( edited 5 hours, 45 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#541
Link to the post:
bf3metro said: Legend! Expand Actually this is proving more difficult than I thought it would be
I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how to implement the injury proneness & dirtiness weights. I thought, maybe I'll just add them as simple negatives, like for the GS weights, and adjust it until it matches the rankings, but then I realized it doesn't do FM24 db, only FM26.
Replace the weights in the app.js file with those (search for 'FM-Arena' ).
For adding injury proneness & dirtiness, which are in fact crucial (but I guess you could also just check players manually to have low inj and dirt values), we're going to need someone like Panneton0 or perhaps the creator of FMSuperScout itself to help out. Could probably do it myself, but can't be bothered doing an hour of research honestly.
ZaZ said: 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 Expand
I dont disagree. I wasn't prepared to let Bozo repeatedly tell lies about me or what I've said. I have carried this on too far, but then when Bozo continues to lie about you all the time I have a right to reply.
I think the majority of people can now see how things are and im probably happy to leave it there.
I would never say who has dm'd me or publish their dm's. Never. Nor would I tell anyone over dm. They are private.
But again I do ask Bozo the Liar to publish the DM he said I sent him last week begging him to delete the results of my ratings file. lol. Obviously he cant because he LIED, surprise surprise, saying I had.
I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how to implement the injury proneness & dirtiness weights. I thought, maybe I'll just add them as simple negatives, like for the GS weights, and adjust it until it matches the rankings, but then I realized it doesn't do FM24 db, only FM26.
Replace the weights in the app.js file with those (search for 'FM-Arena' ).
For adding injury proneness & dirtiness, which are in fact crucial (but I guess you could also just check players manually to have low inj and dirt values), we're going to need someone like Panneton0 or perhaps the creator of FMSuperScout itself to help out. Could probably do it myself, but can't be bothered doing an hour of research honestly. Expand
I compared the new weights with the previous ones, and some of the changes are huge:
The biggest question for me is: why such massive changes?
From what I understand, the old weights were based on finding the cheapest/minimum attribute balance capable of achieving around 5th in the Premier League, whereas the new weights are being fitted to a much larger set of objective player rankings.
So it makes sense that the result could be very different: instead of asking “what minimum combination of attributes gets results?”, you're now asking “which attributes best explain the actual ranking of players?”
Still, the scale of the change is fascinating.
The new model seems to put an enormous premium on Pace, Acceleration, Stamina, Work Rate and Anticipation, while attributes such as Dribbling, Consistency, Important Matches or Natural Fitness become much less influential.
And then you have Finishing at only 0.4, which is pretty wild too.
Curious to hear what people think, especially about Stamina becoming #1 and the huge gap that now exists between the top attributes and everything else.
PS: Quick question: why are attributes like WorkRate, ImportantMatches, and NaturalFitness written without spaces? Is that just the naming format, and do they need to be written exactly like that in app.js as well? Also, should I add a comma after the final value, Consistency: 2.82, or should the last entry be left without one?
The biggest question for me is: why such massive changes?
From what I understand, the old weights were based on finding the cheapest/minimum attribute balance capable of achieving around 5th in the Premier League, whereas the new weights are being fitted to a much larger set of objective player rankings.
So it makes sense that the result could be very different: instead of asking “what minimum combination of attributes gets results?”, you're now asking “which attributes best explain the actual ranking of players?”
Still, the scale of the change is fascinating.
The new model seems to put an enormous premium on Pace, Acceleration, Stamina, Work Rate and Anticipation, while attributes such as Dribbling, Consistency, Important Matches or Natural Fitness become much less influential.
And then you have Finishing at only 0.4, which is pretty wild too.
Curious to hear what people think, especially about Stamina becoming #1 and the huge gap that now exists between the top attributes and everything else.
PS: Quick question: why are attributes like WorkRate, ImportantMatches, and NaturalFitness written without spaces? Is that just the naming format, and do they need to be written exactly like that in app.js as well? Also, should I add a comma after the final value, Consistency: 2.82, or should the last entry be left without one? Expand
his tests are absolutely a joke, mate. Do not believe.
