably 10 Work rate. A player with a Work rate is not desirable. But continuing to increase Work rate (from 10->20) is low effect. The difference between Work rate 10 and Work rate 20 is relative small.
The 6-point attribute seems to be the threshold for some attributes.
Core attributes are these: Special : Work rate (need to reach 10, higher is useless) Expand
keithb said: Well if thats all he said then he didn't say it did he. But no surprise if Bozo is quoting that. He's a liar. Expand Amazing.
skawkclsrn said: TL;DR: I randomised all 60 attributes of every player in a 20-club league every 75 seconds and let the game holiday through ~16,000 full-engine matches. Pace and Acceleration are worth ~3x anything else. Everything technical measured at or below zero. According to these resutls no attribute has a threshold, they pay linearly 1-20. Once you divide by what a point costs in CA, the best buys are Work Rate, Jumping Reach and the hidden personality attributes, which are (mostly) free.
Method FM's engine is C++ with MSVC RTTI, so every object carries its class name behind the vtable pointer, so you can find every player and scoreline by name instead of hunting offsets. Loop: write a random attribute vector into every squad, sleep 75s while the game holidays, read back and harvest scorelines, repeat every 75s to take into account promoted teams.
Warning that cost me 120,000 matches Match Detail Level decides which simulator runs. On None everything resolves through the Quick Match Engine and effects come out 10x too small in the wrong order. Set the competition to All Competitive Matches. The quick path has its own QME_STAT_MANAGER sitting beside Poisson and Normal distribution objects, so it samples statistics rather than simulating football.
Dataset 15,951 full-engine matches. 47 visible + 5 hidden + 8 personality attributes randomised. CA and PA pinned at 150, morale pinned at 15. Attributes are stored 1-100 and displayed /5; personality attributes sit on a different record at plain 1-20.
Reading the numbers CA is pinned, so ability is a fixed budget and every weight answers "given fixed ability, where is it best spent?" Positioning at -9.6 does not mean Positioning harms you, rather it means CA spent there is not spent on Pace, and that trade costs about 10 points a season.
Validation Fitted on 5,011 matches, tested on 5,011 never used for fitting. Correlation with actual goal difference: Measured weights 0.392; Pace+Acceleration only 0.365; per-position 0.329; CA only 0.318; everything except the speed pair -0.043 Favourable quarter of the test set averages +1.79 goal difference, unfavourable -0.73. A two-segment fit searching every knee from 6 to 16 found no thresholds anywhere.
Global weights, CA cost and value Format: attribute, points per season, (CA cost of one point, points per CA point). CA cost measured separately by ramping a single attribute on an isolated player, R2=0.93. Hidden and personality attributes cost no CA at all. Ratios for near-free attributes are huge because the denominator is tiny, and read those as "free", not as literal multiples. Work Rate is the standout: nearly as valuable as Pace per point of ability, at a third of the cost. Decisions is the worst buy in the game, while the second most expensive attribute and negative. Pressure is worth 14.9 points a season and costs nothing.
Positional weights (0-20 within each group) Acceleration outranks Pace for CB and FB and the order flips further forward which seems plausible. The positional tables predicted worse out of sample than the pooled one (0.329 vs 0.392).
For goalkeepers, read the top two or three only. Reflexes and Agility separate cleanly; below that it is noise, and Handling ranking under Corners is not a finding. One keeper per match against ten outfielders means that column has about a tenth of the statistical power.
( edited 1 day, 1 hour ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#38
Link to the post:
Yes, let's get back to it.
So as I posted in another thread, I've ran some controlled tests of specific players and found they finish in this ranking order (ranked by team position):
Erling Haaland = 1.666 Robert Lewandowski = 2.666 Kylian Mbappe = 3 Daizen Maeda = 3 Harry Kane = 3.5 Dusan Vlahovic = 3.571 Victor Osimhen = 3.833 Lionel Messi = 4 Donyell Malen = 4.666 Robert Glatzel = 6.5 Paulo Dybala = 6.833 Adam Le Fondre = 7.5
6 full season samples each, all relevant competitions on full detail, and this isn't your run-of-the-mill plop Haaland at Arsenal and see how he goes - the rest of the team are all identical non-exceptional players in order to minimize variation while remaining realistic and tested to finish ~5 on average by themselves (we replace the STs with 4 duplicates of the player we want to test)
If you use Falbraav's file which puts the weightings into Genie Scout, it doesn't align with the real results at all:
If we remove the hiddens, which are known to be problematic in GS, not much changes. Lewandowski remains behind Mbappe & Osimhen; Maeda remains near the bottom.
The rankings remain incorrect if we plug Falbraav's GS figures into FM26 scoring system (to rule out GS being the problem):
While I was doing this and looking at OP's table, I realized what could be a big part of the problem. He's using points to measure success rather than team position. Points are very unreliable, because they can be 57 for one season sample and 83 the next - what doesn't change much is the team position, so that team will likely finish 2nd both times even though the point tally is all over the place. You would still get some valid correlations obviously, i.e. no pace/acc = no points at all.
I suggest to the OP if he intends to have another crack at it, to assess by the team position and not the team points.
And another problem with points vs team position could be that it neglects defensive advantages. It could explain why positioning does so terribly, for perhaps better defense favors draws as opposed to victories and losses - but a draw is only worth 1 point; a win 3. We want victories anyway, so this doesn't matter all too much either way.
So that was it. Where does he say speed, anticipation, dribbling and jumping reach for example aren't linear. Again we knew a lot of attributes don't matter at all, some don't matter after they reach a certain value. But the high scoring ones do.
I can't work out if you're stupid or if you think we're stupid? Maybe both?
