Rain said: 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. Expand HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real.
The reason for the discrepancy between HarvestGreen's data and the rankings in reality, is that he's testing against opposition that is either all 10 or 20. If I put an ST with 12 jump reach in a league where every player has 1 jump reach, guess how many aerial attempts he's going to win. But each Premier League team in reality has players with at least ~15 jump reach.
Nonetheless I'm currently plugging in HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 data into FMST26 as weights to see how it fares compared to the weights I ended up with so far, because the more accurate the starting set of weights, the less likely we get a set of weights that 'functions' properly most of the time but isn't actually using the right weights that will get us to near 100% accuracy. One problem that appears with HarvestGreen's weights is that Maeda and Furuhashi are underrated.
What I'm doing at the moment is using HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 & 6 > 18 data as a baseline, then changing just the minimum of what needs to be changed to make things line up.
One example of a radical change, and what I think is going on:
In my weightings attempt before this, I found stamina ~90 (a bit higher than acc/pace) is necessary. HarvestGreen says stamina 10 > 18 is 21.6% of acc 10 > 18. I'm saying it's ~110%.
From my own testing, I know the following is ideal: 20 acc/pace 13 sta | 18 acc/pace 14 sta | 14 acc/pace 15 sta. Something like that anyway, you get the picture. So we see sta is 1/3 of acc, or it's higher at 1 to 1 or a bit more.
Acc & Pace are 2 attributes it's conserving, so sta @ 1/3 acc is actually 2/3 of acc or pace alone. So we know it's in a range of ~67%-200%. Hence I think why something like 110% sta weighting of acc works and HarvestGreen's 21.6% doesn't.
But why did HarvestGreen get 21.6%? Well in his test his players have 10 in every attribute except the one tested, so he's doing 10 acc/pace 18 sta vs 10 acc/pace/sta. That translates to roughly ~9.7 acc/pace vs. 8.3 acc/pace. That's +17% for the 18 sta team.
tam1236 said: 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 Expand And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0.
A 24 yo CB with 160 CA and having 11 acc is completely normal. We got so used to abusing the broken training system that we somehow forgot that. What is actually wrong in this game is that you can engineer a 18+ pace player out of "almost anyone".
Yarema said: And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0. Expand They are, as demonstrated by the Messi vs Furuhashi example I showed you in detail, but you have seemingly chosen to overlook.
I have almost completed another example which is even better (Luis Suarez vs Le Fonde). Suarez has green in almost everything technical/mental, but has similar low physicals to Le Fonde. Suarez is finishing consistently 7th to 10th, making him the worst player tested so far.
I don't know why you want to die on this hill. I was talking about sta, pace, acc which are attributes that matter. A majority of attributes do not matter at all, and should be valued at 0, even when other attributes are identical, due to the CA cost.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real. Expand
I understand what you're saying, but you also can't assume your player will be playing the same teams every time there will be different players playing depending on who the managers decide to play anyway. Also we know what is important so why are you still trying to get this to an exact science 3 years later?
Rain said: I understand what you're saying, but you also can't assume your player will be playing the same teams every time there will be different players playing depending on who the managers decide to play anyway. Expand You are saying either one of two things: That my method is unreliable because the opposition teams are in flux, or otherwise that deducing weightings more precisely is pointless because in reality the opposition teams are always in flux.
Look, my view is that I don't need teams to be frozen, because I actually think having teams in flux replicates the realism better. I don't need to be able to work out precisely how good a particular player is. If I can just improve the reasonable certainty from +/- 15% to +/- 8%, then that's what worth doing in my opinion. Of course, data from controlled testing is often useful, but it's not the be all or end all.
Rain said: Also we know what is important so why are you still trying to get this to an exact science 3 years later? Expand Because it is more enjoyable than playing the game itself. The difficulty makes it an enjoyable challenge, and it's one of the few things I know of that hasn't been done to death by a million people.
You say 'we know what is important', but it has become apparent that the assertion pace/acc is everything isn't quite true anymore. I'm still discovering new things that surprise me. And judging by quite a few of the recent replies in this thread, many don't have a clue what's important in the game and what's not.
Now you could say 'well, we've worked out the game well enough to win everything with ease', and that would have been true already back in 2019 - before EBFM, HarvestGreen, FM Arena, etc. - because we had Knap tactics. If other people want to persist with the game vanilla or whatnot, good for them - the problem I have with it is when people tell me what to do with my time based on that attitude.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You are saying either one of two things: That my method is unreliable because the opposition teams are in flux, or otherwise that deducing weightings more precisely is pointless because in reality the opposition teams are always in flux.
Look, my view is that I don't need teams to be frozen, because I actually think having teams in flux replicates the realism better. I don't need to be able to work out precisely how good a particular player is. If I can just improve the reasonable certainty from +/- 15% to +/- 8%, then that's what worth doing in my opinion. Of course, data from controlled testing is often useful, but it's not the be all or end all.
Because it is more enjoyable than playing the game itself. The difficulty makes it an enjoyable challenge, and it's one of the few things I know of that hasn't been done to death by a million people.
You say 'we know what is important', but it has become apparent that the assertion pace/acc is everything isn't quite true anymore. I'm still discovering new things that surprise me. And judging by quite a few of the recent replies in this thread, many don't have a clue what's important in the game and what's not.
Now you could say 'well, we've worked out the game well enough to win everything with ease', and that would have been true already back in 2019 - before EBFM, HarvestGreen, FM Arena, etc. - because we had Knap tactics. If other people want to persist with the game vanilla or whatnot, good for them - the problem I have with it is when people tell me what to do with my time based on that attitude. Expand
I actually appreciate your tests fr, look forward to your files as this as a good baseline to apply to the upcoming game imo
OpticFawn said: I actually appreciate your tests fr, look forward to your files as this as a good baseline to apply to the upcoming game imo Expand It's always nice to have one's work appreciated, but I carry on regardless.
As I've said before, being beholden to praise or criticism paralyzes and retards the creator. We see that with the state of FM itself. They have no balls, and likely no genuine interest in the game either.
Someone said in this thread earlier 'I liked X file, but now you've gone off the rails with Y file!'. The deeper one gets, the less likely others are able to understand or sympathize.
I know I'm upsetting a fair few people by constantly coming up with new conclusions that contradict or confound the previous ones at times, not least because they may take it as painting them a fool for believing them once, but this is the process genuine progress necessitates. It's keithb who is always right from the get-go, not me.
Just FYI, I checked the FM Scouting Tool26 and I realize I was doing the exact thing by modifying the code within FMSuperScout (being open-source paves the way to fully customizable score).
For instance, I have the following "base weight" for, specifically DC (the comments are w/r to basic weighting from FMArena testing.
InjuryProneness and Dirtiness have weight, but they are flagged as "adverse", so 20==1 and 1==20.
