treath said: mate in your rating (btw much better than the original post) what you would do to find like a complete forward?
It's not a complain, but i want to find a mixed striker, what your recomendations to edit in rating to find those players? Expand
I class a complete forward as target striker really. The match engine doesnt care about a lot of attributes. You could maybe add vision a little bit. But id still make them strong, good jumping reach, anticipation, balance and work rate. And of course not slow!!
Guys I am a returning player, I already have FM24, but I can get FM26 for cheap. How good is the ME compared to FM24? I know the UI sucks but I’ve heard the Tactical Creator gives you more options due to the OOP/IP formations and that you can play more varied styles of play. Is that true?
Fraudiola01 said: Guys I am a returning player, I already have FM24, but I can get FM26 for cheap. How good is the ME compared to FM24? I know the UI sucks but I’ve heard the Tactical Creator gives you more options due to the OOP/IP formations and that you can play more varied styles of play. Is that true? Expand If you mean the ME under the hood rather than the visuals, from what I've seen and read, it's about the same, the new OOP/IP is almost placebo, and it gets dominated by strikerless tactics.
( edited 5 days, 9 hours ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#484
Link to the post:
There are now 6 samples per player. That's 2,736 Premier League matches simulated on full detail + all other relevant first team competitions (i.e. Community Shield, Champions Cup, Club World Cup, etc.) simulated on full detail as well.
Edit: I've added a color-coded column to compare 4 different GS rating files. 1st is new Best fit file, 2nd is Premier League 1.0, 3rd is keithb, 4th is Falbravv's META FMA 2.0 file based on skawkclsrn's recent data. Green = 1% or less difference. Yellow = 2-4% difference. Red = 5%+ difference. Ignore Harry Kane, he needs a slight readjustment right now due to the latest samples.
There are a lot of new deductions that can be made.
One is that now we have a rough idea what GS % corresponds to in terms of concrete performance numbers, and another is that we can tell at what point random variation makes distinguishing between % numbers pointless.
We can always do with more samples, but if we just take the difference between whoever is highest and lowest between Lewandowski, Mbappe, Maeda, Kane, Vlahovic, Osimhen, and Messi (total +/- 1 position difference maximum) we get:
((4.08/80.70)x100) = 5.06% - My best fit of the data so far in GS (not to minimize %, but to correct player rank) ((14.30/91.99)x100) = 15.54% - Premier League 1.0 'weighted weights' version ((14.94/88.11)x100) = 16.96% - Premier League 1.0 ((14.14/92.25)x100) = 17.14% - 'Pure Performance' FM24 ((13.45/77.59)x100) = 17.33% - My first/original FM24 ratings file ((15.89/84.94)x100) = 18.71% - 'Blended' FM24 ((18.34/83.29)x100) = 22.02% - ykykyk05251's weights file ((22.88/88.01)x100) = 26.00% - Orion's coefficients file ((29.27/91.47)x100) = 32.00% - Genie Scout Default
That is where we are accounting for extreme cases. In other words, a 4-5% difference in GS is almost certainly an objectively better player.
But what if we make it a bit leniant, and tolerate ~10-20% being exceptions we miss. In other words, this is the more typical uncertainty range. To discover this, I exclude the bottom % player from the list:
((4.03/80.70)x100) = 4.99% - My best fit of the data so far in GS (not to minimize %, but to correct player rank) ((6.21/88.11)x100) = 7.05% - Premier League 1.0 ((6.00/83.29)x100) = 7.20% - ykykyk05251's weights file ((7.34/75.95)x100) = 9.66% - Falbravv's 'META FMA 2.0' file based on skawkclsrn's data this week ((10.39/89.51)x100) = 11.60% - Falbravv's 'META FMA' file based I think FM Arena's testing(?) ((11.67/91.47)x100) = 12.76% - Genie Scout Default ((13.45/77.59)x100) = 13.20% - My first/original FM24 ratings file ((12.61/95.25)x100) = 13.24% - 'Pure Performance' FM24 ((12.42/91.99)x100) = 13.50% - Premier League 1.0 'weighted weights' version ((13.21/94.59)x100) = 13.97% - keithb's weights 💩 ((13.64/88.01)x100) = 15.50% - Orion's coefficients file ((14.14/84.94)x100) = 16.65% - 'Blended' FM24
So we see that whatever the case, ~4-5% is going to be the range within which the player who is better becomes uncertain, but also the difference is going to be pretty meaningless objectively.
You think genie scout default ratings are better than some rating files produced by people who made files based on reliable testing? hahaha
And your file is, obviously, at the top yet Mbappe in this latest rigorous test comes out 2nd/3rd and you have him as the 20th best striker in your premier league file?? Makes sense I guess
Rather than carrying on with all this testing that apparently keeps getting better and changing your findings, why dont you practise your makeup? I hear the circus is in town soon, and they are always looking for clowns.
Ps I dont have Mbappe and Haaland rated the same. You dont even know how to use and read GS. How can you make a file for it? I love that you lie all the time, it just makes it funnier.
keithb said: Ps I dont have Mbappe and Haaland rated the same. You dont even know how to use and read GS. How can you make a file for it? I love that you lie all the time, it just makes it funnier. Expand I wouldn't want to misrepresent you. This is what your GS file says does it not?
Default database, start of game (England - 3/7/2023)
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you mean the ME under the hood rather than the visuals, from what I've seen and read, it's about the same, the new OOP/IP is almost placebo, and it gets dominated by strikerless tactics. Expand
I mean that it seems more styles of play are possible. Also that some TI works better, such as Work Ball into the Box, or Play out of Defence(Play through Press) which used to be “lose more” buttons in FM24 but actually work nicely in FM26.
Default database, start of game (England - 3/7/2023) Expand
haahah. You lie and misrepresent what I say often. You're a clown.
No Mbappe and Haaland are not rated the same. And when you increase TS to 107, like I said in the post, the gap becomes even bigger. Its 2% and then becomes 4%. They are not rated the same. Is there actually something wrong with you?
AGAIN how can you create a file and use and not see this?? There's a worrying disconnect.
keithb said: haahah. You lie and misrepresent what I say often. You're a clown.
No Mbappe and Haaland are not rated the same. And when you increase TS to 107, like I said in the post, the gap becomes even bigger. Its 2% and then becomes 4%. They are not rated the same. Is there actually something wrong with you?
AGAIN how can you create a file and use and not see this?? There's a worrying disconnect. Expand To be honest I didn't even check if you had a TS rating, because I took one look at the FS rating and knew it was rubbish.