As for being a liar when you released premier league 1 you didn't set any hidden attributes. Therefore genie scout wasn't producing skewed numbers. Yet you repeatedly lied that genie scout was at fault for giving Mbappe such a low score. Again this was a lie it was your appalling ratings. So rather than accept your file had it's faults and major ones at that, you also had slow centre mids as better wingers than fast players with good dribbling, you lied and said it was genie scout skewing the numbers. Therefore you're a liar. It's indisputable. Then you went to lecture others on their testing. Haha
You also lied saying I didn't have Haaland as the highest rated player in my file. He was the top rated player. And you lied before that, again about me, stating I'd said stamina was one of the most important attributes in the match engine. I of course never said that, but you lied saying I had.
Have you always been a liar and do you always lie when you can't face the facts about your failures?
So as I posted in another thread, I've ran some controlled tests of specific players and found they finish in this ranking order (ranked by team position):
Erling Haaland = 1.666 Robert Lewandowski = 2.666 Kylian Mbappe = 3 Daizen Maeda = 3 Harry Kane = 3.5 Dusan Vlahovic = 3.571 Victor Osimhen = 3.833 Lionel Messi = 4 Donyell Malen = 4.666 Robert Glatzel = 6.5 Paulo Dybala = 6.833 Adam Le Fondre = 7.5
6 full season samples each, all relevant competitions on full detail, and this isn't your run-of-the-mill plop Haaland at Arsenal and see how he goes - the rest of the team are all identical non-exceptional players in order to minimize variation while remaining realistic and tested to finish ~5 on average by themselves (we replace the STs with 4 duplicates of the player we want to test)
If you use Falbraav's file which puts the weightings into Genie Scout, it doesn't align with the real results at all:
If we remove the hiddens, which are known to be problematic in GS, not much changes. Lewandowski remains behind Mbappe & Osimhen; Maeda remains near the bottom.
The rankings remain incorrect if we plug Falbraav's GS figures into FM26 scoring system (to rule out GS being the problem):
While I was doing this and looking at OP's table, I realized what could be a big part of the problem. He's using points to measure success rather than team position. Points are very unreliable, because they can be 57 for one season sample and 83 the next - what doesn't change much is the team position, so that team will likely finish 2nd both times even though the point tally is all over the place. You would still get some valid correlations obviously, i.e. no pace/acc = no points at all.
I suggest to the OP if he intends to have another crack at it, to assess by the team position and not the team points.
And another problem with points vs team position could be that it neglects defensive advantages. It could explain why positioning does so terribly, for perhaps better defense favors draws as opposed to victories and losses - but a draw is only worth 1 point; a win 3. We want victories anyway, so this doesn't matter all too much either way. Expand
OP should ignore everything and anything you say. You have changed your testing and therefore the results more times than I've won the trophies in football manager. Any advice or suspect lectures you give should be ignored entirely. You aren't a good tester.
What is funny is that you claimed Mbappe was rated So lowly in your GS file because of bugs in GS. Well you lied. And now you have him third? So that means you don't know what you're doing when creating a GS file. There is no other explanation. But I'm sure you will try to lie your way out of it.
keithb said: So that was it. Where does he say speed, anticipation, dribbling and jumping reach for example aren't linear. Again we knew a lot of attributes don't matter at all, some don't matter after they reach a certain value. But the high scoring ones do.
I can't work out if you're stupid or if you think we're stupid? Maybe both?
As for being a liar when you released premier league 1 you didn't set any hidden attributes. Therefore genie scout wasn't producing skewed numbers. Yet you repeatedly lied that genie scout was at fault for giving Mbappe such a low score. Again this was a lie it was your appalling ratings. Expand What actually first came to my mind was HarvestGreen's excel tables, which show the non-linear effect of multiple attributes very clearly and in detail. Look at the right side:
Here we see that speed, work rate, among others, have non-linear effects.
Dribbling follows more of an inverted U-shaped curve, so in practice is mostly linear, but not always. I've always said that myself:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: HarvestGreen22, using a very artificial setup method (all attributes 10 bar the one being tested) and assessing without regard for position, claims dribbling is 4th most impactful attribute and follows a largely but not entirely linear benefit through 1-20. Expand
You've got the GS narrative backwards. I created the Premier League 1.0 weightings (without releasing them), then was informed by someone else that there was a problem with GS, and deduced it was the hidden attributes causing the majority of the issues because GS doesn't calculate things correctly with them. The weights work as intended in other programs (i.e. FM26 scoring system), including the hiddens (i.e. FM SuperScout). When I released Premier League 1.0 for GS, I removed the hiddens so it could work as best it could, since we can't really do away with GS entirely yet.
Objective testing has shown now that Mbappe is worse than 34-year-old Lewandowski and 36-year-old Messi gives him a run for his money. Mbappe is no where near Haaland on any measure - team position, goals, rating. And your own rating file turned out be worse than FM Genie Scout's default on key measures. Your file shows that apparently Dybala is as good as Lewandowski or Kane 🤡
So again as always you have made a false claim. Nowhere has harvest green said attributes are non linear.
Ok so yes as expected you have continued to lie about GS. When you released premier league 1 you had Mbappe as the 20th best striker. There were no bugs. Your ratings said he was the 20th best. You aren't doing any objective testing. I dont have Mbappe close to Halaand. This was another lie you repeatedly told. You cant use or even read GS properly, why do you continue this feeble attempt with it? Leave it to people who actually understand how it works.
Dybala is rated in the top 50 strikers on my file? If you were to start with Bayern you want Kane to have a great season and then sell him to Saudi. You can easily buy loads better.
Funny you used a clown emoji as obviously thats what I call you. Its like being at school with 5 year olds and they say the same thing as a comeback. Dont you have anything original? You could say im pissing in my own face again or compare me to an intolerable person from third world. They were my favourites. Completely balanced response.