Then, I applied a transform on a couple of attributes that I saw being flagged as "non-linear" in theses forums:
WorkRate and Pressure, if below 6, are treated as half their value (so 4 is weighted as if it was a 2) Pace and acceleration, if above 15, have every point count as 1.5 (so 20 counts as if it was litterally a 22.5!!)
This is a first draft, but these non-linearity have weight considering the meta weightings. Meta score is simply the weighted average of all that considered.
Then, above that, I assign players an "effective meta" per position, according to its position proficiency (based again on some testing I've seen). A player untrained (1 proficiency at position X) has 0.5*meta. So even a player with perfect 20 in every meta attributes will be equivalent to a player with 10 everywhere in a non-proficient position.
And that multiplification factor is linear between 0.5 and 1.0 between 1 and 20 position proficiency.
This is the part I'm still working on to reproduce testings we've seen.
I wanted to show you this in case it gives you a "starting" point on how to implement custom scores in the new tool you foud.
Panneton0 said: Just FYI, I checked the FM Scouting Tool26 and I realize I was doing the exact thing by modifying the code within FMSuperScout (being open-source paves the way to fully customizable score). Expand Yes, it would be good for more people to come up with their own weights for the rankings, as there's so many possibilities it could be right now.
I'm using a couple of formula weights, but I'm leaving the non-linear adjustments until after I have some confidence all outfield positions are the same and get a set of weights out.
Note that an edited Man City was left in. All four teams played in the same league together. GKs were controlled players, as I haven't done GK yet.
The best players in each position are ~85-90% for reference.
I'm actually surprised with how consistent the results turned out, as when I was testing Sacha Boey (5th best DR, 80.2%) I got first 2 results of 7th and 12th. Perhaps it's that some positions contribute more than others.
This is also giving an idea now what % difference 1 position difference is. ~1% = 1 position difference.
88% = 1st?, Premier League 80% = 8th, Premier League 74% = 14th, Premier League 70% = 18th?, relegated, Premier League
Indeed for DR, at 71.1% I see a player from Bournemouth who finished 18th in the season I'm looking at.
I think I'll be testing a few players in the DC position, and if they align neatly if the current weights, I'll be posting them soon after.
The meta team players are 71.8%. Based on the ST % values, we would expect the meta team to finish ~6.2, which is almost correct (~5th average from prior testing). It makes Knap's tactic worth 11%..
83% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position 66% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
It's worth mentioning again that all players were set to 20 ST and nothing else. This will affect a few players slightly.
* I forgot to duplicate Salah first before moving him, so there was no Salah for the opposition. Could redo, but shouldn't make much difference. Expand
bf3metro said: what's better in your opinion? FMST26 or FMSS? Expand I haven't used either enough to form an opinion on it. I'll be using FMST26 simply because it supports FM24, but FMSuperScout doesn't.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I haven't used either enough to form an opinion on it. I'll be using FMST26 simply because it supports FM24, but FMSuperScout doesn't. Expand
and btw, may i ask if you still refer to your ratings, or did you changed/tweaked them?
bf3metro said: and btw, may i ask if you still refer to your ratings, or did you changed/tweaked them?
Pace: 6, Acceleration: 6, JumpingReach: 5.2, Dribbling: 5.2, Balance: 4.8, Concentration: 5.2, Anticipation: 5.2, Determination: 5.6, Agility: 4, Stamina: 5.2, Composure: 4.4, WorkRate: 4.4, Aggression: 4.4, ImportantMatches: 5.2, NaturalFitness: 4.8, Consistency: 5.2, Pressure: 5.2, Professionalism: 5.2, Expand Yes, those are the most recent. It's simply my findings for the balance of attributes that achieves 5th in the Premier League at minimal cost/requirements.
But now I have a bunch of objective player rankings to work with, so I'm currently working a set of weights that lines up with this objective ranking list. And I'm close to done on the first go at this.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, those are the most recent. It's simply my findings for the balance of attributes that achieves 5th in the Premier League at minimal cost/requirements.
But now I have a bunch of objective player rankings to work with, so I'm currently working a set of weights that lines up with this objective ranking list. And I'm close to done on the first go at this. Expand
Oh, that sounds really interesting. I’d definitely be curious to see how different the new weights end up being compared to the current ones once you’re done. Especially if they’re now being calibrated against an objective player ranking rather than purely the “5th in the PL at minimal cost” benchmark. Please share them when you’re happy with the first version!
- Designed to align with the objective results of real players within the English Premier League - GK not yet done, weights from Premier League 1.0 are used which are decent - Do not read too much into the specific values for each attribute, I used HarvestGreen's and my own data as a basis to start with, but it's largely just plugging in numbers until I get the output I'm looking for, which is alignment with the rankings. Individual attribute weights will be inaccurate or even superfluous, but it's what they sum up to that matters. - GS file is a bit less accurate than the FMST26 weights. Highly recommend FMST26 over GS if possible.
I could keep working on this for forever and a day, but I feel like it's good enough right now for a first version.
You can make your own adjustments, add in non-linear formulas, etc. to line up with the rankings better if you like, since the ranking data is really what's solid.
Do you force a fixed starting XI so no rotation is possible? That might explain the abnormaly high Stamina required to fit the season result. I'd be interested to see how this specific attribute ends up being even more important than pace/acc. I feel like it would have this importance for a club with a poor backup, but not as much if the backup is still decent. Anyway, interesting!
OpticFawn said: the same weightings for each position? Expand Yes
I was hesitant to release this before testing all positions, but these combined team results gave me enough confidence to believe it should be the same or about the same for all positions.
I did do another DR and a DC
82% | Kim Min Jae (DC) - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position
compare to:
83% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo (DR) - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position
82% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position 81% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position 82% | Vinicius Junior - 5th, 4th, 1st, 3rd = 3.25 position 83% | Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 3.5 position 83% | 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 81% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd = 4 position
Both DR and DC appear a bit ineffectual compared to ST, but it's not off by much.
I had two options: Release what I have based on the above results, or test each position (so at least 100 samples) which would probably take a week or two. I could also end up getting burn out by that point. So I decided to just release it now, since I've got some stuff to do these next few days anyway. Testing of other positions will continue to be done. If it turns out it doesn't work for other positions properly, it'll be adjusted.
Panneton0 said: Do you force a fixed starting XI so no rotation is possible? That might explain the abnormaly high Stamina required to fit the season result. I'd be interested to see how this specific attribute ends up being even more important than pace/acc. I feel like it would have this importance for a club with a poor backup, but not as much if the backup is still decent. Anyway, interesting! Expand Good question
I anticipate this by having 4 of the same player as the position I'm testing. The rest of the team also has extras for each position.
So it's not that fatigue is leading to stamina being overpowered. I was scratching my head over stamina until I thought about it, realizing that stamina is actually compensating for the 2 key attributes of pace and acc, not just one, so it makes sense in that way that it's so strongly weighted.