The screenshot I provided is, you'll agree, the FS ratings you've given.
So do you want me to use the FS or TS rating?
Looking at your TS ratings, you have Osimhem above Lewandowski even though both having 15 jumping reach, so more of the same 💩 either way.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: To be honest I didn't even check if you had a TS rating, because I took one look at the FS rating and knew it was rubbish.
The screenshot I provided is, you'll agree, the FS ratings you've given.
So do you want me to use the FS or TS rating?
Looking at your TS ratings, you have Osimhem above Lewandowski even though both having 15 jumping reach, so more of the same 💩 either way. Expand
Please stop making me laugh hahaha. I do have somework to do.
Well I know im very smart and you aren't and you know people call me a visionary and stuff. But what I do is I use BOTH. I know im so clever right? No one else has ever thought to do this. That means I can still include strikers with no jumping reach in fast strikers and strikers who have an overall excellent physical profile can be target strikers. And then I/we can choose which type we want. Sorry if I blew your mind with that.
Well Osimhem is probably above Lewa because his other key attributes are better? I haven't just set jumping reach on its on in the weighting for TS. Again if this is new information for you, then you're welcome.
So to clarify I've ALWAYS had Haaland as the best player in fm24. So you've repeatedly lied and said I haven't. Tbh he should be 10% clear, but I dont like the other positions having such low scores. Thats probably wrong but its just how I used GS.
Anyway always hilarious interacting with you. I fondly remember when you told me I was pissing in my own face for saying stamina is important lol and in almost everything you type out shit is literally coming out of your mouth. Im a huge fan of irony and you are the king of it. I would say dont ever change, but thats me being selfish for entertainment purposes. You should change for the benefit of other people you are constantly misleading over football manager.
Jumping reach keeps landing third on every importance list. But it's nowhere near acc and pace. So that makes me wonder — would two players with 18+ JR be enough to cover set pieces, while everyone else just sits at average (10-15)?
Fraudiola01 said: Guys I am a returning player, I already have FM24, but I can get FM26 for cheap. How good is the ME compared to FM24? I know the UI sucks but I’ve heard the Tactical Creator gives you more options due to the OOP/IP formations and that you can play more varied styles of play. Is that true? Expand
Do not buy fm26 its utter crap, just be patient and wait for 27
OpticFawn said: can you give us the pics for each position on genie scout with the data for the new files for best fit gs file Expand I'll be posting it soon, but it's still a work in progress right now.
Translating the real results to Genie Scout has been proving to be really tricky. As ChatGPT has confirmed to me, there's no straightforward way of deriving the specific combination of attribute weightings from the results alone. For example say I find drib 30 + ant 30 + pace 70 is what works.. how do I know it's not just ant 30 + pace 70, and dribbling has 0 effect?
Thankfully I can rule out a lot of attributes from the get-go from previous testing, but I still have to just manually fiddle around with all sorts of different combinations to find out what works and what doesn't until I have something that at least aligns with the real rankings as closely as possible.
I started with the following process:
1. Start with Premier League 1.0 'weighted weights' version 2. Compare players who have completely different sets of attributes but had similar results 3. Adjust weighting of 1-3 attributes that I know matter (i.e. pace, anticipation, work rate, etc.) starting with the most likely attribute (i.e. pace) until all players are roughly where they should be ranked. 4. If one player's rank is fixed, but then another falls out, return to step 3. 5. Find a player with high rep or high CA who has unusually low % rating with the changed weights. Test performance in controlled test first, then do step 3 with them if performance doesn't match rank. 6. Keep repeating step 5.
Right now I've got a functional set of weights, but everything has to be changed around again the next time a sample finds a player changes their ranking. I think 6 samples is giving us a fairly accurate picture now to work with, but for true accuracy I think it's going to require at least 10.
Then there is the matter of position variation. But my first result in another position so far seems to suggest the weights could be the same for every outfield position. Once I've done all positions, with perhaps 10 samples for STs for calibration, then I'll post it.
Yarema said: Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure... Expand tam1236 said: Historical photo of my team after winning Champions League (...)As You can see they don't play in PL but ... Expand ... but I was really very, very curious, so I transferred in an editor the team from a table above to Arsenal (of course get rid off regular Arsenal players). And simulated whole season. They finished at 3rd place, after Chelsea and Liverpool (83-81-79 pts) and over MU (71). /Lost all cups/. Average CA of basic 11 was 103. Second part was transferring same FC Vaduz but 2 seasons later - stronger team, some weaker players sold, some came from an academy - average CA 119 (I blocked attributes) - and it's not "engineered distribution" - all from coaching and playing. They won PL over Chelsea and MC (88-83-80 pts) /won FA, lost Europa League/.
iezzex said: Do club rep affect result? Expand On 'no detail' processing, possibly.
On 'full detail', can't remember now, but I don't think so. I know for certain that player rep doesn't. I don't think club attributes affect the results either, but I suppose it does come into consideration when AI managers are deciding what team to play against you (you know, how after mid-season, suddenly games get a lot harder once they adjust to your actual team quality).
On 'full detail', can't remember now, but I don't think so. I know for certain that player rep doesn't. I don't think club attributes affect the results either, but I suppose it does come into consideration when AI managers are deciding what team to play against you (you know, how after mid-season, suddenly games get a lot harder once they adjust to your actual team quality). Expand
Somehow Bayern results in CL always worse then PSG for example while having a pretty good roster in stock, so thats why i asked about rep Cant see anyone tested this yet or im blind
I swallowed my pride and tried using ChatGPT to find the right set of weights. It seemed promising at first, but I ended up finding my own estimates were already closer to the mark and ChatGPT agreed.
After adjusting my weights more accurately to the 6-sample results, I noticed that the 7th best ST is Kyogo Furuhashi - ahead of Lewandowski and Mbappe, which is very unusual and therefore a good test of whether these weights are valid or not.
Kyogo Furuhashi:
4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd = 3.166
After adjusting things slightly in light of Furuhashi's result and some more samples of a few players, Mbappe is 7th, Lewandowski is 9th, and Furuhashi is 10th.
What's insightful about this result too is that unlike Maeda who has 19 pace/acc, Furuhashi has modest physicals (16 acc/15 pace) and yet shares the same piss poor technicals including 10 drib. His mentals aren't even that remarkable either.
So he's basically showing us one of the more effective pieces of evidence for the validity of the weightings in the leanness of his attribute distribution (he is just 136 CA, compared to 184 CA for Kane below him).