Anyway I've clearly demonstrated you're a liar and you dont know how to use or even read Genie Scout. To clarify you lied to say GS was bugged and thats why Mbappe was rated so lowly and Kante was a better winger than Yamal at his peak. And you lied or couldn't see I had Haaland top rated, when all you have to do is sort one column. Which is worse? The lie or how incompetent you are?
Lets leave this thread and let OP carry out some much better testing than you will ever be able to.
keithb said: So again as always you have made a false claim. Nowhere has harvest green said attributes are non linear. Expand
harvestgreen22 said: Non linear Its influence is relatively significant from 1 to 8, but it becomes much smaller from 14 to 20
If he has, for instance, 16 ，18 , or even 20, it might waste a considerable amount of ability, but the effect actually only increases very little Expand
As for Mbappe, it's true I underestimated him a little as ST. I had him as 12th; in the latest best fit to the objective results I'm working on, he's currently 6th. The difference between us is not that I don't make mistakes and you do, but that I correct my mistakes, while you continue to insist that Mbappe is equal to Haaland even when reality shows otherwise time and time again.
And no, I'm not going to remove the results of your file from my list, so stop DM'ing me about it.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: As for Mbappe, it's true I underestimated him a little as ST. I had him as 12th; in the latest best fit to the objective results I'm working on, he's currently 6th. The difference between us is not that I don't make mistakes and you do, but that I correct my mistakes, while you continue to insist that Mbappe is equal to Haaland even when reality shows otherwise time and time again.
And no, I'm not going to remove the results of your file from my list, so stop DM'ing me about it. Expand
You're talking about one attribute? We had all read his work rate tests. You're pathetic hahaha. The table shows big increases still from 15 to 20 for speed and dribbling lol.
You had Mbappe around 20th not 12th. Another lie. I posted the picture. So you lied about GS being bugged.
Why are you still lying to say I have Mbappe equal to Haaland? Where do I insist he is? You just make things worse and worse. No one is taking you seriously now. You cant keep lying and lying about what people said when you have zero evidence to support it? I have evidenced my statements about your GS ratings and your lies. Where is any of your evidence? I have repeatedly stated on this forum that Haaland is the best player by miles in FM24. In your first "tests" you didn't even have him as the best player haha.
Is this a joke about me DMing you? Its hard to know with you? You're so childish you might be serious I dont know?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Here we see that speed, work rate, among others, have non-linear effects. Expand Sorry what? Other than work rate, the other attributes are pretty much linear.
Obviously we aren't looking for the 6th decimal, there is margin of error. And they might even behave slightly nonlinearly but a linear function can be a very good approximation to reduce complexity.
Yarema said: Sorry what? Other than work rate, the other attributes are pretty much linear.
Obviously we aren't looking for the 6th decimal, there is margin of error. And they might even behave slightly nonlinearly but a linear function can be a very good approximation to reduce complexity. Expand Acceleration 1 > 6 = +42.7 (+8.54/extra point) Acceleration 6 > 10 = +58.6 (+14.65/extra point)
The non-linearity is not as profound as for work rate, but it is nonetheless significantly non-linear.
Additionally I would posit that the league quality itself introduces a further level of non-linearity (or perhaps the non-linearity is a reflection of it, and would be more pronounced in a realistic league). HarvestGreen used a league that from memory had players with 10 in everything. In the Premier League, you need at least ~13 acceleration just to survive, so I would expect to see a large disparity between say acceleration 6 > 10 and acceleration 10 > 14 in the Premier League.
Yarema said: Way to misrepresent the data. Why don't you add the steps from 10-15 and 15-20 as well? Oh right, because they are quite similar as 1-6 Expand
This is a clear pattern of behaviour from Bozo. He lies, lies about what other people have said, misrepresents data and what people have said also. He is untrustworthy and dishonest.
Yarema said: Way to misrepresent the data. Why don't you add the steps from 10-15 and 15-20 as well? Oh right, because they are quite similar as 1-6 Expand If you ignore 6 > 10 for dribbling, then dribbling appears just about linear as well:
You choose to see what you want to see. I choose to see what is actually there, and what I see are two different attributes, showing the same pattern of non-linearity at the 6-10 level, which reduces quite significantly the chance that it is a statistical error.
Can't be bothered digging it up, but there's more deductions you can make like this for other attributes by comparing his 6 > 18 data to his 1 > 20, 10 > 20 data and whatnot
Without diving into the drama, I want to highlight a recurring topic in this thread: the inaccuracy of GS. I recommend switching to this tool instead: FMSuperScout, an open-source scouting option for FM26 (Yeah 26, I know). It features a Meta Score and is far superior to GS in my opinion. You can modify the code, specifically the app.js file, to create your own custom scoring systems. Whether you code yourself or use AI, customization is straightforward (Essentially, you can integrate non-linearity, player profiles, Hidden attributes, and other elements in any way you envision). Any suggestions to improve it is welcomed as well. Cheers.
Purity said: Without diving into the drama, I want to highlight a recurring topic in this thread: the inaccuracy of GS. I recommend switching to this tool instead: FMSuperScout, an open-source scouting option for FM26 (Yeah 26, I know). It features a Meta Score and is far superior to GS in my opinion. You can modify the code, specifically the app.js file, to create your own custom scoring systems. Whether you code yourself or use AI, customization is straightforward (Essentially, you can integrate non-linearity, player profiles, Hidden attributes, and other elements in any way you envision). Any suggestions to improve it is welcomed as well. Cheers. Expand
Thanks for the update. Agree with you, to much drama here, and somme speak about FM24, but my aim is FM26.
I use GS since ten years, and even if i saw the post about FMSS, i didn't take time to test it.
I spend five minutes on it, and it seems very smooth and accurate. I'm readdy to forget GS.
Falbravv said: Thanks for the update. Agree with you, to much drama here, and somme speak about FM24, but my aim is FM26.