I did try and get it to work with say 25 stamina. Couldn't get it working. Other attributes, I found you could use 14 or 50 for it and it'd work either way, just shifting the other weights around. I think composure was one such attribute.
I actually paid some close attention to the game time the 4 players were getting, because obviously I wanted them to get adequate games (for match fitness & reliable scoring) without being overworked. I also didn't want a situation where injury leads to being a player short. I've got the precise data, but generally speaking all of the two most played players each got ~28-35 Premier League games/season. That doesn't include cup games and whatnot, which totaled all combined to 41-50 games/season for the assistant's most picked player of the four.
I did not force XI selection, just let the assistant select who he thought was best each game.
Panneton0 said: I'd be interested to see how this specific attribute ends up being even more important than pace/acc. Expand BTW I'll tell you how I got to such a high value for stamina, and the other values in general, since I didn't really explain.
I start with the existing weights, changed a few weights until the players roughly aligned properly, then I carefully compared players who would remain stubbornly out of alignment (fixing one, ruins another).
Maeda was key to this process. He's near the top, but he only has greens in aggression, determination, teamwork, work rate, acceleration, natural fitness, pace, stamina.
I start with ruling out teamwork, cause I know from testing before that that's useless.
Long story short, moving everything up and down except stamina and work rate were a no go. Stamina ended up being an indispensable part of the puzzle. And it worked for other players too. So this is how I ended up at such a high figure for stamina.
And as I said, I tried to revisit and lower this later, because I wanted the weights to more closely match HarvestGreen's data, but couldn't find a way of doing it.
No. I could win the premier league with a team of 1 CA players that have 1 stamina. And the reason stamina was left at 1 was because I found increasing it had no statistically significant effect, at least not any greater than 10 or so other attributes.
That does not mean that stamina does nothing, but it demonstrates that stamina is far from essential, even for DL/DR. HarvestGreen's data shows 6 > 18 stamina is +8.1% win rate, which is less than concentration (+8.6%), which was the last attribute I included on my toplist.
It's one thing to posit challenges based on your own intuition, nothing wrong with that. And even arrogance has preservation of dignity as is its virtue. But where is the dignity in insulting me only to piss up into your own face in front of everyone?
I did before. They're somewhere, but I recommend just filtering for some key attributes, say this (for adult player):
pace/acc 12 drib 8 concentration 8 (on DC/DL/DR only) work rate 6
That would filter out most of the complete duds. Expand
Stamina isn't that important guys. Cant believe Bozo the Liar is pissing in his own face!!!
This new file is a lot like mine LOL! Except dribbling is severely underrated this time and obviously stamina is too high. Other things as well but its definitely moved to look like mine. hahaha. Mine is nowhere near perfect, I threw it together in no time. This clown has spent a lifetime going round in circles to end up not far from my ratings, whilst continually saying mine are shit. I like comedy and this is top comedy.
Why have you still used negative values and scored the hidden attributes in Genie Scout? Is it so you can say GS is bugged when people say your file isn't correct?
Also funny now that you have weighted all outfield to 120, after I asked why you didn't use it. Thats too high btw, newgens will go over 100 in some positions. You dont understand the game or GS or probably this new one you're using either.
Centre backs dont need high stamina. Just look how much condition they have left at the end of a game starting from peak. Concentration isn't for any forward position! You can literally set it to 1 if speed, anticipation, balance and some others are high.
- Designed to align with the objective results of real players within the English Premier League - GK not yet done, weights from Premier League 1.0 are used which are decent - Do not read too much into the specific values for each attribute, I used HarvestGreen's and my own data as a basis to start with, but it's largely just plugging in numbers until I get the output I'm looking for, which is alignment with the rankings. Individual attribute weights will be inaccurate or even superfluous, but it's what they sum up to that matters. - GS file is a bit less accurate than the FMST26 weights. Highly recommend FMST26 over GS if possible.
I could keep working on this for forever and a day, but I feel like it's good enough right now for a first version.
You can make your own adjustments, add in non-linear formulas, etc. to line up with the rankings better if you like, since the ranking data is really what's solid. Expand
This new file is a lot like mine LOL! Expand You have stamina weighted at 0 for DC, 20 for ST/TS/AMC/AML/AMR, and 60 elsewhere. It's not my fault your own weights contradict your own words.
Meanwhile, the key attribute of dirtiness you leave on 0, as you have 0 clue of course about what attributes actually matter beyond what we knew from HarvestGreen's testing a year or two ago.
But as I've said, you can have a variety of combinations that work to get to match the final ranking result. And at least you're implicitly accepting now that my objective rankings are correct.
Let's do a comparison of our two files to find out just how similar they really are. First, yours:
Junior is 1st for FS, even with 16 ST proficiency. Mbappe is above Haaland. Messi is 5% above Lewandowski and 10% above Maeda. Even Malen is above Maeda. Dybala is above Maeda and Furuhashi. Mbappe (8 jump, 8 head, 11 str) is a better target man than Glatzel (16 jump/head/str). It goes on.
Mine:
There are some minor issues, such as that Maeda should be ~3% higher, and that Malen & Glatzel should have a wider percentage gap between them.
keithb said: Why have you still used negative values and scored the hidden attributes in Genie Scout? Expand The only fair point you've raised in your entire posting history I believe
It is true that hiddens remain invalid for GS. I decided in the end to include them for my final GS adjustment at the end to try and closely match what I got in FMST26, halved for everything except dirtiness & injury proneness & natural fitness. Dirtiness & injury proneness are essential to the weightings, there's no way to do without them.
Because GS calculates incorrectly, the ratings remain a bit off compared to what you'll get in FMST26, hence I highly recommend FMST26, but I know many people aren't going to be willing to switch over.
bf3metro said: any release for FMSS? Expand Yeah, I left it out because I have to work out how to best translate it from the FMST26 weights first. I'll do that now.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yeah, I left it out because I have to work out how to best translate it from the FMST26 weights first. I'll do that now. Expand
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You have stamina weighted at 0 for DC, 20 for ST/TS/AMC/AML/AMR, and 60 elsewhere. It's not my fault your own weights contradict your own words.
Meanwhile, the key attribute of dirtiness you leave on 0, as you have 0 clue of course about what attributes actually matter beyond what we knew from HarvestGreen's testing a year or two ago.
But as I've said, you can have a variety of combinations that work to get match the final ranking result. And at least you're implicitly accepting now that my objective rankings are correct.
Let's do a comparison of our two files to find out just how similar they really are. First, yours:
Junior is 1st for FS, even with 16 ST proficiency. Mbappe is above Haaland. Messi is 5% above Lewandowski and 10% above Maeda. Even Malen is above Maeda. Dybala is above Maeda and Furuhashi. Mbappe (8 jump, 8 head, 11 str) is a better target man than Glatzel (16 jump/head/str). It goes on.