According to Falbraav's 'META FMA 2.0' weightings, Furuhashi is 48th. According to keithb's weightings, Furuhashi is 47th for FS and 538th for TS.
iezzex said: Do club rep affect result? Expand GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: On 'full detail', can't remember now, but I don't think so. Expand Actually, it does. Rather not in league but in cups: the greater gap in rep between clubs the greater the chance players from lower rep will be kind of intimidated/scared and play well below their potential, even with opponents on equal level. And (sometimes it helps) if you are a coach of such a lower rep team "nobody bet on us and this is our chance" speech is just obligatory. On the other hand, when in national teams (I know it's luckily abandoned in FM26) the reputation, in this case "ranking", is crucial. Firstly - You won't win with a team of much better ranking - ok, there is a minimal chance, but only a minimal - no matter how good players You have. And secondly, even more important, a level of physioterapists you get depends on your ranking. And tournaments like World Cup are scripted by SI in such a way that without very good or even best physioterapists You play with deadmen from 3-5 match - there's nothing you can do about it
tam1236 said: Actually, it does. Rather not in league but in cups: the greater gap in rep between clubs the greater the chance players from lower rep will be kind of intimidated/scared and play well below their potential, even with opponents on equal level. And (sometimes it helps) if you are a coach of such a lower rep team "nobody bet on us and this is our chance" speech is just obligatory. On the other hand, when in national teams (I know it's luckily abandoned in FM26) the reputation, in this case "ranking", is crucial. Firstly - You won't win with a team of much better ranking - ok, there is a minimal chance, but only a minimal - no matter how good players You have. And secondly, even more important, a level of physioterapists you get depends on your ranking. And tournaments like World Cup are scripted by SI in such a way that without very good or even best physioterapists You play with deadmen from 3-5 match - there's nothing you can do about it Expand Didn't know/think about that
But it brings to mind Important Matches, which I guess in a way is an indirect effect of club rep. We know that as you progress in a cup, the final stages - even the quarter finals and whatnot - have increasing reputation and therefore Important Matches comes into play. But how would distinguish that from the intimidation? Maybe intimidation is just a cosmetic symptom of that. On the other hand, when it comes to loan growth, it's 70% Division Rep 30% Club Rep, so I guess it's likely the effect on Important Matches or Pressure or whatever it is works the same way.
I didn't know this nation ranking thing either.
In regards to physiotherapists, I think it was EBFM who found that it doesn't matter what the quality of your physio is, just so long as you've got one. The benefits beyond that I think are just more accurate assessment of how long a player will be out for or something like that. I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for national teams.
( edited 1 day, 3 hours ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#502
Link to the post:
Current rankings so far:
ST
90% | Erling Haaland - 1st, 1st, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 1.666 position 85% | Kylian Mbappe - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 1st = 2.5 position 83% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position 84% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position 84% | Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 3.5 position 84% | Robert Lewandowski - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 8th, 5th, 3rd = 3.555 position 82% | Dusan Vlahovic - 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th = 3.571 position 89% | Lautaro Martinez - 7th, 3rd, 1st, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 3.75 position 81% | Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th = 3.833 position 79% | Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position 86% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 4.25 position 77% | Donyell Malen - 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 4.666 position 74% | Robert Glatzel - 5th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, 12th, 6th = 6.5 position 73% | Paulo Dybala - 5th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th = 6.833 position 64% | Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
DR
85% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position 71% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
The percentage is what I get based on the current weightings I have, adjusted where the top player in the position is 90%. Currently it needs to be updated to account for Gyokeres and Martinez.
The same set of weights for ST are used for DR.
I'm no statistician, but ChatGPT says that the reasonable margin of error for a player's percentage so far is about +/- 7.8%. This is inclusive of the natural seasonal variance as well as the inaccuracy of the weightings. It means that you can be pretty certain that best player is going to be at least 82%, or for a practical example, if you were selecting the top natural ST for England, it would narrow it down to 14 players (Kane 84.27% > Danny Ings 76.90%).
90% | Erling Haaland - 1st, 1st, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 1.666 position 85% | Kylian Mbappe - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 1st = 2.5 position 83% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position 84% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position 84% | Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 3.5 position 84% | Robert Lewandowski - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 8th, 5th, 3rd = 3.555 position 82% | Dusan Vlahovic - 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th = 3.571 position 89% | Lautaro Martinez - 7th, 3rd, 1st, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 3.75 position 81% | Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th = 3.833 position 79% | Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position 86% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 4.25 position 77% | Donyell Malen - 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 4.666 position 74% | Robert Glatzel - 5th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, 12th, 6th = 6.5 position 73% | Paulo Dybala - 5th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th = 6.833 position 64% | Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
DR
85% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position 71% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
The percentage is what I get based on the current weightings I have, adjusted where the top player in the position is 90%. Currently it needs to be updated to account for Gyokeres and Martinez.
The same set of weights for ST are used for DR.
I'm no statistician, but ChatGPT says that the reasonable margin of error for a player's percentage so far is about +/- 7.8%. This is inclusive of the natural seasonal variance as well as the inaccuracy of the weightings. It means that you can be pretty certain that best player is going to be at least 82%, or for a practical example, if you were selecting the top natural ST for England, it would narrow it down to 14 players (Kane 84.27% > Danny Ings 76.90%). Expand
Looking good so far, can’t wait for the new weightings.
tam1236 said: ... but I was really very, very curious, so I transferred in an editor the team from a table above to Arsenal (of course get rid off regular Arsenal players). And simulated whole season. They finished at 3rd place, after Chelsea and Liverpool (83-81-79 pts) and over MU (71). /Lost all cups/. Average CA of basic 11 was 103. Second part was transferring same FC Vaduz but 2 seasons later - stronger team, some weaker players sold, some came from an academy - average CA 119 (I blocked attributes) - and it's not "engineered distribution" - all from coaching and playing. They won PL over Chelsea and MC (88-83-80 pts) /won FA, lost Europa League/. Expand Now add 40 CA to them in nonessential attributes and sim again. If possible a fair assessment, not all CA into the absolute worst attributes you can think of.
Also the not engineered distribution is sort of true but not really. Using the meta schedules to boost physicals to levels that were obviously not intended is kind of engineering them, although they do happen "naturally" as opposed to straight up editing them.
( edited 19 hours, 51 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#505
Link to the post:
Yarema said: Now add 40 CA to them in nonessential attributes and sim again. If possible a fair assessment, not all CA into the absolute worst attributes you can think of.