( edited 4 hours, 54 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#547
Link to the post:
bf3metro said: The biggest question for me is: why such massive changes?
From what I understand, the old weights were based on finding the cheapest/minimum attribute balance capable of achieving around 5th in the Premier League, whereas the new weights are being fitted to a much larger set of objective player rankings.
So it makes sense that the result could be very different: instead of asking “what minimum combination of attributes gets results?”, you're now asking “which attributes best explain the actual ranking of players?” Expand Yes, that is precisely the correct summary of it, and I daresay a better explanation than I did.
I'm glad you immediately understand, because I think it's easy to misinterpret this latest thing I'm doing with the weights.
bf3metro said: The new model seems to put an enormous premium on Pace, Acceleration, Stamina, Work Rate and Anticipation, while attributes such as Dribbling, Consistency, Important Matches or Natural Fitness become much less influential.
And then you have Finishing at only 0.4, which is pretty wild too. Expand I started with the presumption that finishing is almost completely unnecessary, but ChatGPT independently came to the conclusion that finishing should be removed too when I fed it all the player's attributes and asked it to come up a set of weights to fit the rankings.
It was surprising how strongly weighted anticipation and work rate seems to be. Maeda is still down a bit, so work rate could in fact do with being a bit higher perhaps. It's strange to me, because I know that (and you can see HarvestGreen's data to verify this) that work rate almost caps out at 13. But that is when work rate has been tested in isolation or partial isolation. Perhaps there is something like 'determination x work rate x stamina' going on. I couldn't find a way of getting around weighting work rate highly.
Anticipation in my observations did continue to scale, but had diminishing returns. But putting that aside for now, it makes sense that it would be a key attribute because ostensibly it's the movement ('off the ball' as speed?) to the area before possessing the ball. So it sounds like it cuts down on the pace/acc requirement to me, because once they have the ball, they have less distance to travel. Concentration would be a similar kind of effect, where low concentration leads to a delay in getting into position to receive or stop a ball (the latter offset by 'positioning' perhaps).
Consistency, Important Matches, and Natural fitness has not been incorporated with much accuracy. They are kind of afterthoughts, as I know they will matter somewhat, but not sure to what degree. I've used HarvestGreen's data to set them, and so long as they're not interfering with the ranking, I generally leave them alone. Same with pressure, professionalism, etc. - and the left foot & right foot figures I've just pulled out of my ass, to give a little extra weight to the modest footedness bonus which we know exists. This stuff can be refined further later. I think HarvestGreen found that foot should also match the side they're on, and I think FMST26 allows us to do this as well.
Dribbling I've been in two minds about. Most of the time I had it set pretty high at ~40, sometimes as high as 60. I ended up reducing it to 15. ChatGPT actually said early on to do this too. Both were fairly equally functional. From testing, we know dribbling is a very strong attribute that scales well.. I suspect it's not needed much to match the rankings, because hardly any players have high dribbling anyway. It's the hardest attribute to get high in the game I believe.
bf3metro said: PS: Quick question: why are attributes like WorkRate, ImportantMatches, and NaturalFitness written without spaces? Is that just the naming format, and do they need to be written exactly like that in app.js as well? Also, should I add a comma after the final value, Consistency: 2.82, or should the last entry be left without one? Expand Yes, that is how they have to be written for FMSuperScout, otherwise the program won't work. That is how labels the attributes internally.
johnconnerson said: Where does the 118 number come from? I'm trying to split up the visible and hidden attributes into two separate metrics for my own use. Expand The 118 number is just to get it to display with the highest % at ~90%. It's the same as the overall weight option in GS.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, that is precisely the correct summary of it, and I daresay a better explanation than I did.
I'm glad you immediately understand, because I think it's easy to misinterpret this latest thing I'm doing with the weights.
I started with the presumption that finishing is almost completely unnecessary, but ChatGPT independently came to the conclusion that finishing should be removed too when I fed it all the player's attributes and asked it to come up a set of weights to fit the rankings.