I use GS since ten years, and even if i saw the post about FMSS, i didn't take time to test it.
I spend five minutes on it, and it seems very smooth and accurate. I'm readdy to forget GS.
I'll work on META attribute and see what happens. Expand
It still needs optimization and accuracy in certain areas, but I hope that working as a community will help identify solutions and improvements. However, for those who strictly want to use it in the same way as GS, it does more than just the job and it gives you full control over how scores are calculated.
Purity said: It still needs optimization and accuracy in certain areas, but I hope that working as a community will help identify solutions and improvements. However, for those who strictly want to use it in the same way as GS, it does more than just the job and it gives you full control over how scores are calculated. Expand
Is there a unique meta score for all positions in the same time ?
Because we know, ans this post show it, that there is different way of calculate ratings
Falbravv said: Is there a unique meta score for all positions in the same time ?
Because we know, ans this post show it, that there is different way of calculate ratings Expand
Currently, the base version is covering goalkeeper ratings and outfield player ratings only yes. I created a personal version by modifying the files using the data from this post. If you'd like, I can share the link to the modified app.js file. modified app.js Just replace the app.js in you app folder by this.
Purity said: Currently, the base version is covering goalkeeper ratings and outfield player ratings only yes. I created a personal version by modifying the files using the data from this post. If you'd like, I can share the link to the modified app.js file. modified app.js Just replace the app.js in you app folder by this. Expand
Mate, crazy. Thanks !
One question: i worked this afternoon on supress some useless attributes on GS.
What do you think about suppress all negative attributes form the table in the first post ? Why keep them if they're negative ?
One question: i worked this afternoon on supress some useless attributes on GS.
What do you think about suppress all negative attributes form the table in the first post ? Why keep them if they're negative ? Expand
As established in the thread, those negative numbers reflect CA opportunity cost under a pinned 150 CA budget, not actual matchday penalties. Suppressing them to 0 for scouting makes complete sense.
Regarding positional vs. global ratings, the data actually favors a unified model for now. As skawkclsrn showed, the global pooled model correlates 0.392 with actual match goal difference, compared to 0.329 for the positional breakdown, meaning raw meta physical/mental capability drives match outcomes far more than position-specific attribute splits.
One question: i worked this afternoon on supress some useless attributes on GS.
What do you think about suppress all negative attributes form the table in the first post ? Why keep them if they're negative ? Expand
If you look at the actual repo https://github.com/mavarobli/FMSuperScout, you can see the amazing upgrades from Purity in the pull requests. I also added one to take into account negative attributes (so you can weight them similarly). As Purity said, the open-source nature makes it easy to tryout non-linearity, filters, etc. directly into meta calculation.
I suggest trying it out! I love where this project could be the next tool for this community, and thank you lads for the no-bullying-no-arrogance conversation. It is refreshing <3
Also, let's give Mavali credits where credits is due for sharing his/hers open framework. I sure did spent a couple of bucks as a tiny encouragement.
Nobody thinks your testing is good. No one. Aren't you Man City and you leave the rest of the league as it is? Yesterday you had genie scout default ratings as not that bad. No one can take you seriously.
Where did Harvest Green say attributes aren't linear? I haven't read everything he's contributed so must have missed it.
Again this testing is nonsense. In different years the players and opposition will be different. Its of no use at all unless people want to freeze the game the whole time they play it. You contradict yourself with every next master test and change your view like the wind.
Thousands of people and more have used the fm arena results and made the game too easy. Challenges such as win the champions league in 5+ nations, only taking jobs in div2 or below became incredibly easy.
You had Mbappe outside the top20 strikers and obviously lied to say it was Genie scout's fault. Complete lie as in premier league 1 you hadn't set hidden attributes. You lie a lot. And at the time you boldly declared premier league 1 to be the new gold standard. hahahaha. You do make people laugh a lot.
kvasir said: Did you find JR to be the only thing that matters on corners? I had a newgen with 20 JR, 14 STR and something like 3 heading. He scored nowhere near as much as a CB with 17 JR, 17 STR, 15 heading. Anecdotal, sure. And I dropped that save, so I can't tell you if that season was a fluke or the norm. Still, on corners at least, JR doesn't look like the whole story for aerial threat.
Genuinely im not sure. I sort them by jumping reach and then if they tie add together strength and heading and the higher total goes above. But i played retro saves with players who had 20 jumping reach and they could score 50 goals a season.
keithb said: Where did Harvest Green say attributes aren't linear? I haven't read everything he's contributed so must have missed it.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/13685-current-24-4-latest-version-full-attribute-test-52000-match-samples/
He said it here, about Work Rate. Not sure about the other attributes, but I remember reading that and I've had a filter set at 6+ Work Rate ever since. Anyway, my GS rating puts Work Rate's weight at 25+ across every position, highest for DMs and fullbacks, so yeah.
Lowering the Work rate 1 ,
it have very serious consequences (goal difference -110),
and it should be ensured that a player has at least 6 and preferably 10 Work rate.
A player with a Work rate is not desirable.
But continuing to increase Work rate (from 10->20) is low effect. The difference between Work rate 10 and Work rate 20 is relative small.
The 6-point attribute seems to be the threshold for some attributes.
Core attributes are these:
Special : Work rate (need to reach 10, higher is useless),
Pace, Acceleration, Jumping reach, Dribbling, Balance, Concentration, Anticipation, Determination，Agility.
kvasir said: https://fm-arena.com/thread/13685-current-24-4-latest-version-full-attribute-test-52000-match-samples/
He said it here, about Work Rate. Not sure about the other attributes, but I remember reading that and I've had a filter set at 6+ Work Rate ever since. Anyway, my GS rating puts Work Rate's weight at 25+ across every position, highest for DMs and fullbacks, so yeah.