Also the not engineered distribution is sort of true but not really. Using the meta schedules to boost physicals to levels that were obviously not intended is kind of engineering them, although they do happen "naturally" as opposed to straight up editing them. Expand Here you go lad
Not exactly the same in what I would consider the meaningful attributes, but hey, what two players in reality are? And I think it's fair to say that one would assume Messi's +10 dribbling would offset Furuhashi's +8 work rate.
In a team of controlled players but also in a real league, simulated for multiple seasons on full detail.
Training was left as default, no meta training or quickness focus. Positions were also pre-edited to be the same: Only 20 in ST.
Hiddens are close to the same, Messi perhaps has the edge, but judge for yourself:
Still a fair while to go on getting a robust set of weightings, but I wanted to share something I've discovered so far.
Dirtiness seems to be far more important than I ever gave it credit for, and injury proneness isn't far off either.
How do I conclude this?
1) High weight of dirtiness is the only thing I can see that allows Maeda to as highly ranked as his position. More highly valuing any other attribute he has (of which there are few he has high), such as work rate or determination, would mess up the rank of other players. Maeda has very low dirtiness of '2'.
2) High weight of dirtiness also just so happens to fix up a lot of the other ranking problems. So, more circumstantial evidence it's real.
3) I compare not just the rankings, but the relative %, and the only one that was particularly off was Dybala. So I looked into Dybala and noticed the unique thing he does have is high injury proneness. I had not added injury proneness as a weight so far, so I added it, and it largely fixed up Dybala's %. Then I looked at my test saves of Dybala to compare.. indeed what I found that when Dybala finished 3rd he had minimal injuries, whereas when he finished 12, there were a bunch of moderate and major injuries. I added 4 of each player to the team, so I didn't think this would become an issue, but it still does. That's not a problem for the validity at all in my opinion, because in reality you're not going to have more than 4 first team STs anyway - if anything you'd have less of that caliber, which only emphasizes injury proneness more if anything.
4) I already reasoned long ago that dirtiness is worse than injury proneness, because with dirtiness you get a red card and lose a player, whereas with injury proneness you get an injury but the player gets immediately replaced with one that is only ~10% worse. On the other hand, injury proneness also leads to extended periods of low match fitness, which has a strong effect on performance, and so injury proneness is more serious than just the in-match effect.
All that said, it could just be that dirtiness and/or injury proneness are just acting as 'functional' weightings at the moment, that could be disproved later by certain other players. I'd say the probability of this is only say ~20% though, mainly because it seems impossible to explain Maeda doing so well without it.
I suppose I'll furnish an example, to demonstrate how dirtiness doesn't just solve Maeda, it hits a number of birds with one stone.
If you look at Lautaro Martinez, it's very hard to explain why he finishes 3.75. He has lower pace/acc than Mbappe, lower key mentals than Lewandowski, but if you get familiar with all the pros and cons, the conclusion is that he should be better.
But it's the comparison between Martinez and Maeda that really makes this clear:
Looking at this you've got to ask, how in the hell does Maeda do better than Martinez. It's one reason I've already taken 8 samples on Martinez. If you emphasize pace/acc to an extreme level, that drops the bomb on Kane & Lewandowski in particular. But with the dirtiness factor, it suddenly works out - not just for Maeda vs Martinez, but also Martinez vs Mbappe, Lewandowski, etc.
I've just started having a look at this tool called FMST 26, but it looks like the solution to my problems.
In spite of the name, it works for both FM24 and FM26.
It reads direct from memory, so we've got access to all the hiddens now for FM24, and it was instant to load for me too.
It can measure and sort by match ratings and goals.
And the cherry on top is that not only does it allow for a custom set of weightings, but it seems like it's possible to do more sophisticated mathematical and logical operations with the weights too. If I'm correct in that, then that opens up the possibility of accounting for non-linear attributes and attribute interactions further down the track.
It does lack a few things Genie Scout has or had (player attribute compare, team overall % comparison), but it has the things I need most.
I've had no choice but to continue working with Genie Scout until now, because it's the only tool that can weight the hiddens for FM24. It doesn't calculate things properly, but I decided to just do the best job I could do with it.
So now I can see what my weightings are actually ranking the players accurately, and I see that Maeda is finally 3rd after Haaland and Mbappe as he should be, which is a good sign. I now have to readjust the weightings slightly, but now I can be certain they're being calculated accurately.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: In regards to physiotherapists (...) I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for national teams. Expand Well, it just isn't. Of course in a club you simply don't need physio (maybe for less injuries) - a day off and You have a newborn team, but in a national rep. - you play a match and with 2 level physio 4 days later your players are close to "needs a day of rest" (and with 18 they are "a bit tired" ). By the way, I'm not sure if EBSM material wasn't about sport scientists but it's not so important. Yarema said: Now add 40 CA to them in nonessential attributes and sim again. Also the not engineered distribution is sort of true but not really. Using the meta schedules to boost physicals to levels that were obviously not intended is kind of engineering them, although they do happen "naturally" as opposed to straight up editing them. Expand Sure, with better concentration, dribbling and finishing they would be much better. But until there is no other team with good, physical players they are getting along. And, maybe that's not my coaches, but default FM schedules that give not enough quickness who sucks? CA points are really badly distributed: leadership (0 importance, unless...) is so expenxive - why? cooperation (0 importance) expensive - why? And physicals, most important, are just cheap - I can have decent player of 45 CA. When I see a CB 24 yo., 160 CA, pa, acc 10-11 I think something is really wrong in this game. It reminds me, that some time ago a club from my town won a domestic championship with a technically very weak but big, strong and quick team (and doing mainly physical training). So it happens irl, but of course not on a very high level
If you really want to test strikers and rank them should probably just give all the teams in the league including your own the exact same attributes besides the player you are testing. That way you will have consistent data and confirm your player is always playing in the same circumstances.
treath said: mate in your rating (btw much better than the original post) what you would do to find like a complete forward?
It's not a complain, but i want to find a mixed striker, what your recomendations to edit in rating to find those players?
I class a complete forward as target striker really. The match engine doesnt care about a lot of attributes. You could maybe add vision a little bit. But id still make them strong, good jumping reach, anticipation, balance and work rate. And of course not slow!!
Guys I am a returning player, I already have FM24, but I can get FM26 for cheap. How good is the ME compared to FM24? I know the UI sucks but I’ve heard the Tactical Creator gives you more options due to the OOP/IP formations and that you can play more varied styles of play. Is that true?