Mine:
There are some minor issues, such as that Maeda should be ~3% higher, and that Malen & Glatzel should have a wider percentage gap between them.
The only fair point you've raised in your entire posting history I believe
It is true that hiddens remain invalid for GS. I decided in the end to include them for my final GS adjustment at the end to try and closely match what I got in FMST26, halved for everything except dirtiness & injury proneness & natural fitness. Dirtiness & injury proneness are essential to the weightings, there's no way to do without them.
Because GS calculates incorrectly, the ratings remain a bit off compared to what you'll get in FMST26, hence I highly recommend FMST26, but I know many people aren't going to be willing to switch over. Expand
hahaahh the hilarity continues. Its good to laugh. I literally said DC doesn't need high stamina, so yeah I set it low. Maybe it should be 10-20 and I missed it. It makes no difference lol. Same as concentration doesn't matter for forwards. Its practically useless.
The key attribute of dirtiness??? Come on stop now, you cant even be a real person hahah. No-one in their right mind who has actually played this game to a good level thinks dirtiness is a key attribute. Only you.
I dont accept anything you say as correct. Pretty much everything you have to say of your own is wrong. Lets take a look;
You ridiculed me for saying stamina is important for full backs and dm's, because they lose the most condition each game, and now you're saying its one of the most important attributes for every player hahah. Do you still stand by that time i said i was "pissing in my own face" for saying stamina was important for those two positions?
You again ridiculed me for saying Mbappe was the best fast striker hahah. You had him 20th. Now you have him 2nd behind Haaland. So I think I might have been correct twice there?
I have looked at your file, removing the negative scores and hidden attributes, and you score a lot of players the same as me roughly. The positions you dont is wingers and 10's mainly because you criminally underrate dribbling. There's so many better TS than Glatzel hahah.
Previously you said if your centre backs dont have jumping reach 13/14+ you will get relegated. Your top rated centre back, Kyle Walker, has jumping reach of 11(ELEVEN). You cant even review your own shambolic work, probably best to stop criticising others dont you think? You dont even understand why your testing is so flawed hahahah. You took the BEST team out of the league and then said these attributes are enough to win it. Oh well and as long as Man City dont take part. Does that matter???
You dont need to score hidden attributes and use negative values. People on here are more than capable of using filters ffs. Is this how lowly you think of other people? They cant enter a few filers on GS?
You're done Bozo its over. People know your testing is a joke. They will be able to see you've moved more in line with my ratings. They can see you're a massive liar. I have numerous DM's thanking me for pointing out you're wrong all the time. People have used your file and its come up very short, especially with keepers. On the subject of DM's why dont you publish the one you said I sent you last week or whenever it was? Or was that just another massive lie? Or something a five year old would say. Which is worse?
People now know you as Bozo the Liar. People also probably think im a prick. I am to you, but do you see me ever talking to Zaz like this or other decent people on here? No because they dont tell me im pissing in my own face for suggesting stamina is important in certain positions.
It is a bit embarrassing to see those meaningless fights. This is just a game, made for entertainment. If anyone does not like another user, then you could just skip their threads and avoid replying to what they post. Attacking other users is not nice, and makes the entire environment sour. @Zippo
Rain said: 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.
HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real.
The reason for the discrepancy between HarvestGreen's data and the rankings in reality, is that he's testing against opposition that is either all 10 or 20. If I put an ST with 12 jump reach in a league where every player has 1 jump reach, guess how many aerial attempts he's going to win. But each Premier League team in reality has players with at least ~15 jump reach.
Nonetheless I'm currently plugging in HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 data into FMST26 as weights to see how it fares compared to the weights I ended up with so far, because the more accurate the starting set of weights, the less likely we get a set of weights that 'functions' properly most of the time but isn't actually using the right weights that will get us to near 100% accuracy. One problem that appears with HarvestGreen's weights is that Maeda and Furuhashi are underrated.
What I'm doing at the moment is using HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 & 6 > 18 data as a baseline, then changing just the minimum of what needs to be changed to make things line up.
One example of a radical change, and what I think is going on:
In my weightings attempt before this, I found stamina ~90 (a bit higher than acc/pace) is necessary.
HarvestGreen says stamina 10 > 18 is 21.6% of acc 10 > 18. I'm saying it's ~110%.
From my own testing, I know the following is ideal: 20 acc/pace 13 sta | 18 acc/pace 14 sta | 14 acc/pace 15 sta. Something like that anyway, you get the picture. So we see sta is 1/3 of acc, or it's higher at 1 to 1 or a bit more.
Acc & Pace are 2 attributes it's conserving, so sta @ 1/3 acc is actually 2/3 of acc or pace alone. So we know it's in a range of ~67%-200%. Hence I think why something like 110% sta weighting of acc works and HarvestGreen's 21.6% doesn't.
But why did HarvestGreen get 21.6%? Well in his test his players have 10 in every attribute except the one tested, so he's doing 10 acc/pace 18 sta vs 10 acc/pace/sta. That translates to roughly ~9.7 acc/pace vs. 8.3 acc/pace. That's +17% for the 18 sta team.
tam1236 said: 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
And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0.
A 24 yo CB with 160 CA and having 11 acc is completely normal. We got so used to abusing the broken training system that we somehow forgot that. What is actually wrong in this game is that you can engineer a 18+ pace player out of "almost anyone".
Yarema said: And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0.
They are, as demonstrated by the Messi vs Furuhashi example I showed you in detail, but you have seemingly chosen to overlook.
I have almost completed another example which is even better (Luis Suarez vs Le Fonde). Suarez has green in almost everything technical/mental, but has similar low physicals to Le Fonde. Suarez is finishing consistently 7th to 10th, making him the worst player tested so far.
I don't know why you want to die on this hill. I was talking about sta, pace, acc which are attributes that matter. A majority of attributes do not matter at all, and should be valued at 0, even when other attributes are identical, due to the CA cost.
Adam Le Fondre vs Luis Suarez
Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
Luis Suarez - 7th, 9th, 10th, 8th, 8th = 8.4 position
Note that Suarez isn't (significantly) superior in the key mentals of anticipation, concentration, work rate.
The argument that useless technicals/mentals should be counted even a little is in the toilet.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real.
I understand what you're saying, but you also can't assume your player will be playing the same teams every time there will be different players playing depending on who the managers decide to play anyway. Also we know what is important so why are you still trying to get this to an exact science 3 years later?
Rain said: I understand what you're saying, but you also can't assume your player will be playing the same teams every time there will be different players playing depending on who the managers decide to play anyway.
You are saying either one of two things: That my method is unreliable because the opposition teams are in flux, or otherwise that deducing weightings more precisely is pointless because in reality the opposition teams are always in flux.