It was surprising how strongly weighted anticipation and work rate seems to be. Maeda is still down a bit, so work rate could in fact do with being a bit higher perhaps. It's strange to me, because I know that (and you can see HarvestGreen's data to verify this) that work rate almost caps out at 13. But that is when work rate has been tested in isolation or partial isolation. Perhaps there is something like 'determination x work rate x stamina' going on. I couldn't find a way of getting around weighting work rate highly.
Anticipation in my observations did continue to scale, but had diminishing returns. But putting that aside for now, it makes sense that it would be a key attribute because ostensibly it's the movement ('off the ball' as speed?) to the area before possessing the ball. So it sounds like it cuts down on the pace/acc requirement to me, because once they have the ball, they have less distance to travel. Concentration would be a similar kind of effect, where low concentration leads to a delay in getting into position to receive or stop a ball (the latter offset by 'positioning' perhaps).
Consistency, Important Matches, and Natural fitness has not been incorporated with much accuracy. They are kind of afterthoughts, as I know they will matter somewhat, but not sure to what degree. I've used HarvestGreen's data to set them, and so long as they're not interfering with the ranking, I generally leave them alone. Same with pressure, professionalism, etc.
Dribbling I've been in two minds about. Most of the time I had it set pretty high at ~40, sometimes as high as 60. I ended up reducing it to 15. ChatGPT actually said early on to do this too. Both were equally functional. From testing, we know dribbling is a very strong attribute that scales well.. I suspect it's not needed much to match the rankings, because hardly any players have high dribbling anyway. It's the hardest attribute to get high in the game I believe.
Yes, that is how they have to be written for FMSuperScout, otherwise the program won't work. That is how labels the attributes internally.
I would add the comma. Expand
That makes a lot of sense, especially the distinction between an attribute being strong in isolation and actually being necessary to reproduce the player rankings.
The WorkRate interaction theory is probably the most interesting part to me. If something like Determination × WorkRate × Stamina is happening, it could explain why isolated attribute testing and the ranking weights seem to tell slightly different stories.
Same for Dribbling — it can still be a very strong attribute without needing a high weight here if the players in the ranking simply don't have enough variance in it.
I think that's probably the most important thing for people to understand with these weights: they aren't necessarily a pure "attribute strength" ranking, they're the weights that best reproduce the objective player rankings.
Also, I noticed there are some strange extra spaces between a few attributes in the list. Is that intentional, or just a formatting issue?
One other thing I'm wondering: is it possible that some of your original FMSS weights were simply set too low at the beginning, which would also partly explain why a few attributes have increased so dramatically now?
Do you think these huge increases are entirely a consequence of the different methodology, or could your original FMSS weights also have been underestimating some of these attributes from the start?
bf3metro said: The WorkRate interaction theory is probably the most interesting part to me. If something like Determination × WorkRate × Stamina is happening, it could explain why isolated attribute testing and the ranking weights seem to tell slightly different stories. Expand
The main thing would be the non-linearity of attributes, which the testing did show, but can't be reflected in linear weightings.
HarvestGreen did do some theorizing on attribute interactions, and I've dug up quotes from the Collyer brothers and in-game tips and whatnot which describe attribute interactions as well. I found that those latter things turn out to be generally untrue, or at least outdated.
I reckon there are attribute interactions though, and HarvestGreen's ideas on it are interesting.. just lack the solid data on it at the moment though.
I don't really have solid data to back it, but I'm personally convinced that aggression x dirtiness is an interaction, it just seems logical and seemed to solve something insoluble with the ratings at one point too.
This is partly why I decided to release it as is now with mostly linear weights, because one could go down the rabbit role of trying out all these different attribute combos and either getting nowhere or being mislead into seeing something that isn't there, while also spending a lot of time doing so. It remains difficult to test attribute combinations, but I'm sure there's some method to bear it out properly.
bf3metro said: Also, I noticed there are some strange extra spaces between a few attributes in the list. Is that intentional, or just a formatting issue? Expand Probably a formatting issue
bf3metro said: One other thing I'm wondering: is it possible that some of your original FMSS weights were simply set too low at the beginning, which would also partly explain why a few attributes have increased so dramatically now?