Fraudiola01 said: Guys I am a returning player, I already have FM24, but I can get FM26 for cheap. How good is the ME compared to FM24? I know the UI sucks but I’ve heard the Tactical Creator gives you more options due to the OOP/IP formations and that you can play more varied styles of play. Is that true?
If you mean the ME under the hood rather than the visuals, from what I've seen and read, it's about the same, the new OOP/IP is almost placebo, and it gets dominated by strikerless tactics.
There are now 6 samples per player. That's 2,736 Premier League matches simulated on full detail + all other relevant first team competitions (i.e. Community Shield, Champions Cup, Club World Cup, etc.) simulated on full detail as well.
90% | 90% | 90% | 90% | Erling Haaland - 1st, 1st, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 1.666 position, 1.119 goals/match, 7.80 rating
84% | 84% | 80% | 79% | Robert Lewandowski - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd = 2.666 position, 0.721 goals/match, 7.33 rating
84% | 81% | 90% | 87% | Kylian Mbappe - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd = 3 position, 0.701 goals/match, 7.48 rating
80% | 69% | 76% | 72% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd = 3 position, 0.586 goals/match, 7.23 rating
83% | 84% | 80% | 78% | Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 3.5 position, 0.563 goals/match, 7.29 rating
80% | 81% | 77% | 78% | Dusan Vlahovic - 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th = 3.571 position, 0.634 goals/match, 7.23 rating
80% | 81% | 84% | 85% | Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th = 3.833 position, 0.714 goals/match, 7.29 rating
80% | 78% | 85% | 80% | Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position, 0.588 goals/match, 7.16 rating
75% | 72% | 77% | 74% | Donyell Malen - 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 4.666 position, 0.514 goals/match, 7.22 rating
75% | 74% | 69% | 72% | Robert Glatzel - 5th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, 12th, 6th = 6.5 position, 0.634 goals/match, 7.16 rating
72% | 72% | 79% | 71% | Paulo Dybala - 5th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th = 6.833 position, 0.492 goals/match, 7.07 rating
61% | 63% | 62% | 61% | Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
Edit: I've added a color-coded column to compare 4 different GS rating files. 1st is new Best fit file, 2nd is Premier League 1.0, 3rd is keithb, 4th is Falbravv's META FMA 2.0 file based on skawkclsrn's recent data. Green = 1% or less difference. Yellow = 2-4% difference. Red = 5%+ difference. Ignore Harry Kane, he needs a slight readjustment right now due to the latest samples.
There are a lot of new deductions that can be made.
One is that now we have a rough idea what GS % corresponds to in terms of concrete performance numbers, and another is that we can tell at what point random variation makes distinguishing between % numbers pointless.
We can always do with more samples, but if we just take the difference between whoever is highest and lowest between Lewandowski, Mbappe, Maeda, Kane, Vlahovic, Osimhen, and Messi (total +/- 1 position difference maximum) we get:
((4.08/80.70)x100) = 5.06% - My best fit of the data so far in GS (not to minimize %, but to correct player rank)
((14.30/91.99)x100) = 15.54% - Premier League 1.0 'weighted weights' version
((14.94/88.11)x100) = 16.96% - Premier League 1.0
((14.14/92.25)x100) = 17.14% - 'Pure Performance' FM24
((13.45/77.59)x100) = 17.33% - My first/original FM24 ratings file
((15.89/84.94)x100) = 18.71% - 'Blended' FM24
((18.34/83.29)x100) = 22.02% - ykykyk05251's weights file
((22.88/88.01)x100) = 26.00% - Orion's coefficients file
((29.27/91.47)x100) = 32.00% - Genie Scout Default
That is where we are accounting for extreme cases. In other words, a 4-5% difference in GS is almost certainly an objectively better player.
But what if we make it a bit leniant, and tolerate ~10-20% being exceptions we miss. In other words, this is the more typical uncertainty range. To discover this, I exclude the bottom % player from the list:
((4.03/80.70)x100) = 4.99% - My best fit of the data so far in GS (not to minimize %, but to correct player rank)
((6.21/88.11)x100) = 7.05% - Premier League 1.0
((6.00/83.29)x100) = 7.20% - ykykyk05251's weights file
((7.34/75.95)x100) = 9.66% - Falbravv's 'META FMA 2.0' file based on skawkclsrn's data this week
((10.39/89.51)x100) = 11.60% - Falbravv's 'META FMA' file based I think FM Arena's testing(?)
((11.67/91.47)x100) = 12.76% - Genie Scout Default
((13.45/77.59)x100) = 13.20% - My first/original FM24 ratings file
((12.61/95.25)x100) = 13.24% - 'Pure Performance' FM24
((12.42/91.99)x100) = 13.50% - Premier League 1.0 'weighted weights' version
((13.21/94.59)x100) = 13.97% - keithb's weights 💩
((13.64/88.01)x100) = 15.50% - Orion's coefficients file
((14.14/84.94)x100) = 16.65% - 'Blended' FM24
So we see that whatever the case, ~4-5% is going to be the range within which the player who is better becomes uncertain, but also the difference is going to be pretty meaningless objectively.
You think genie scout default ratings are better than some rating files produced by people who made files based on reliable testing? hahaha
And your file is, obviously, at the top yet Mbappe in this latest rigorous test comes out 2nd/3rd and you have him as the 20th best striker in your premier league file?? Makes sense I guess
Rather than carrying on with all this testing that apparently keeps getting better and changing your findings, why dont you practise your makeup? I hear the circus is in town soon, and they are always looking for clowns.
Ps I dont have Mbappe and Haaland rated the same. You dont even know how to use and read GS. How can you make a file for it? I love that you lie all the time, it just makes it funnier.
keithb said: Ps I dont have Mbappe and Haaland rated the same. You dont even know how to use and read GS. How can you make a file for it? I love that you lie all the time, it just makes it funnier.
I wouldn't want to misrepresent you. This is what your GS file says does it not?
Default database, start of game (England - 3/7/2023)
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you mean the ME under the hood rather than the visuals, from what I've seen and read, it's about the same, the new OOP/IP is almost placebo, and it gets dominated by strikerless tactics.
I mean that it seems more styles of play are possible. Also that some TI works better, such as Work Ball into the Box, or Play out of Defence(Play through Press) which used to be “lose more” buttons in FM24 but actually work nicely in FM26.
Also, what do you mean by IP/OOP being placebo?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I wouldn't want to misrepresent you. This is what your GS file says does it not?
Default database, start of game (England - 3/7/2023)
haahah. You lie and misrepresent what I say often. You're a clown.