Look, my view is that I don't need teams to be frozen, because I actually think having teams in flux replicates the realism better. I don't need to be able to work out precisely how good a particular player is. If I can just improve the reasonable certainty from +/- 15% to +/- 8%, then that's what worth doing in my opinion. Of course, data from controlled testing is often useful, but it's not the be all or end all.
Rain said: Also we know what is important so why are you still trying to get this to an exact science 3 years later?
Because it is more enjoyable than playing the game itself. The difficulty makes it an enjoyable challenge, and it's one of the few things I know of that hasn't been done to death by a million people.
You say 'we know what is important', but it has become apparent that the assertion pace/acc is everything isn't quite true anymore. I'm still discovering new things that surprise me. And judging by quite a few of the recent replies in this thread, many don't have a clue what's important in the game and what's not.
Now you could say 'well, we've worked out the game well enough to win everything with ease', and that would have been true already back in 2019 - before EBFM, HarvestGreen, FM Arena, etc. - because we had Knap tactics. If other people want to persist with the game vanilla or whatnot, good for them - the problem I have with it is when people tell me what to do with my time based on that attitude.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You are saying either one of two things: That my method is unreliable because the opposition teams are in flux, or otherwise that deducing weightings more precisely is pointless because in reality the opposition teams are always in flux.
Look, my view is that I don't need teams to be frozen, because I actually think having teams in flux replicates the realism better. I don't need to be able to work out precisely how good a particular player is. If I can just improve the reasonable certainty from +/- 15% to +/- 8%, then that's what worth doing in my opinion. Of course, data from controlled testing is often useful, but it's not the be all or end all.
Because it is more enjoyable than playing the game itself. The difficulty makes it an enjoyable challenge, and it's one of the few things I know of that hasn't been done to death by a million people.
You say 'we know what is important', but it has become apparent that the assertion pace/acc is everything isn't quite true anymore. I'm still discovering new things that surprise me. And judging by quite a few of the recent replies in this thread, many don't have a clue what's important in the game and what's not.
Now you could say 'well, we've worked out the game well enough to win everything with ease', and that would have been true already back in 2019 - before EBFM, HarvestGreen, FM Arena, etc. - because we had Knap tactics. If other people want to persist with the game vanilla or whatnot, good for them - the problem I have with it is when people tell me what to do with my time based on that attitude.
I actually appreciate your tests fr, look forward to your files as this as a good baseline to apply to the upcoming game imo
OpticFawn said: I actually appreciate your tests fr, look forward to your files as this as a good baseline to apply to the upcoming game imo
It's always nice to have one's work appreciated, but I carry on regardless.
As I've said before, being beholden to praise or criticism paralyzes and retards the creator. We see that with the state of FM itself. They have no balls, and likely no genuine interest in the game either.
Someone said in this thread earlier 'I liked X file, but now you've gone off the rails with Y file!'. The deeper one gets, the less likely others are able to understand or sympathize.
I know I'm upsetting a fair few people by constantly coming up with new conclusions that contradict or confound the previous ones at times, not least because they may take it as painting them a fool for believing them once, but this is the process genuine progress necessitates. It's keithb who is always right from the get-go, not me.
Just FYI, I checked the FM Scouting Tool26 and I realize I was doing the exact thing by modifying the code within FMSuperScout (being open-source paves the way to fully customizable score).
For instance, I have the following "base weight" for, specifically DC (the comments are w/r to basic weighting from FMArena testing.
// DC — JumpingReach rises to tier-1 (closer to Pace/Acc). Finishing removed.
const META_DC_W = {
Pace: 20.5, Acceleration: 20.4, JumpingReach: 18.0,
WorkRate: 6.5, Anticipation: 6.5, Concentration: 5.5, Balance: 4.0,
Strength: 3.5, Determination: 3.0, Stamina: 2.5, Agility: 2.0, Aggression: 1.5,
Pressure: 5.0, Consistency: 2.0, ImportantMatches: 2.0,
InjuryProneness: 1.5, Dirtiness: 1.5,
};
InjuryProneness and Dirtiness have weight, but they are flagged as "adverse", so 20==1 and 1==20.
Then, I applied a transform on a couple of attributes that I saw being flagged as "non-linear" in theses forums:
WorkRate and Pressure, if below 6, are treated as half their value (so 4 is weighted as if it was a 2)
Pace and acceleration, if above 15, have every point count as 1.5 (so 20 counts as if it was litterally a 22.5!!)
This is a first draft, but these non-linearity have weight considering the meta weightings. Meta score is simply the weighted average of all that considered.
Then, above that, I assign players an "effective meta" per position, according to its position proficiency (based again on some testing I've seen). A player untrained (1 proficiency at position X) has 0.5*meta. So even a player with perfect 20 in every meta attributes will be equivalent to a player with 10 everywhere in a non-proficient position.
And that multiplification factor is linear between 0.5 and 1.0 between 1 and 20 position proficiency.
This is the part I'm still working on to reproduce testings we've seen.
I wanted to show you this in case it gives you a "starting" point on how to implement custom scores in the new tool you foud.
Panneton0 said: Just FYI, I checked the FM Scouting Tool26 and I realize I was doing the exact thing by modifying the code within FMSuperScout (being open-source paves the way to fully customizable score).
Yes, it would be good for more people to come up with their own weights for the rankings, as there's so many possibilities it could be right now.
I'm using a couple of formula weights, but I'm leaving the non-linear adjustments until after I have some confidence all outfield positions are the same and get a set of weights out.
Latest results and % scores from FMST26 according to latest weightings
ST
90% | Erling Haaland - 1st, 1st, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 1.666 position
87% | Kylian Mbappe - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 1st = 2.5 position
87% | Mohamed Salah* - 1st, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st = 2.571 position
84% | Heung-Min Son - 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 4th = 3 position
82% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position
81% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position
82% | Vinicius Junior - 5th, 4th, 1st, 3rd = 3.25 position
83% | 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
79% | Dusan Vlahovic - 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th, 4th = 3.625
83% | 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
78% | Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position
81% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd = 4 position
74% | Donyell Malen - 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 4.666 position
73% | Robert Glatzel - 5th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, 12th, 6th, 2nd, 6th, 8th = 6.111 position
69% | Paulo Dybala - 5th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th, 6th, 5th, 6th, 6th = 6.4 position
64% | Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
63% | Luis Suarez - 7th, 9th, 10th, 8th, 8th = 8.4 position
DR
83% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position
66% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
It's worth mentioning again that all players were set to 20 ST and nothing else. This will affect a few players slightly.
* I forgot to duplicate Salah first before moving him, so there was no Salah for the opposition. Could redo, but shouldn't make much difference.
I took 4 Premier League teams, cleared the players, and added squads selected of a certain % rating for every position.