Well if thats all he said then he didn't say it did he. But no surprise if Bozo is quoting that. He's a liar.
keithb said: Nobody thinks your testing is good. No one. Aren't you Man City and you leave the rest of the league as it is? Yesterday you had genie scout default ratings as not that bad. No one can take you seriously.
Where did Harvest Green say attributes aren't linear? I haven't read everything he's contributed so must have missed it.
Again this testing is nonsense. In different years the players and opposition will be different. Its of no use at all unless people want to freeze the game the whole time they play it. You contradict yourself with every next master test and change your view like the wind.
Thousands of people and more have used the fm arena results and made the game too easy. Challenges such as win the champions league in 5+ nations, only taking jobs in div2 or below became incredibly easy.
You had Mbappe outside the top20 strikers and obviously lied to say it was Genie scout's fault. Complete lie as in premier league 1 you hadn't set hidden attributes. You lie a lot. And at the time you boldly declared premier league 1 to be the new gold standard. hahahaha. You do make people laugh a lot.
ywah, he just holiday the season with man city with a random dude as striker got second position and then he holiday the season with mbappe or harry kane got second position too.
So of course the only way to view is the random dude is as good as mbappe of course.
It's a joke really.
kvasir said: https://fm-arena.com/thread/13685-current-24-4-latest-version-full-attribute-test-52000-match-samples/
He said it here, about Work Rate. Not sure about the other attributes, but I remember reading that and I've had a filter set at 6+ Work Rate ever since.
Lowering the Work rate 1 ,
it have very serious consequences (goal difference -110),
and it should be ensured that a player has at least 6 and preferably 10 Work rate.
A player with a Work rate is not desirable.
But continuing to increase Work rate (from 10->20) is low effect. The difference between Work rate 10 and Work rate 20 is relative small.
The 6-point attribute seems to be the threshold for some attributes.
Core attributes are these:
Special : Work rate (need to reach 10, higher is useless)
keithb said: Well if thats all he said then he didn't say it did he. But no surprise if Bozo is quoting that. He's a liar.
Amazing.
skawkclsrn said: TL;DR: I randomised all 60 attributes of every player in a 20-club league every 75 seconds and let the game holiday through ~16,000 full-engine matches.
Pace and Acceleration are worth ~3x anything else.
Everything technical measured at or below zero.
According to these resutls no attribute has a threshold, they pay linearly 1-20.
Once you divide by what a point costs in CA, the best buys are Work Rate, Jumping Reach and the hidden personality attributes, which are (mostly) free.
Method
FM's engine is C++ with MSVC RTTI, so every object carries its class name behind the vtable pointer, so you can find every player and scoreline by name instead of hunting offsets.
Loop: write a random attribute vector into every squad, sleep 75s while the game holidays, read back and harvest scorelines, repeat every 75s to take into account promoted teams.
Warning that cost me 120,000 matches
Match Detail Level decides which simulator runs.
On None everything resolves through the Quick Match Engine and effects come out 10x too small in the wrong order. Set the competition to All Competitive Matches.
The quick path has its own QME_STAT_MANAGER sitting beside Poisson and Normal distribution objects, so it samples statistics rather than simulating football.
Dataset
15,951 full-engine matches.
47 visible + 5 hidden + 8 personality attributes randomised.
CA and PA pinned at 150, morale pinned at 15.
Attributes are stored 1-100 and displayed /5;
personality attributes sit on a different record at plain 1-20.
Reading the numbers
CA is pinned, so ability is a fixed budget and every weight answers "given fixed ability, where is it best spent?"
Positioning at -9.6 does not mean Positioning harms you, rather it means CA spent there is not spent on Pace, and that trade costs about 10 points a season.
Validation
Fitted on 5,011 matches, tested on 5,011 never used for fitting.
Correlation with actual goal difference:
Measured weights 0.392; Pace+Acceleration only 0.365; per-position 0.329; CA only 0.318; everything except the speed pair -0.043
Favourable quarter of the test set averages +1.79 goal difference, unfavourable -0.73.
A two-segment fit searching every knee from 6 to 16 found no thresholds anywhere.
Global weights, CA cost and value
Format: attribute, points per season, (CA cost of one point, points per CA point).
CA cost measured separately by ramping a single attribute on an isolated player, R2=0.93.
Hidden and personality attributes cost no CA at all.
Ratios for near-free attributes are huge because the denominator is tiny, and read those as "free", not as literal multiples.
Work Rate is the standout: nearly as valuable as Pace per point of ability, at a third of the cost. Decisions is the worst buy in the game, while the second most expensive attribute and negative.
Pressure is worth 14.9 points a season and costs nothing.
Positional weights (0-20 within each group)
Acceleration outranks Pace for CB and FB and the order flips further forward which seems plausible.
The positional tables predicted worse out of sample than the pooled one (0.329 vs 0.392).
For goalkeepers, read the top two or three only.
Reflexes and Agility separate cleanly; below that it is noise, and Handling ranking under Corners is not a finding.
One keeper per match against ten outfielders means that column has about a tenth of the statistical power.
Shout out
to mavarobli / mavali / mark17072
@https://fm-arena.com/thread/20087-fmsuperscout-free-open-source-scouting-tool-for-fm26-with-a-meta-score-built-on-fm-arena-attribute-testing/
Anyway, back to the actual thread. It's an interesting approach with results more or less in line with what we already know so that's good. Could maybe argue about some of the attributes especially once broken down by position, but overall seems pretty decent.
Yes, let's get back to it.