Do you think these huge increases are entirely a consequence of the different methodology, or could your original FMSS weights also have been underestimating some of these attributes from the start? Expand The FMSS weights I gave before simply reflect the minimum set of attribute values to attain 5th in the Premier League. They represent the best 'bang-for-buck' relative ratio of attributes.
I guess the question that the objective ranking raises in relation to that is, if work rate supposedly caps out at 13, why is it so critical for Maeda, and important in general? And if dribbling isn't so essential, is it really necessary to include it high - even if it does actually have significant benefits. So it does shine a new light on certain things. Personally I strongly favor what is true in realistic testing (the player rankings derived from the team positions), rather than what the isolated or constrained testing shows (including my own).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: The main thing would be the non-linearity of attributes, which the testing did show, but can't be reflected in linear weightings.
HarvestGreen did do some theorizing on attribute interactions, and I've dug up quotes from the Collyer brothers and in-game tips and whatnot which describe attribute interactions as well. I found that those latter things turn out to be generally untrue, or at least outdated.
I reckon there are attribute interactions though, and HarvestGreen's ideas on it are interesting.. just lack the solid data on it at the moment though.
I don't really have solid data to back it, but I'm personally convinced that aggression x dirtiness is an interaction, it just seems logical and seemed to solve something insoluble with the ratings at one point too.
This is partly why I decided to release it as is now with mostly linear weights, because one could go down the rabbit role of trying out all these different attribute combos and either getting nowhere or being mislead into seeing something that isn't there, while also spending a lot of time doing so. It remains difficult to test attribute combinations, but I'm sure there's some method to bear it out properly.
Probably a formatting issue
The FMSS weights I gave before simply reflect the minimum set of attribute values to attain 5th in the Premier League. They represent the best 'bang-for-buck' relative ratio of attributes.
I guess the question that the objective ranking raises in relation to that is, if work rate supposedly caps out at 13, why is it so critical for Maeda, and important in general? And if dribbling isn't so essential, is it really necessary to include it high - even if it does actually have significant benefits. So it does shine a new light on certain things. Personally I strongly favor what is true in realistic testing (the player rankings derived from the team positions), rather than what the isolated or constrained testing shows (including my own). Expand
I also noticed that you added 5 attributes that weren’t in the previous set: Strength, Finishing, Ambition, Loyalty and Vision.
Was that intentional as part of the new weighting method?
ZaZ said: 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 Expand @keithb
Hi there,
I just want to make it clear.
Arguing with someone about something on the forum is a pretty normal thing and that's what the forum is meant for.
But personal insults ARE NOT OK and such behaviour won’t be tolerated.
If someone is confused about what personal insults are then it’s when you say to someone that "he's stupid”, "he's idiot", "he's retarded", "he's Bozo" and so on - such behavior IS NOT OK and as I said it won’t be tolerated.
This is the last warning. CUT OFF personal insults and keep it civil.
When I say “keep it civil” I mean that if you disagree with someone then feel free to explain your point of view on the subject without using personal insults.
bf3metro said: I also noticed that you added 5 attributes that weren’t in the previous set: Strength, Finishing, Ambition, Loyalty and Vision.
Was that intentional as part of the new weighting method? Expand Finishing, strength, and vision were technically in the previous weights. I dropped them from the file because the attributes that are adequate you are bound to get at the required levels most of the time anyway:
Strength - 8 Vision - 7 Finishing - 7
I played around a fair bit with strength in particular in these new weights. I thought maybe it's around 10-20, but turned not to be the case. Vision is 20 on Messi which was food for thought, but it didn't seem to affect ranking alignment for the better.
Actually teamwork is the one I most wonder about.. players like Maeda have high teamwork, and there's some mathematical study on FM24 on github that a guy did for university work that found teamwork was a key correlate of performance.. but I read through it, and overall I think its just full of mistaken findings. My own testing and HarvestGreen's found teamwork doesn't matter, so at the moment I don't see a valid reason to include it.