Results:
80% | Sheffield Utd - 9th, 9th, 7th, 6th, 7th = 7.6 position
78% | Luton - 12th, 7th, 11th, 11th, 12th = 10.6 position
76% | Burnley - 20th, 11th, 12th, 12th, 14th = 13.8 position
74% | Brentford - 10th, 17th, 16th, 14th, 15th = 14.4 position
Note that an edited Man City was left in. All four teams played in the same league together. GKs were controlled players, as I haven't done GK yet.
The best players in each position are ~85-90% for reference.
I'm actually surprised with how consistent the results turned out, as when I was testing Sacha Boey (5th best DR, 80.2%) I got first 2 results of 7th and 12th. Perhaps it's that some positions contribute more than others.
This is also giving an idea now what % difference 1 position difference is. ~1% = 1 position difference.
88% = 1st?, Premier League
80% = 8th, Premier League
74% = 14th, Premier League
70% = 18th?, relegated, Premier League
Indeed for DR, at 71.1% I see a player from Bournemouth who finished 18th in the season I'm looking at.
I think I'll be testing a few players in the DC position, and if they align neatly if the current weights, I'll be posting them soon after.
The meta team players are 71.8%. Based on the ST % values, we would expect the meta team to finish ~6.2, which is almost correct (~5th average from prior testing). It makes Knap's tactic worth 11%..
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Latest results and % scores from FMST26 according to latest weightings
ST
90% | Erling Haaland - 1st, 1st, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 1.666 position
87% | Kylian Mbappe - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 1st = 2.5 position
87% | Mohamed Salah* - 1st, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st = 2.571 position
84% | Heung-Min Son - 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 4th = 3 position
82% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position
81% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position
82% | Vinicius Junior - 5th, 4th, 1st, 3rd = 3.25 position
83% | 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
79% | Dusan Vlahovic - 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th, 4th = 3.625
83% | 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
78% | Lionel Messi - 4th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 9th, 3rd = 4 position
81% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd = 4 position
74% | Donyell Malen - 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 4.666 position
73% | Robert Glatzel - 5th, 7th, 6th, 3rd, 12th, 6th, 2nd, 6th, 8th = 6.111 position
69% | Paulo Dybala - 5th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 3rd, 12th, 6th, 5th, 6th, 6th = 6.4 position
64% | Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
63% | Luis Suarez - 7th, 9th, 10th, 8th, 8th = 8.4 position
DR
83% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position
66% | Kingsley Schindler - 4th, 11th, 6th, 11th = 8 position
It's worth mentioning again that all players were set to 20 ST and nothing else. This will affect a few players slightly.
* I forgot to duplicate Salah first before moving him, so there was no Salah for the opposition. Could redo, but shouldn't make much difference.
what's better in your opinion? FMST26 or FMSS?
bf3metro said: what's better in your opinion? FMST26 or FMSS?
I haven't used either enough to form an opinion on it. I'll be using FMST26 simply because it supports FM24, but FMSuperScout doesn't.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I haven't used either enough to form an opinion on it. I'll be using FMST26 simply because it supports FM24, but FMSuperScout doesn't.
and btw, may i ask if you still refer to your ratings, or did you changed/tweaked them?
Pace: 6, Acceleration: 6, JumpingReach: 5.2, Dribbling: 5.2, Balance: 4.8, Concentration: 5.2, Anticipation: 5.2, Determination: 5.6, Agility: 4, Stamina: 5.2, Composure: 4.4, WorkRate: 4.4, Aggression: 4.4, ImportantMatches: 5.2, NaturalFitness: 4.8, Consistency: 5.2, Pressure: 5.2, Professionalism: 5.2,
bf3metro said: and btw, may i ask if you still refer to your ratings, or did you changed/tweaked them?
Pace: 6, Acceleration: 6, JumpingReach: 5.2, Dribbling: 5.2, Balance: 4.8, Concentration: 5.2, Anticipation: 5.2, Determination: 5.6, Agility: 4, Stamina: 5.2, Composure: 4.4, WorkRate: 4.4, Aggression: 4.4, ImportantMatches: 5.2, NaturalFitness: 4.8, Consistency: 5.2, Pressure: 5.2, Professionalism: 5.2,
Yes, those are the most recent. It's simply my findings for the balance of attributes that achieves 5th in the Premier League at minimal cost/requirements.
But now I have a bunch of objective player rankings to work with, so I'm currently working a set of weights that lines up with this objective ranking list. And I'm close to done on the first go at this.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, those are the most recent. It's simply my findings for the balance of attributes that achieves 5th in the Premier League at minimal cost/requirements.
But now I have a bunch of objective player rankings to work with, so I'm currently working a set of weights that lines up with this objective ranking list. And I'm close to done on the first go at this.
Oh, that sounds really interesting. I’d definitely be curious to see how different the new weights end up being compared to the current ones once you’re done. Especially if they’re now being calibrated against an objective player ranking rather than purely the “5th in the PL at minimal cost” benchmark. Please share them when you’re happy with the first version!
Premier League 2.0 weights
Use FMST26 (works for FM24 & FM26) and copy paste this into statistics > custom metrics (advanced):
(acceleration * 86.8 + pace * 86.2 + jumping_reach * 46.2 + pressure * 16.7 + dribbling * 14.6 + work_rate * 63.0 + agility * 17.0 + anticipation * 58.2 + composure * 25.6 + stamina * 93.9 + consistency * 14.1 + determination * 30.0 + balance * 13.5 + strength * 1.0 + concentration * 47.3 + finishing * 2.0 + important_matches * 10.2 + natural_fitness * 7.9 + professionalism * 15.0 + ambition * 2.0 + loyalty * 1.0 + aggression * 6.3 + vision * 0.5 + left_foot * 6 + right_foot * 5 - (injury_proneness * (50 / (natural_fitness * 0.85))) - (dirtiness * 32 * (aggression * 0.1))) / 118
Genie Scout file:
https://files.catbox.moe/z7hsqg.grf
Notes:
- Designed to align with the objective results of real players within the English Premier League
- GK not yet done, weights from Premier League 1.0 are used which are decent
- Do not read too much into the specific values for each attribute, I used HarvestGreen's and my own data as a basis to start with, but it's largely just plugging in numbers until I get the output I'm looking for, which is alignment with the rankings. Individual attribute weights will be inaccurate or even superfluous, but it's what they sum up to that matters.
- GS file is a bit less accurate than the FMST26 weights. Highly recommend FMST26 over GS if possible.
I could keep working on this for forever and a day, but I feel like it's good enough right now for a first version.