So as I posted in another thread, I've ran some controlled tests of specific players and found they finish in this ranking order (ranked by team position):
Erling Haaland = 1.666
Robert Lewandowski = 2.666
Kylian Mbappe = 3
Daizen Maeda = 3
Harry Kane = 3.5
Dusan Vlahovic = 3.571
Victor Osimhen = 3.833
Lionel Messi = 4
Donyell Malen = 4.666
Robert Glatzel = 6.5
Paulo Dybala = 6.833
Adam Le Fondre = 7.5
6 full season samples each, all relevant competitions on full detail, and this isn't your run-of-the-mill plop Haaland at Arsenal and see how he goes - the rest of the team are all identical non-exceptional players in order to minimize variation while remaining realistic and tested to finish ~5 on average by themselves (we replace the STs with 4 duplicates of the player we want to test)
If you use Falbraav's file which puts the weightings into Genie Scout, it doesn't align with the real results at all:
If we remove the hiddens, which are known to be problematic in GS, not much changes. Lewandowski remains behind Mbappe & Osimhen; Maeda remains near the bottom.
The rankings remain incorrect if we plug Falbraav's GS figures into FM26 scoring system (to rule out GS being the problem):
Haaland = 16.8
Mbappe = 16.1
Osimhen = 15.6
Lewandowski = 14.5
Maeda = 14.3
Messi = 14.1
While I was doing this and looking at OP's table, I realized what could be a big part of the problem. He's using points to measure success rather than team position. Points are very unreliable, because they can be 57 for one season sample and 83 the next - what doesn't change much is the team position, so that team will likely finish 2nd both times even though the point tally is all over the place. You would still get some valid correlations obviously, i.e. no pace/acc = no points at all.
I suggest to the OP if he intends to have another crack at it, to assess by the team position and not the team points.
And another problem with points vs team position could be that it neglects defensive advantages. It could explain why positioning does so terribly, for perhaps better defense favors draws as opposed to victories and losses - but a draw is only worth 1 point; a win 3. We want victories anyway, so this doesn't matter all too much either way.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Amazing.
So that was it. Where does he say speed, anticipation, dribbling and jumping reach for example aren't linear. Again we knew a lot of attributes don't matter at all, some don't matter after they reach a certain value. But the high scoring ones do.
I can't work out if you're stupid or if you think we're stupid? Maybe both?
As for being a liar when you released premier league 1 you didn't set any hidden attributes. Therefore genie scout wasn't producing skewed numbers. Yet you repeatedly lied that genie scout was at fault for giving Mbappe such a low score. Again this was a lie it was your appalling ratings. So rather than accept your file had it's faults and major ones at that, you also had slow centre mids as better wingers than fast players with good dribbling, you lied and said it was genie scout skewing the numbers. Therefore you're a liar. It's indisputable. Then you went to lecture others on their testing. Haha
You also lied saying I didn't have Haaland as the highest rated player in my file. He was the top rated player. And you lied before that, again about me, stating I'd said stamina was one of the most important attributes in the match engine. I of course never said that, but you lied saying I had.
Have you always been a liar and do you always lie when you can't face the facts about your failures?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, let's get back to it.
So as I posted in another thread, I've ran some controlled tests of specific players and found they finish in this ranking order (ranked by team position):
Erling Haaland = 1.666
Robert Lewandowski = 2.666
Kylian Mbappe = 3
Daizen Maeda = 3
Harry Kane = 3.5
Dusan Vlahovic = 3.571
Victor Osimhen = 3.833
Lionel Messi = 4
Donyell Malen = 4.666
Robert Glatzel = 6.5
Paulo Dybala = 6.833
Adam Le Fondre = 7.5
6 full season samples each, all relevant competitions on full detail, and this isn't your run-of-the-mill plop Haaland at Arsenal and see how he goes - the rest of the team are all identical non-exceptional players in order to minimize variation while remaining realistic and tested to finish ~5 on average by themselves (we replace the STs with 4 duplicates of the player we want to test)
If you use Falbraav's file which puts the weightings into Genie Scout, it doesn't align with the real results at all:
If we remove the hiddens, which are known to be problematic in GS, not much changes. Lewandowski remains behind Mbappe & Osimhen; Maeda remains near the bottom.
The rankings remain incorrect if we plug Falbraav's GS figures into FM26 scoring system (to rule out GS being the problem):
Haaland = 16.8
Mbappe = 16.1
Osimhen = 15.6
Lewandowski = 14.5
Maeda = 14.3
Messi = 14.1
While I was doing this and looking at OP's table, I realized what could be a big part of the problem. He's using points to measure success rather than team position. Points are very unreliable, because they can be 57 for one season sample and 83 the next - what doesn't change much is the team position, so that team will likely finish 2nd both times even though the point tally is all over the place. You would still get some valid correlations obviously, i.e. no pace/acc = no points at all.
I suggest to the OP if he intends to have another crack at it, to assess by the team position and not the team points.
And another problem with points vs team position could be that it neglects defensive advantages. It could explain why positioning does so terribly, for perhaps better defense favors draws as opposed to victories and losses - but a draw is only worth 1 point; a win 3. We want victories anyway, so this doesn't matter all too much either way.
OP should ignore everything and anything you say. You have changed your testing and therefore the results more times than I've won the trophies in football manager. Any advice or suspect lectures you give should be ignored entirely. You aren't a good tester.
What is funny is that you claimed Mbappe was rated So lowly in your GS file because of bugs in GS. Well you lied. And now you have him third? So that means you don't know what you're doing when creating a GS file. There is no other explanation. But I'm sure you will try to lie your way out of it.
keithb said: So that was it. Where does he say speed, anticipation, dribbling and jumping reach for example aren't linear. Again we knew a lot of attributes don't matter at all, some don't matter after they reach a certain value. But the high scoring ones do.
I can't work out if you're stupid or if you think we're stupid? Maybe both?
As for being a liar when you released premier league 1 you didn't set any hidden attributes. Therefore genie scout wasn't producing skewed numbers. Yet you repeatedly lied that genie scout was at fault for giving Mbappe such a low score. Again this was a lie it was your appalling ratings.