Loyalty I included as '1' at the last moment pretty much symbolically. It would have some very minor to minor effect via morale, so i felt justified giving it a little '1'. But obviously loyalty deserves some weight for gameplay reasons.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Finishing, strength, and vision were technically in the previous weights. I dropped them from the file because the attributes that are adequate you are bound to get at the required levels most of the time anyway:
Strength - 8 Vision - 7 Finishing - 7
I played around a fair bit with strength in particular in these new weights. I thought maybe it's around 10-20, but turned not to be the case. Vision is 20 on Messi which was food for thought, but it didn't seem to affect ranking alignment for the better.
Actually teamwork is the one I most wonder about.. players like Maeda have high teamwork, and there's some mathematical study on FM24 on github that a guy did for university work that found teamwork was a key correlate of performance.. but I read through it, and overall I think its just full of mistaken findings. My own testing and HarvestGreen's found teamwork doesn't matter, so at the moment I don't see a valid reason to include it.
Loyalty I included as '1' at the last moment pretty much symbolically. It would have some very minor to minor effect via morale, so i felt justified giving it a little '1'. But obviously loyalty deserves some weight for gameplay reasons. Expand
Just one small thing I noticed: you said you included Loyalty as “1” at the last moment, but in the weights you posted, Loyalty is 0.2. Is 0.2 the intended final value, or was Loyalty supposed to be 1?
Also, given what you said about Strength, Vision, Finishing, Teamwork and Loyalty, would you say these are attributes we should actually pay attention to when evaluating a player, or are they basically not worth considering unless the value is particularly low/high?
I’m especially wondering about Teamwork since you still seem a bit uncertain about it.
And one last thing: have you also updated the goalkeeper weights, or are these still the current ones?
bf3metro said: Legend!
Actually this is proving more difficult than I thought it would be
I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how to implement the injury proneness & dirtiness weights. I thought, maybe I'll just add them as simple negatives, like for the GS weights, and adjust it until it matches the rankings, but then I realized it doesn't do FM24 db, only FM26.
Here's the weights at least that will work:
Pace: 17.36, Acceleration: 17.24, JumpingReach: 9.24, Dribbling: 2.92, Pressure: 3.34, Balance: 2.7,
Concentration: 9.46, Anticipation: 11.64, Determination: 6, Agility: 3.4, Stamina: 18.78,
Strength: 0.2, Composure: 5.12, WorkRate: 12.6, Finishing: 0.4,
Aggression: 1.26, Professionalism: 3, Ambition: 0.4, Loyalty: 0.2, Vision: 0.1, ImportantMatches: 2.04, NaturalFitness: 1.58, Consistency: 2.82
Replace the weights in the app.js file with those (search for 'FM-Arena' ).
For adding injury proneness & dirtiness, which are in fact crucial (but I guess you could also just check players manually to have low inj and dirt values), we're going to need someone like Panneton0 or perhaps the creator of FMSuperScout itself to help out. Could probably do it myself, but can't be bothered doing an hour of research honestly.
ZaZ said: 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
I dont disagree. I wasn't prepared to let Bozo repeatedly tell lies about me or what I've said. I have carried this on too far, but then when Bozo continues to lie about you all the time I have a right to reply.
I think the majority of people can now see how things are and im probably happy to leave it there.
I would never say who has dm'd me or publish their dm's. Never. Nor would I tell anyone over dm. They are private.
But again I do ask Bozo the Liar to publish the DM he said I sent him last week begging him to delete the results of my ratings file. lol. Obviously he cant because he LIED, surprise surprise, saying I had.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Actually this is proving more difficult than I thought it would be
I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how to implement the injury proneness & dirtiness weights. I thought, maybe I'll just add them as simple negatives, like for the GS weights, and adjust it until it matches the rankings, but then I realized it doesn't do FM24 db, only FM26.
Here's the weights at least that will work:
Pace: 17.36, Acceleration: 17.24, JumpingReach: 9.24, Dribbling: 2.92, Pressure: 3.34, Balance: 2.7, Concentration: 9.46, Anticipation: 11.64, Determination: 6, Agility: 3.4, Stamina: 18.78, Strength: 0.2, Composure: 5.12, WorkRate: 12.6, Finishing: 0.4, Aggression: 1.26, Professionalism: 3, Ambition: 0.4, Loyalty: 0.2, Vision: 0.1, ImportantMatches: 2.04, NaturalFitness: 1.58, Consistency: 2.82
Replace the weights in the app.js file with those (search for 'FM-Arena' ).