No Mbappe and Haaland are not rated the same. And when you increase TS to 107, like I said in the post, the gap becomes even bigger. Its 2% and then becomes 4%. They are not rated the same. Is there actually something wrong with you?
AGAIN how can you create a file and use and not see this?? There's a worrying disconnect.
keithb said: haahah. You lie and misrepresent what I say often. You're a clown.
No Mbappe and Haaland are not rated the same. And when you increase TS to 107, like I said in the post, the gap becomes even bigger. Its 2% and then becomes 4%. They are not rated the same. Is there actually something wrong with you?
AGAIN how can you create a file and use and not see this?? There's a worrying disconnect.
To be honest I didn't even check if you had a TS rating, because I took one look at the FS rating and knew it was rubbish.
The screenshot I provided is, you'll agree, the FS ratings you've given.
So do you want me to use the FS or TS rating?
Looking at your TS ratings, you have Osimhem above Lewandowski even though both having 15 jumping reach, so more of the same 💩 either way.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: To be honest I didn't even check if you had a TS rating, because I took one look at the FS rating and knew it was rubbish.
The screenshot I provided is, you'll agree, the FS ratings you've given.
So do you want me to use the FS or TS rating?
Looking at your TS ratings, you have Osimhem above Lewandowski even though both having 15 jumping reach, so more of the same 💩 either way.
Please stop making me laugh hahaha. I do have somework to do.
Well I know im very smart and you aren't and you know people call me a visionary and stuff. But what I do is I use BOTH. I know im so clever right? No one else has ever thought to do this. That means I can still include strikers with no jumping reach in fast strikers and strikers who have an overall excellent physical profile can be target strikers. And then I/we can choose which type we want. Sorry if I blew your mind with that.
Well Osimhem is probably above Lewa because his other key attributes are better? I haven't just set jumping reach on its on in the weighting for TS. Again if this is new information for you, then you're welcome.
So to clarify I've ALWAYS had Haaland as the best player in fm24. So you've repeatedly lied and said I haven't. Tbh he should be 10% clear, but I dont like the other positions having such low scores. Thats probably wrong but its just how I used GS.
Anyway always hilarious interacting with you. I fondly remember when you told me I was pissing in my own face for saying stamina is important lol and in almost everything you type out shit is literally coming out of your mouth. Im a huge fan of irony and you are the king of it. I would say dont ever change, but thats me being selfish for entertainment purposes. You should change for the benefit of other people you are constantly misleading over football manager.
can you give us the pics for each position on genie scout with the data for the new files for best fit gs file
Jumping reach keeps landing third on every importance list. But it's nowhere near acc and pace. So that makes me wonder — would two players with 18+ JR be enough to cover set pieces, while everyone else just sits at average (10-15)?
Fraudiola01 said: Guys I am a returning player, I already have FM24, but I can get FM26 for cheap. How good is the ME compared to FM24? I know the UI sucks but I’ve heard the Tactical Creator gives you more options due to the OOP/IP formations and that you can play more varied styles of play. Is that true?
Do not buy fm26 its utter crap, just be patient and wait for 27
OpticFawn said: can you give us the pics for each position on genie scout with the data for the new files for best fit gs file
I'll be posting it soon, but it's still a work in progress right now.
Translating the real results to Genie Scout has been proving to be really tricky. As ChatGPT has confirmed to me, there's no straightforward way of deriving the specific combination of attribute weightings from the results alone. For example say I find drib 30 + ant 30 + pace 70 is what works.. how do I know it's not just ant 30 + pace 70, and dribbling has 0 effect?
Thankfully I can rule out a lot of attributes from the get-go from previous testing, but I still have to just manually fiddle around with all sorts of different combinations to find out what works and what doesn't until I have something that at least aligns with the real rankings as closely as possible.
I started with the following process:
1. Start with Premier League 1.0 'weighted weights' version
2. Compare players who have completely different sets of attributes but had similar results
3. Adjust weighting of 1-3 attributes that I know matter (i.e. pace, anticipation, work rate, etc.) starting with the most likely attribute (i.e. pace) until all players are roughly where they should be ranked.
4. If one player's rank is fixed, but then another falls out, return to step 3.
5. Find a player with high rep or high CA who has unusually low % rating with the changed weights. Test performance in controlled test first, then do step 3 with them if performance doesn't match rank.
6. Keep repeating step 5.
Right now I've got a functional set of weights, but everything has to be changed around again the next time a sample finds a player changes their ranking. I think 6 samples is giving us a fairly accurate picture now to work with, but for true accuracy I think it's going to require at least 10.
Then there is the matter of position variation. But my first result in another position so far seems to suggest the weights could be the same for every outfield position. Once I've done all positions, with perhaps 10 samples for STs for calibration, then I'll post it.
Yarema said: Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure...
tam1236 said:
Historical photo of my team after winning Champions League (...)As You can see they don't play in PL but ...
... but I was really very, very curious, so I transferred in an editor the team from a table above to Arsenal (of course get rid off regular Arsenal players). And simulated whole season. They finished at 3rd place, after Chelsea and Liverpool (83-81-79 pts) and over MU (71). /Lost all cups/. Average CA of basic 11 was 103. Second part was transferring same FC Vaduz but 2 seasons later - stronger team, some weaker players sold, some came from an academy - average CA 119 (I blocked attributes) - and it's not "engineered distribution" - all from coaching and playing. They won PL over Chelsea and MC (88-83-80 pts) /won FA, lost Europa League/.
Do club rep affect result?
iezzex said: Do club rep affect result?
On 'no detail' processing, possibly.
On 'full detail', can't remember now, but I don't think so. I know for certain that player rep doesn't. I don't think club attributes affect the results either, but I suppose it does come into consideration when AI managers are deciding what team to play against you (you know, how after mid-season, suddenly games get a lot harder once they adjust to your actual team quality).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: On 'no detail' processing, possibly.
On 'full detail', can't remember now, but I don't think so. I know for certain that player rep doesn't. I don't think club attributes affect the results either, but I suppose it does come into consideration when AI managers are deciding what team to play against you (you know, how after mid-season, suddenly games get a lot harder once they adjust to your actual team quality).
Somehow Bayern results in CL always worse then PSG for example while having a pretty good roster in stock, so thats why i asked about rep
Cant see anyone tested this yet or im blind
I swallowed my pride and tried using ChatGPT to find the right set of weights. It seemed promising at first, but I ended up finding my own estimates were already closer to the mark and ChatGPT agreed.