You can make your own adjustments, add in non-linear formulas, etc. to line up with the rankings better if you like, since the ranking data is really what's solid.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Premier League 2.0 weights
Use FMST26 (works for FM24 & FM26) and copy paste this into statistics > custom metrics (advanced):
(acceleration * 86.8 + pace * 86.2 + jumping_reach * 46.2 + pressure * 16.7 + dribbling * 14.6 + work_rate * 63.0 + agility * 17.0 + anticipation * 58.2 + composure * 25.6 + stamina * 93.9 + consistency * 14.1 + determination * 30.0 + balance * 13.5 + strength * 1.0 + concentration * 47.3 + finishing * 2.0 + important_matches * 10.2 + natural_fitness * 7.9 + professionalism * 15.0 + ambition * 2.0 + loyalty * 1.0 + aggression * 6.3 + vision * 0.5 + left_foot * 6 + right_foot * 5 - (injury_proneness * (50 / (natural_fitness * 0.85))) - (dirtiness * 32 * (aggression * 0.1))) / 118
the same weightings for each position?
Do you force a fixed starting XI so no rotation is possible? That might explain the abnormaly high Stamina required to fit the season result. I'd be interested to see how this specific attribute ends up being even more important than pace/acc. I feel like it would have this importance for a club with a poor backup, but not as much if the backup is still decent. Anyway, interesting!
OpticFawn said: the same weightings for each position?
Yes
I was hesitant to release this before testing all positions, but these combined team results gave me enough confidence to believe it should be the same or about the same for all positions.
I did do another DR and a DC
82% | Kim Min Jae (DC) - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position
compare to:
83% | Giovanni Di Lorenzo (DR) - 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 5th = 4.143 position
82% | Daizen Maeda - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd = 3 position
81% | Kyogo Furuhashi - 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd = 3 position
82% | Vinicius Junior - 5th, 4th, 1st, 3rd = 3.25 position
83% | Harry Kane - 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 3.5 position
83% | 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
81% | Viktor Gyokeres - 6th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd = 4 position
Both DR and DC appear a bit ineffectual compared to ST, but it's not off by much.
I had two options: Release what I have based on the above results, or test each position (so at least 100 samples) which would probably take a week or two. I could also end up getting burn out by that point. So I decided to just release it now, since I've got some stuff to do these next few days anyway. Testing of other positions will continue to be done. If it turns out it doesn't work for other positions properly, it'll be adjusted.
Panneton0 said: Do you force a fixed starting XI so no rotation is possible? That might explain the abnormaly high Stamina required to fit the season result. I'd be interested to see how this specific attribute ends up being even more important than pace/acc. I feel like it would have this importance for a club with a poor backup, but not as much if the backup is still decent. Anyway, interesting!
Good question
I anticipate this by having 4 of the same player as the position I'm testing. The rest of the team also has extras for each position.
So it's not that fatigue is leading to stamina being overpowered. I was scratching my head over stamina until I thought about it, realizing that stamina is actually compensating for the 2 key attributes of pace and acc, not just one, so it makes sense in that way that it's so strongly weighted.
I did try and get it to work with say 25 stamina. Couldn't get it working. Other attributes, I found you could use 14 or 50 for it and it'd work either way, just shifting the other weights around. I think composure was one such attribute.
I actually paid some close attention to the game time the 4 players were getting, because obviously I wanted them to get adequate games (for match fitness & reliable scoring) without being overworked. I also didn't want a situation where injury leads to being a player short. I've got the precise data, but generally speaking all of the two most played players each got ~28-35 Premier League games/season. That doesn't include cup games and whatnot, which totaled all combined to 41-50 games/season for the assistant's most picked player of the four.
I did not force XI selection, just let the assistant select who he thought was best each game.
Panneton0 said: I'd be interested to see how this specific attribute ends up being even more important than pace/acc.
BTW I'll tell you how I got to such a high value for stamina, and the other values in general, since I didn't really explain.
I start with the existing weights, changed a few weights until the players roughly aligned properly, then I carefully compared players who would remain stubbornly out of alignment (fixing one, ruins another).
Maeda was key to this process. He's near the top, but he only has greens in aggression, determination, teamwork, work rate, acceleration, natural fitness, pace, stamina.
I start with ruling out teamwork, cause I know from testing before that that's useless.
Long story short, moving everything up and down except stamina and work rate were a no go. Stamina ended up being an indispensable part of the puzzle. And it worked for other players too. So this is how I ended up at such a high figure for stamina.
And as I said, I tried to revisit and lower this later, because I wanted the weights to more closely match HarvestGreen's data, but couldn't find a way of doing it.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes
No. I could win the premier league with a team of 1 CA players that have 1 stamina. And the reason stamina was left at 1 was because I found increasing it had no statistically significant effect, at least not any greater than 10 or so other attributes.
That does not mean that stamina does nothing, but it demonstrates that stamina is far from essential, even for DL/DR. HarvestGreen's data shows 6 > 18 stamina is +8.1% win rate, which is less than concentration (+8.6%), which was the last attribute I included on my toplist.
It's one thing to posit challenges based on your own intuition, nothing wrong with that. And even arrogance has preservation of dignity as is its virtue. But where is the dignity in insulting me only to piss up into your own face in front of everyone?
I did before. They're somewhere, but I recommend just filtering for some key attributes, say this (for adult player):
pace/acc 12
drib 8
concentration 8 (on DC/DL/DR only)
work rate 6
That would filter out most of the complete duds.
Stamina isn't that important guys. Cant believe Bozo the Liar is pissing in his own face!!!
This new file is a lot like mine LOL! Except dribbling is severely underrated this time and obviously stamina is too high. Other things as well but its definitely moved to look like mine. hahaha. Mine is nowhere near perfect, I threw it together in no time. This clown has spent a lifetime going round in circles to end up not far from my ratings, whilst continually saying mine are shit. I like comedy and this is top comedy.
Why have you still used negative values and scored the hidden attributes in Genie Scout? Is it so you can say GS is bugged when people say your file isn't correct?
Also funny now that you have weighted all outfield to 120, after I asked why you didn't use it. Thats too high btw, newgens will go over 100 in some positions. You dont understand the game or GS or probably this new one you're using either.
Centre backs dont need high stamina. Just look how much condition they have left at the end of a game starting from peak. Concentration isn't for any forward position! You can literally set it to 1 if speed, anticipation, balance and some others are high.
Sort out the keepers, the ratings are SO BAD.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Premier League 2.0 weights
Use FMST26 (works for FM24 & FM26) and copy paste this into statistics > custom metrics (advanced):
(acceleration * 86.8 + pace * 86.2 + jumping_reach * 46.2 + pressure * 16.7 + dribbling * 14.6 + work_rate * 63.0 + agility * 17.0 + anticipation * 58.2 + composure * 25.6 + stamina * 93.9 + consistency * 14.1 + determination * 30.0 + balance * 13.5 + strength * 1.0 + concentration * 47.3 + finishing * 2.0 + important_matches * 10.2 + natural_fitness * 7.9 + professionalism * 15.0 + ambition * 2.0 + loyalty * 1.0 + aggression * 6.3 + vision * 0.5 + left_foot * 6 + right_foot * 5 - (injury_proneness * (50 / (natural_fitness * 0.85))) - (dirtiness * 32 * (aggression * 0.1))) / 118
Genie Scout file:
https://files.catbox.moe/z7hsqg.grf
Notes:
- Designed to align with the objective results of real players within the English Premier League
- GK not yet done, weights from Premier League 1.0 are used which are decent
- Do not read too much into the specific values for each attribute, I used HarvestGreen's and my own data as a basis to start with, but it's largely just plugging in numbers until I get the output I'm looking for, which is alignment with the rankings. Individual attribute weights will be inaccurate or even superfluous, but it's what they sum up to that matters.