What actually first came to my mind was HarvestGreen's excel tables, which show the non-linear effect of multiple attributes very clearly and in detail. Look at the right side:
Here we see that speed, work rate, among others, have non-linear effects.
Dribbling follows more of an inverted U-shaped curve, so in practice is mostly linear, but not always. I've always said that myself:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: HarvestGreen22, using a very artificial setup method (all attributes 10 bar the one being tested) and assessing without regard for position, claims dribbling is 4th most impactful attribute and follows a largely but not entirely linear benefit through 1-20.
You've got the GS narrative backwards. I created the Premier League 1.0 weightings (without releasing them), then was informed by someone else that there was a problem with GS, and deduced it was the hidden attributes causing the majority of the issues because GS doesn't calculate things correctly with them. The weights work as intended in other programs (i.e. FM26 scoring system), including the hiddens (i.e. FM SuperScout). When I released Premier League 1.0 for GS, I removed the hiddens so it could work as best it could, since we can't really do away with GS entirely yet.
Objective testing has shown now that Mbappe is worse than 34-year-old Lewandowski and 36-year-old Messi gives him a run for his money. Mbappe is no where near Haaland on any measure - team position, goals, rating. And your own rating file turned out be worse than FM Genie Scout's default on key measures. Your file shows that apparently Dybala is as good as Lewandowski or Kane 🤡
So again as always you have made a false claim. Nowhere has harvest green said attributes are non linear.
Ok so yes as expected you have continued to lie about GS. When you released premier league 1 you had Mbappe as the 20th best striker. There were no bugs. Your ratings said he was the 20th best. You aren't doing any objective testing. I dont have Mbappe close to Halaand. This was another lie you repeatedly told. You cant use or even read GS properly, why do you continue this feeble attempt with it? Leave it to people who actually understand how it works.
Dybala is rated in the top 50 strikers on my file? If you were to start with Bayern you want Kane to have a great season and then sell him to Saudi. You can easily buy loads better.
Funny you used a clown emoji as obviously thats what I call you. Its like being at school with 5 year olds and they say the same thing as a comeback. Dont you have anything original? You could say im pissing in my own face again or compare me to an intolerable person from third world. They were my favourites. Completely balanced response.
Anyway I've clearly demonstrated you're a liar and you dont know how to use or even read Genie Scout. To clarify you lied to say GS was bugged and thats why Mbappe was rated so lowly and Kante was a better winger than Yamal at his peak. And you lied or couldn't see I had Haaland top rated, when all you have to do is sort one column. Which is worse? The lie or how incompetent you are?
Lets leave this thread and let OP carry out some much better testing than you will ever be able to.
keithb said: So again as always you have made a false claim. Nowhere has harvest green said attributes are non linear.
harvestgreen22 said: Non linear
Its influence is relatively significant from 1 to 8, but it becomes much smaller from 14 to 20
If he has, for instance, 16 ，18 , or even 20, it might waste a considerable amount of ability, but the effect actually only increases very little
As for Mbappe, it's true I underestimated him a little as ST. I had him as 12th; in the latest best fit to the objective results I'm working on, he's currently 6th. The difference between us is not that I don't make mistakes and you do, but that I correct my mistakes, while you continue to insist that Mbappe is equal to Haaland even when reality shows otherwise time and time again.
And no, I'm not going to remove the results of your file from my list, so stop DM'ing me about it.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: As for Mbappe, it's true I underestimated him a little as ST. I had him as 12th; in the latest best fit to the objective results I'm working on, he's currently 6th. The difference between us is not that I don't make mistakes and you do, but that I correct my mistakes, while you continue to insist that Mbappe is equal to Haaland even when reality shows otherwise time and time again.
And no, I'm not going to remove the results of your file from my list, so stop DM'ing me about it.
You're talking about one attribute? We had all read his work rate tests. You're pathetic hahaha. The table shows big increases still from 15 to 20 for speed and dribbling lol.
You had Mbappe around 20th not 12th. Another lie. I posted the picture. So you lied about GS being bugged.
Why are you still lying to say I have Mbappe equal to Haaland? Where do I insist he is? You just make things worse and worse. No one is taking you seriously now. You cant keep lying and lying about what people said when you have zero evidence to support it? I have evidenced my statements about your GS ratings and your lies. Where is any of your evidence? I have repeatedly stated on this forum that Haaland is the best player by miles in FM24. In your first "tests" you didn't even have him as the best player haha.
Is this a joke about me DMing you? Its hard to know with you? You're so childish you might be serious I dont know?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Here we see that speed, work rate, among others, have non-linear effects.
Sorry what? Other than work rate, the other attributes are pretty much linear.
Obviously we aren't looking for the 6th decimal, there is margin of error. And they might even behave slightly nonlinearly but a linear function can be a very good approximation to reduce complexity.
Yarema said: Sorry what? Other than work rate, the other attributes are pretty much linear.
Obviously we aren't looking for the 6th decimal, there is margin of error. And they might even behave slightly nonlinearly but a linear function can be a very good approximation to reduce complexity.
Acceleration 1 > 6 = +42.7 (+8.54/extra point)
Acceleration 6 > 10 = +58.6 (+14.65/extra point)
The non-linearity is not as profound as for work rate, but it is nonetheless significantly non-linear.
Additionally I would posit that the league quality itself introduces a further level of non-linearity (or perhaps the non-linearity is a reflection of it, and would be more pronounced in a realistic league). HarvestGreen used a league that from memory had players with 10 in everything. In the Premier League, you need at least ~13 acceleration just to survive, so I would expect to see a large disparity between say acceleration 6 > 10 and acceleration 10 > 14 in the Premier League.