For adding injury proneness & dirtiness, which are in fact crucial (but I guess you could also just check players manually to have low inj and dirt values), we're going to need someone like Panneton0 or perhaps the creator of FMSuperScout itself to help out. Could probably do it myself, but can't be bothered doing an hour of research honestly.
I compared the new weights with the previous ones, and some of the changes are huge:
Stamina: 5.2 → 18.78 (+13.58)
Pace: 6 → 17.36 (+11.36)
Acceleration: 6 → 17.24 (+11.24)
Work Rate: 4.4 → 12.6 (+8.2)
Anticipation: 5.2 → 11.64 (+6.44)
Concentration: 5.2 → 9.46 (+4.26)
Jumping Reach: 5.2 → 9.24 (+4.04)
While on the other side:
Natural Fitness: 4.8 → 1.58 (-3.22)
Important Matches: 5.2 → 2.04 (-3.16)
Aggression: 4.4 → 1.26 (-3.14)
Consistency: 5.2 → 2.82 (-2.38)
Dribbling: 5.2 → 2.92 (-2.28)
Professionalism: 5.2 → 3 (-2.2)
The biggest question for me is: why such massive changes?
From what I understand, the old weights were based on finding the cheapest/minimum attribute balance capable of achieving around 5th in the Premier League, whereas the new weights are being fitted to a much larger set of objective player rankings.
So it makes sense that the result could be very different: instead of asking “what minimum combination of attributes gets results?”, you're now asking “which attributes best explain the actual ranking of players?”
Still, the scale of the change is fascinating.
The new model seems to put an enormous premium on Pace, Acceleration, Stamina, Work Rate and Anticipation, while attributes such as Dribbling, Consistency, Important Matches or Natural Fitness become much less influential.
And then you have Finishing at only 0.4, which is pretty wild too.
Curious to hear what people think, especially about Stamina becoming #1 and the huge gap that now exists between the top attributes and everything else.
PS: Quick question: why are attributes like WorkRate, ImportantMatches, and NaturalFitness written without spaces? Is that just the naming format, and do they need to be written exactly like that in app.js as well? Also, should I add a comma after the final value, Consistency: 2.82, or should the last entry be left without one?
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
Where does the 118 number come from? I'm trying to split up the visible and hidden attributes into two separate metrics for my own use.
bf3metro said: I compared the new weights with the previous ones, and some of the changes are huge:
Stamina: 5.2 → 18.78 (+13.58)
Pace: 6 → 17.36 (+11.36)
Acceleration: 6 → 17.24 (+11.24)
Work Rate: 4.4 → 12.6 (+8.2)
Anticipation: 5.2 → 11.64 (+6.44)
Concentration: 5.2 → 9.46 (+4.26)
Jumping Reach: 5.2 → 9.24 (+4.04)
While on the other side:
Natural Fitness: 4.8 → 1.58 (-3.22)
Important Matches: 5.2 → 2.04 (-3.16)
Aggression: 4.4 → 1.26 (-3.14)
Consistency: 5.2 → 2.82 (-2.38)
Dribbling: 5.2 → 2.92 (-2.28)
Professionalism: 5.2 → 3 (-2.2)
The biggest question for me is: why such massive changes?
From what I understand, the old weights were based on finding the cheapest/minimum attribute balance capable of achieving around 5th in the Premier League, whereas the new weights are being fitted to a much larger set of objective player rankings.
So it makes sense that the result could be very different: instead of asking “what minimum combination of attributes gets results?”, you're now asking “which attributes best explain the actual ranking of players?”
Still, the scale of the change is fascinating.
The new model seems to put an enormous premium on Pace, Acceleration, Stamina, Work Rate and Anticipation, while attributes such as Dribbling, Consistency, Important Matches or Natural Fitness become much less influential.
And then you have Finishing at only 0.4, which is pretty wild too.
Curious to hear what people think, especially about Stamina becoming #1 and the huge gap that now exists between the top attributes and everything else.