- GS file is a bit less accurate than the FMST26 weights. Highly recommend FMST26 over GS if possible.
I could keep working on this for forever and a day, but I feel like it's good enough right now for a first version.
You can make your own adjustments, add in non-linear formulas, etc. to line up with the rankings better if you like, since the ranking data is really what's solid.
any release for FMSS?
keithb said: Stamina isn't that important guys.
This new file is a lot like mine LOL!
You have stamina weighted at 0 for DC, 20 for ST/TS/AMC/AML/AMR, and 60 elsewhere. It's not my fault your own weights contradict your own words.
Meanwhile, the key attribute of dirtiness you leave on 0, as you have 0 clue of course about what attributes actually matter beyond what we knew from HarvestGreen's testing a year or two ago.
But as I've said, you can have a variety of combinations that work to get to match the final ranking result. And at least you're implicitly accepting now that my objective rankings are correct.
Let's do a comparison of our two files to find out just how similar they really are. First, yours:
Junior is 1st for FS, even with 16 ST proficiency. Mbappe is above Haaland. Messi is 5% above Lewandowski and 10% above Maeda. Even Malen is above Maeda. Dybala is above Maeda and Furuhashi. Mbappe (8 jump, 8 head, 11 str) is a better target man than Glatzel (16 jump/head/str). It goes on.
Mine:
There are some minor issues, such as that Maeda should be ~3% higher, and that Malen & Glatzel should have a wider percentage gap between them.
keithb said: Why have you still used negative values and scored the hidden attributes in Genie Scout?
The only fair point you've raised in your entire posting history I believe
It is true that hiddens remain invalid for GS. I decided in the end to include them for my final GS adjustment at the end to try and closely match what I got in FMST26, halved for everything except dirtiness & injury proneness & natural fitness. Dirtiness & injury proneness are essential to the weightings, there's no way to do without them.
Because GS calculates incorrectly, the ratings remain a bit off compared to what you'll get in FMST26, hence I highly recommend FMST26, but I know many people aren't going to be willing to switch over.
bf3metro said: any release for FMSS?
Yeah, I left it out because I have to work out how to best translate it from the FMST26 weights first. I'll do that now.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yeah, I left it out because I have to work out how to best translate it from the FMST26 weights first. I'll do that now.
Legend!
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You have stamina weighted at 0 for DC, 20 for ST/TS/AMC/AML/AMR, and 60 elsewhere. It's not my fault your own weights contradict your own words.
Meanwhile, the key attribute of dirtiness you leave on 0, as you have 0 clue of course about what attributes actually matter beyond what we knew from HarvestGreen's testing a year or two ago.
But as I've said, you can have a variety of combinations that work to get match the final ranking result. And at least you're implicitly accepting now that my objective rankings are correct.
Let's do a comparison of our two files to find out just how similar they really are. First, yours:
Junior is 1st for FS, even with 16 ST proficiency. Mbappe is above Haaland. Messi is 5% above Lewandowski and 10% above Maeda. Even Malen is above Maeda. Dybala is above Maeda and Furuhashi. Mbappe (8 jump, 8 head, 11 str) is a better target man than Glatzel (16 jump/head/str). It goes on.
Mine:
There are some minor issues, such as that Maeda should be ~3% higher, and that Malen & Glatzel should have a wider percentage gap between them.
The only fair point you've raised in your entire posting history I believe
It is true that hiddens remain invalid for GS. I decided in the end to include them for my final GS adjustment at the end to try and closely match what I got in FMST26, halved for everything except dirtiness & injury proneness & natural fitness. Dirtiness & injury proneness are essential to the weightings, there's no way to do without them.
Because GS calculates incorrectly, the ratings remain a bit off compared to what you'll get in FMST26, hence I highly recommend FMST26, but I know many people aren't going to be willing to switch over.
hahaahh the hilarity continues. Its good to laugh. I literally said DC doesn't need high stamina, so yeah I set it low. Maybe it should be 10-20 and I missed it. It makes no difference lol. Same as concentration doesn't matter for forwards. Its practically useless.
The key attribute of dirtiness??? Come on stop now, you cant even be a real person hahah. No-one in their right mind who has actually played this game to a good level thinks dirtiness is a key attribute. Only you.
I dont accept anything you say as correct. Pretty much everything you have to say of your own is wrong. Lets take a look;
You ridiculed me for saying stamina is important for full backs and dm's, because they lose the most condition each game, and now you're saying its one of the most important attributes for every player hahah. Do you still stand by that time i said i was "pissing in my own face" for saying stamina was important for those two positions?
You again ridiculed me for saying Mbappe was the best fast striker hahah. You had him 20th. Now you have him 2nd behind Haaland. So I think I might have been correct twice there?
I have looked at your file, removing the negative scores and hidden attributes, and you score a lot of players the same as me roughly. The positions you dont is wingers and 10's mainly because you criminally underrate dribbling. There's so many better TS than Glatzel hahah.
Previously you said if your centre backs dont have jumping reach 13/14+ you will get relegated. Your top rated centre back, Kyle Walker, has jumping reach of 11(ELEVEN). You cant even review your own shambolic work, probably best to stop criticising others dont you think? You dont even understand why your testing is so flawed hahahah. You took the BEST team out of the league and then said these attributes are enough to win it. Oh well and as long as Man City dont take part. Does that matter???
You dont need to score hidden attributes and use negative values. People on here are more than capable of using filters ffs. Is this how lowly you think of other people? They cant enter a few filers on GS?
You're done Bozo its over. People know your testing is a joke. They will be able to see you've moved more in line with my ratings. They can see you're a massive liar. I have numerous DM's thanking me for pointing out you're wrong all the time. People have used your file and its come up very short, especially with keepers. On the subject of DM's why dont you publish the one you said I sent you last week or whenever it was? Or was that just another massive lie? Or something a five year old would say. Which is worse?
People now know you as Bozo the Liar. People also probably think im a prick. I am to you, but do you see me ever talking to Zaz like this or other decent people on here? No because they dont tell me im pissing in my own face for suggesting stamina is important in certain positions.
It is a bit embarrassing to see those meaningless fights. This is just a game, made for entertainment. If anyone does not like another user, then you could just skip their threads and avoid replying to what they post. Attacking other users is not nice, and makes the entire environment sour.
@Zippo