Way to misrepresent the data. Why don't you add the steps from 10-15 and 15-20 as well? Oh right, because they are quite similar as 1-6
Yarema said: Way to misrepresent the data. Why don't you add the steps from 10-15 and 15-20 as well? Oh right, because they are quite similar as 1-6
This is a clear pattern of behaviour from Bozo. He lies, lies about what other people have said, misrepresents data and what people have said also. He is untrustworthy and dishonest.
Yarema said: Way to misrepresent the data. Why don't you add the steps from 10-15 and 15-20 as well? Oh right, because they are quite similar as 1-6
If you ignore 6 > 10 for dribbling, then dribbling appears just about linear as well:
Dribbling
1 > 6 = +15.1 (+3.02/extra point)
6 > 10 = +2.7 (+0.675/extra point)
10 > 15 = +19.5 (+3.9/extra point)
15 > 20 = +14.0 (+2.8/extra point)
You choose to see what you want to see. I choose to see what is actually there, and what I see are two different attributes, showing the same pattern of non-linearity at the 6-10 level, which reduces quite significantly the chance that it is a statistical error.
Can't be bothered digging it up, but there's more deductions you can make like this for other attributes by comparing his 6 > 18 data to his 1 > 20, 10 > 20 data and whatnot
Without diving into the drama, I want to highlight a recurring topic in this thread: the inaccuracy of GS. I recommend switching to this tool instead: FMSuperScout, an open-source scouting option for FM26 (Yeah 26, I know). It features a Meta Score and is far superior to GS in my opinion. You can modify the code, specifically the app.js file, to create your own custom scoring systems. Whether you code yourself or use AI, customization is straightforward (Essentially, you can integrate non-linearity, player profiles, Hidden attributes, and other elements in any way you envision). Any suggestions to improve it is welcomed as well.
Cheers.
Purity said: Without diving into the drama, I want to highlight a recurring topic in this thread: the inaccuracy of GS. I recommend switching to this tool instead: FMSuperScout, an open-source scouting option for FM26 (Yeah 26, I know). It features a Meta Score and is far superior to GS in my opinion. You can modify the code, specifically the app.js file, to create your own custom scoring systems. Whether you code yourself or use AI, customization is straightforward (Essentially, you can integrate non-linearity, player profiles, Hidden attributes, and other elements in any way you envision). Any suggestions to improve it is welcomed as well.
Cheers.
Thanks for the update. Agree with you, to much drama here, and somme speak about FM24, but my aim is FM26.
I use GS since ten years, and even if i saw the post about FMSS, i didn't take time to test it.
I spend five minutes on it, and it seems very smooth and accurate. I'm readdy to forget GS.
I'll work on META attribute and see what happens.
Falbravv said: Thanks for the update. Agree with you, to much drama here, and somme speak about FM24, but my aim is FM26.
I use GS since ten years, and even if i saw the post about FMSS, i didn't take time to test it.
I spend five minutes on it, and it seems very smooth and accurate. I'm readdy to forget GS.
I'll work on META attribute and see what happens.
It still needs optimization and accuracy in certain areas, but I hope that working as a community will help identify solutions and improvements. However, for those who strictly want to use it in the same way as GS, it does more than just the job and it gives you full control over how scores are calculated.
Purity said: It still needs optimization and accuracy in certain areas, but I hope that working as a community will help identify solutions and improvements. However, for those who strictly want to use it in the same way as GS, it does more than just the job and it gives you full control over how scores are calculated.
Is there a unique meta score for all positions in the same time ?
Because we know, ans this post show it, that there is different way of calculate ratings
Falbravv said: Is there a unique meta score for all positions in the same time ?
Because we know, ans this post show it, that there is different way of calculate ratings
Currently, the base version is covering goalkeeper ratings and outfield player ratings only yes. I created a personal version by modifying the files using the data from this post. If you'd like, I can share the link to the modified app.js file. modified app.js Just replace the app.js in you app folder by this.
Purity said: Currently, the base version is covering goalkeeper ratings and outfield player ratings only yes. I created a personal version by modifying the files using the data from this post. If you'd like, I can share the link to the modified app.js file. modified app.js Just replace the app.js in you app folder by this.
Mate, crazy. Thanks !
One question: i worked this afternoon on supress some useless attributes on GS.
What do you think about suppress all negative attributes form the table in the first post ? Why keep them if they're negative ?
Falbravv said: Mate, crazy. Thanks !
One question: i worked this afternoon on supress some useless attributes on GS.
What do you think about suppress all negative attributes form the table in the first post ? Why keep them if they're negative ?
As established in the thread, those negative numbers reflect CA opportunity cost under a pinned 150 CA budget, not actual matchday penalties. Suppressing them to 0 for scouting makes complete sense.
Regarding positional vs. global ratings, the data actually favors a unified model for now. As skawkclsrn showed, the global pooled model correlates 0.392 with actual match goal difference, compared to 0.329 for the positional breakdown, meaning raw meta physical/mental capability drives match outcomes far more than position-specific attribute splits.
Falbravv said: Mate, crazy. Thanks !
One question: i worked this afternoon on supress some useless attributes on GS.
What do you think about suppress all negative attributes form the table in the first post ? Why keep them if they're negative ?
If you look at the actual repo https://github.com/mavarobli/FMSuperScout, you can see the amazing upgrades from Purity in the pull requests. I also added one to take into account negative attributes (so you can weight them similarly). As Purity said, the open-source nature makes it easy to tryout non-linearity, filters, etc. directly into meta calculation.
I suggest trying it out! I love where this project could be the next tool for this community, and thank you lads for the no-bullying-no-arrogance conversation. It is refreshing <3
Also, let's give Mavali credits where credits is due for sharing his/hers open framework. I sure did spent a couple of bucks as a tiny encouragement.