PS: Quick question: why are attributes like WorkRate, ImportantMatches, and NaturalFitness written without spaces? Is that just the naming format, and do they need to be written exactly like that in app.js as well? Also, should I add a comma after the final value, Consistency: 2.82, or should the last entry be left without one?
his tests are absolutely a joke, mate. Do not believe.
bf3metro said: The biggest question for me is: why such massive changes?
From what I understand, the old weights were based on finding the cheapest/minimum attribute balance capable of achieving around 5th in the Premier League, whereas the new weights are being fitted to a much larger set of objective player rankings.
So it makes sense that the result could be very different: instead of asking “what minimum combination of attributes gets results?”, you're now asking “which attributes best explain the actual ranking of players?”
Yes, that is precisely the correct summary of it, and I daresay a better explanation than I did.
I'm glad you immediately understand, because I think it's easy to misinterpret this latest thing I'm doing with the weights.
bf3metro said: The new model seems to put an enormous premium on Pace, Acceleration, Stamina, Work Rate and Anticipation, while attributes such as Dribbling, Consistency, Important Matches or Natural Fitness become much less influential.
And then you have Finishing at only 0.4, which is pretty wild too.
I started with the presumption that finishing is almost completely unnecessary, but ChatGPT independently came to the conclusion that finishing should be removed too when I fed it all the player's attributes and asked it to come up a set of weights to fit the rankings.
It was surprising how strongly weighted anticipation and work rate seems to be. Maeda is still down a bit, so work rate could in fact do with being a bit higher perhaps. It's strange to me, because I know that (and you can see HarvestGreen's data to verify this) that work rate almost caps out at 13. But that is when work rate has been tested in isolation or partial isolation. Perhaps there is something like 'determination x work rate x stamina' going on. I couldn't find a way of getting around weighting work rate highly.
Anticipation in my observations did continue to scale, but had diminishing returns. But putting that aside for now, it makes sense that it would be a key attribute because ostensibly it's the movement ('off the ball' as speed?) to the area before possessing the ball. So it sounds like it cuts down on the pace/acc requirement to me, because once they have the ball, they have less distance to travel. Concentration would be a similar kind of effect, where low concentration leads to a delay in getting into position to receive or stop a ball (the latter offset by 'positioning' perhaps).
Consistency, Important Matches, and Natural fitness has not been incorporated with much accuracy. They are kind of afterthoughts, as I know they will matter somewhat, but not sure to what degree. I've used HarvestGreen's data to set them, and so long as they're not interfering with the ranking, I generally leave them alone. Same with pressure, professionalism, etc. - and the left foot & right foot figures I've just pulled out of my ass, to give a little extra weight to the modest footedness bonus which we know exists. This stuff can be refined further later. I think HarvestGreen found that foot should also match the side they're on, and I think FMST26 allows us to do this as well.
Dribbling I've been in two minds about. Most of the time I had it set pretty high at ~40, sometimes as high as 60. I ended up reducing it to 15. ChatGPT actually said early on to do this too. Both were fairly equally functional. From testing, we know dribbling is a very strong attribute that scales well.. I suspect it's not needed much to match the rankings, because hardly any players have high dribbling anyway. It's the hardest attribute to get high in the game I believe.
bf3metro said: PS: Quick question: why are attributes like WorkRate, ImportantMatches, and NaturalFitness written without spaces? Is that just the naming format, and do they need to be written exactly like that in app.js as well? Also, should I add a comma after the final value, Consistency: 2.82, or should the last entry be left without one?
Yes, that is how they have to be written for FMSuperScout, otherwise the program won't work. That is how labels the attributes internally.
I would add the comma.
johnconnerson said: Where does the 118 number come from? I'm trying to split up the visible and hidden attributes into two separate metrics for my own use.
The 118 number is just to get it to display with the highest % at ~90%. It's the same as the overall weight option in GS.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, that is precisely the correct summary of it, and I daresay a better explanation than I did.
I'm glad you immediately understand, because I think it's easy to misinterpret this latest thing I'm doing with the weights.