After adjusting my weights more accurately to the 6-sample results, I noticed that the 7th best ST is Kyogo Furuhashi - ahead of Lewandowski and Mbappe, which is very unusual and therefore a good test of whether these weights are valid or not.
Kyogo Furuhashi:
4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd = 3.166
After adjusting things slightly in light of Furuhashi's result and some more samples of a few players, Mbappe is 7th, Lewandowski is 9th, and Furuhashi is 10th.
What's insightful about this result too is that unlike Maeda who has 19 pace/acc, Furuhashi has modest physicals (16 acc/15 pace) and yet shares the same piss poor technicals including 10 drib. His mentals aren't even that remarkable either.
So he's basically showing us one of the more effective pieces of evidence for the validity of the weightings in the leanness of his attribute distribution (he is just 136 CA, compared to 184 CA for Kane below him).
According to Falbraav's 'META FMA 2.0' weightings, Furuhashi is 48th.
According to keithb's weightings, Furuhashi is 47th for FS and 538th for TS.
iezzex said: Do club rep affect result?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: On 'full detail', can't remember now, but I don't think so.
Actually, it does. Rather not in league but in cups: the greater gap in rep between clubs the greater the chance players from lower rep will be kind of intimidated/scared and play well below their potential, even with opponents on equal level. And (sometimes it helps) if you are a coach of such a lower rep team "nobody bet on us and this is our chance" speech is just obligatory.
On the other hand, when in national teams (I know it's luckily abandoned in FM26) the reputation, in this case "ranking", is crucial. Firstly - You won't win with a team of much better ranking - ok, there is a minimal chance, but only a minimal - no matter how good players You have. And secondly, even more important, a level of physioterapists you get depends on your ranking. And tournaments like World Cup are scripted by SI in such a way that without very good or even best physioterapists You play with deadmen from 3-5 match - there's nothing you can do about it
tam1236 said: Actually, it does. Rather not in league but in cups: the greater gap in rep between clubs the greater the chance players from lower rep will be kind of intimidated/scared and play well below their potential, even with opponents on equal level. And (sometimes it helps) if you are a coach of such a lower rep team "nobody bet on us and this is our chance" speech is just obligatory.
On the other hand, when in national teams (I know it's luckily abandoned in FM26) the reputation, in this case "ranking", is crucial. Firstly - You won't win with a team of much better ranking - ok, there is a minimal chance, but only a minimal - no matter how good players You have. And secondly, even more important, a level of physioterapists you get depends on your ranking. And tournaments like World Cup are scripted by SI in such a way that without very good or even best physioterapists You play with deadmen from 3-5 match - there's nothing you can do about it
Didn't know/think about that
But it brings to mind Important Matches, which I guess in a way is an indirect effect of club rep. We know that as you progress in a cup, the final stages - even the quarter finals and whatnot - have increasing reputation and therefore Important Matches comes into play. But how would distinguish that from the intimidation? Maybe intimidation is just a cosmetic symptom of that. On the other hand, when it comes to loan growth, it's 70% Division Rep 30% Club Rep, so I guess it's likely the effect on Important Matches or Pressure or whatever it is works the same way.
I didn't know this nation ranking thing either.
In regards to physiotherapists, I think it was EBFM who found that it doesn't matter what the quality of your physio is, just so long as you've got one. The benefits beyond that I think are just more accurate assessment of how long a player will be out for or something like that. I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for national teams.
Current rankings so far:
ST
90% | Erling Haaland - 1st, 1st, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 1.666 position
85% | Kylian Mbappe - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 1st = 2.5 position
83% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position
84% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position
84% | Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 3.5 position
84% | Robert Lewandowski - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 8th, 5th, 3rd = 3.555 position
82% | Dusan Vlahovic - 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th = 3.571 position
89% | Lautaro Martinez - 7th, 3rd, 1st, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 3.75 position
81% | Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th = 3.833 position
79% | Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position
86% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 4.25 position
77% | Donyell Malen - 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 4.666 position
74% | Robert Glatzel - 5th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, 12th, 6th = 6.5 position
73% | Paulo Dybala - 5th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th = 6.833 position
64% | Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
DR
85% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position
71% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
The percentage is what I get based on the current weightings I have, adjusted where the top player in the position is 90%. Currently it needs to be updated to account for Gyokeres and Martinez.
The same set of weights for ST are used for DR.
I'm no statistician, but ChatGPT says that the reasonable margin of error for a player's percentage so far is about +/- 7.8%. This is inclusive of the natural seasonal variance as well as the inaccuracy of the weightings. It means that you can be pretty certain that best player is going to be at least 82%, or for a practical example, if you were selecting the top natural ST for England, it would narrow it down to 14 players (Kane 84.27% > Danny Ings 76.90%).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Current rankings so far:
ST
90% | Erling Haaland - 1st, 1st, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 1.666 position
85% | Kylian Mbappe - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 1st = 2.5 position
83% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position
84% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position
84% | Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 3.5 position
84% | Robert Lewandowski - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 8th, 5th, 3rd = 3.555 position
82% | Dusan Vlahovic - 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th = 3.571 position
89% | Lautaro Martinez - 7th, 3rd, 1st, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 3.75 position
81% | Victor Osimhen - 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th = 3.833 position
79% | Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position
86% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th = 4.25 position
77% | Donyell Malen - 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 4.666 position
74% | Robert Glatzel - 5th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, 12th, 6th = 6.5 position
73% | Paulo Dybala - 5th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th = 6.833 position
64% | Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
DR
85% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position
71% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
The percentage is what I get based on the current weightings I have, adjusted where the top player in the position is 90%. Currently it needs to be updated to account for Gyokeres and Martinez.
The same set of weights for ST are used for DR.
I'm no statistician, but ChatGPT says that the reasonable margin of error for a player's percentage so far is about +/- 7.8%. This is inclusive of the natural seasonal variance as well as the inaccuracy of the weightings. It means that you can be pretty certain that best player is going to be at least 82%, or for a practical example, if you were selecting the top natural ST for England, it would narrow it down to 14 players (Kane 84.27% > Danny Ings 76.90%).
Looking good so far, can’t wait for the new weightings.
tam1236 said: ... but I was really very, very curious, so I transferred in an editor the team from a table above to Arsenal (of course get rid off regular Arsenal players). And simulated whole season. They finished at 3rd place, after Chelsea and Liverpool (83-81-79 pts) and over MU (71). /Lost all cups/. Average CA of basic 11 was 103. Second part was transferring same FC Vaduz but 2 seasons later - stronger team, some weaker players sold, some came from an academy - average CA 119 (I blocked attributes) - and it's not "engineered distribution" - all from coaching and playing. They won PL over Chelsea and MC (88-83-80 pts) /won FA, lost Europa League/.
Now add 40 CA to them in nonessential attributes and sim again. If possible a fair assessment, not all CA into the absolute worst attributes you can think of.
Also the not engineered distribution is sort of true but not really. Using the meta schedules to boost physicals to levels that were obviously not intended is kind of engineering them, although they do happen "naturally" as opposed to straight up editing them.
Yarema said: Now add 40 CA to them in nonessential attributes and sim again. If possible a fair assessment, not all CA into the absolute worst attributes you can think of.
Also the not engineered distribution is sort of true but not really. Using the meta schedules to boost physicals to levels that were obviously not intended is kind of engineering them, although they do happen "naturally" as opposed to straight up editing them.
Here you go lad
Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position
Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position
Furuhashi vs Messi - 136 CA vs 185 CA
Not exactly the same in what I would consider the meaningful attributes, but hey, what two players in reality are? And I think it's fair to say that one would assume Messi's +10 dribbling would offset Furuhashi's +8 work rate.
In a team of controlled players but also in a real league, simulated for multiple seasons on full detail.
Training was left as default, no meta training or quickness focus. Positions were also pre-edited to be the same: Only 20 in ST.
Hiddens are close to the same, Messi perhaps has the edge, but judge for yourself:
Still a fair while to go on getting a robust set of weightings, but I wanted to share something I've discovered so far.
Dirtiness seems to be far more important than I ever gave it credit for, and injury proneness isn't far off either.
How do I conclude this?
1) High weight of dirtiness is the only thing I can see that allows Maeda to as highly ranked as his position. More highly valuing any other attribute he has (of which there are few he has high), such as work rate or determination, would mess up the rank of other players. Maeda has very low dirtiness of '2'.
2) High weight of dirtiness also just so happens to fix up a lot of the other ranking problems. So, more circumstantial evidence it's real.
3) I compare not just the rankings, but the relative %, and the only one that was particularly off was Dybala. So I looked into Dybala and noticed the unique thing he does have is high injury proneness. I had not added injury proneness as a weight so far, so I added it, and it largely fixed up Dybala's %. Then I looked at my test saves of Dybala to compare.. indeed what I found that when Dybala finished 3rd he had minimal injuries, whereas when he finished 12, there were a bunch of moderate and major injuries. I added 4 of each player to the team, so I didn't think this would become an issue, but it still does. That's not a problem for the validity at all in my opinion, because in reality you're not going to have more than 4 first team STs anyway - if anything you'd have less of that caliber, which only emphasizes injury proneness more if anything.
4) I already reasoned long ago that dirtiness is worse than injury proneness, because with dirtiness you get a red card and lose a player, whereas with injury proneness you get an injury but the player gets immediately replaced with one that is only ~10% worse. On the other hand, injury proneness also leads to extended periods of low match fitness, which has a strong effect on performance, and so injury proneness is more serious than just the in-match effect.
All that said, it could just be that dirtiness and/or injury proneness are just acting as 'functional' weightings at the moment, that could be disproved later by certain other players. I'd say the probability of this is only say ~20% though, mainly because it seems impossible to explain Maeda doing so well without it.
I suppose I'll furnish an example, to demonstrate how dirtiness doesn't just solve Maeda, it hits a number of birds with one stone.
If you look at Lautaro Martinez, it's very hard to explain why he finishes 3.75. He has lower pace/acc than Mbappe, lower key mentals than Lewandowski, but if you get familiar with all the pros and cons, the conclusion is that he should be better.
But it's the comparison between Martinez and Maeda that really makes this clear:
Looking at this you've got to ask, how in the hell does Maeda do better than Martinez. It's one reason I've already taken 8 samples on Martinez. If you emphasize pace/acc to an extreme level, that drops the bomb on Kane & Lewandowski in particular. But with the dirtiness factor, it suddenly works out - not just for Maeda vs Martinez, but also Martinez vs Mbappe, Lewandowski, etc.
I've just started having a look at this tool called FMST 26, but it looks like the solution to my problems.
In spite of the name, it works for both FM24 and FM26.
It reads direct from memory, so we've got access to all the hiddens now for FM24, and it was instant to load for me too.
It can measure and sort by match ratings and goals.
And the cherry on top is that not only does it allow for a custom set of weightings, but it seems like it's possible to do more sophisticated mathematical and logical operations with the weights too. If I'm correct in that, then that opens up the possibility of accounting for non-linear attributes and attribute interactions further down the track.
It does lack a few things Genie Scout has or had (player attribute compare, team overall % comparison), but it has the things I need most.
I've had no choice but to continue working with Genie Scout until now, because it's the only tool that can weight the hiddens for FM24. It doesn't calculate things properly, but I decided to just do the best job I could do with it.
So now I can see what my weightings are actually ranking the players accurately, and I see that Maeda is finally 3rd after Haaland and Mbappe as he should be, which is a good sign. I now have to readjust the weightings slightly, but now I can be certain they're being calculated accurately.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: In regards to physiotherapists (...) I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for national teams.
Well, it just isn't. Of course in a club you simply don't need physio (maybe for less injuries) - a day off and You have a newborn team, but in a national rep. - you play a match and with 2 level physio 4 days later your players are close to "needs a day of rest" (and with 18 they are "a bit tired" ). By the way, I'm not sure if EBSM material wasn't about sport scientists but it's not so important.
Yarema said: Now add 40 CA to them in nonessential attributes and sim again.
Also the not engineered distribution is sort of true but not really. Using the meta schedules to boost physicals to levels that were obviously not intended is kind of engineering them, although they do happen "naturally" as opposed to straight up editing them.Sure, with better concentration, dribbling and finishing they would be much better. But until there is no other team with good, physical players they are getting along. And, maybe that's not my coaches, but default FM schedules that give not enough quickness who sucks? CA points are really badly distributed: leadership (0 importance, unless...) is so expenxive - why? cooperation (0 importance) expensive - why? And physicals, most important, are just cheap - I can have decent player of 45 CA. When I see a CB 24 yo., 160 CA, pa, acc 10-11 I think something is really wrong in this game.
It reminds me, that some time ago a club from my town won a domestic championship with a technically very weak but big, strong and quick team (and doing mainly physical training). So it happens irl, but of course not on a very high level
If you really want to test strikers and rank them should probably just give all the teams in the league including your own the exact same attributes besides the player you are testing. That way you will have consistent data and confirm your player is always playing in the same circumstances.