I started with the presumption that finishing is almost completely unnecessary, but ChatGPT independently came to the conclusion that finishing should be removed too when I fed it all the player's attributes and asked it to come up a set of weights to fit the rankings.
It was surprising how strongly weighted anticipation and work rate seems to be. Maeda is still down a bit, so work rate could in fact do with being a bit higher perhaps. It's strange to me, because I know that (and you can see HarvestGreen's data to verify this) that work rate almost caps out at 13. But that is when work rate has been tested in isolation or partial isolation. Perhaps there is something like 'determination x work rate x stamina' going on. I couldn't find a way of getting around weighting work rate highly.
Anticipation in my observations did continue to scale, but had diminishing returns. But putting that aside for now, it makes sense that it would be a key attribute because ostensibly it's the movement ('off the ball' as speed?) to the area before possessing the ball. So it sounds like it cuts down on the pace/acc requirement to me, because once they have the ball, they have less distance to travel. Concentration would be a similar kind of effect, where low concentration leads to a delay in getting into position to receive or stop a ball (the latter offset by 'positioning' perhaps).
Consistency, Important Matches, and Natural fitness has not been incorporated with much accuracy. They are kind of afterthoughts, as I know they will matter somewhat, but not sure to what degree. I've used HarvestGreen's data to set them, and so long as they're not interfering with the ranking, I generally leave them alone. Same with pressure, professionalism, etc.
Dribbling I've been in two minds about. Most of the time I had it set pretty high at ~40, sometimes as high as 60. I ended up reducing it to 15. ChatGPT actually said early on to do this too. Both were equally functional. From testing, we know dribbling is a very strong attribute that scales well.. I suspect it's not needed much to match the rankings, because hardly any players have high dribbling anyway. It's the hardest attribute to get high in the game I believe.
Yes, that is how they have to be written for FMSuperScout, otherwise the program won't work. That is how labels the attributes internally.
I would add the comma.
That makes a lot of sense, especially the distinction between an attribute being strong in isolation and actually being necessary to reproduce the player rankings.
The WorkRate interaction theory is probably the most interesting part to me. If something like Determination × WorkRate × Stamina is happening, it could explain why isolated attribute testing and the ranking weights seem to tell slightly different stories.
Same for Dribbling — it can still be a very strong attribute without needing a high weight here if the players in the ranking simply don't have enough variance in it.
I think that's probably the most important thing for people to understand with these weights: they aren't necessarily a pure "attribute strength" ranking, they're the weights that best reproduce the objective player rankings.
Also, I noticed there are some strange extra spaces between a few attributes in the list. Is that intentional, or just a formatting issue?
One other thing I'm wondering: is it possible that some of your original FMSS weights were simply set too low at the beginning, which would also partly explain why a few attributes have increased so dramatically now?
For example:
Stamina: +13.58
Pace: +11.36
Acceleration: +11.24
WorkRate: +8.20
Anticipation: +6.44
Concentration: +4.26
JumpingReach: +4.04
Do you think these huge increases are entirely a consequence of the different methodology, or could your original FMSS weights also have been underestimating some of these attributes from the start?
bf3metro said: The WorkRate interaction theory is probably the most interesting part to me. If something like Determination × WorkRate × Stamina is happening, it could explain why isolated attribute testing and the ranking weights seem to tell slightly different stories.
The main thing would be the non-linearity of attributes, which the testing did show, but can't be reflected in linear weightings.
HarvestGreen did do some theorizing on attribute interactions, and I've dug up quotes from the Collyer brothers and in-game tips and whatnot which describe attribute interactions as well. I found that those latter things turn out to be generally untrue, or at least outdated.
I reckon there are attribute interactions though, and HarvestGreen's ideas on it are interesting.. just lack the solid data on it at the moment though.
I don't really have solid data to back it, but I'm personally convinced that aggression x dirtiness is an interaction, it just seems logical and seemed to solve something insoluble with the ratings at one point too.
This is partly why I decided to release it as is now with mostly linear weights, because one could go down the rabbit role of trying out all these different attribute combos and either getting nowhere or being mislead into seeing something that isn't there, while also spending a lot of time doing so. It remains difficult to test attribute combinations, but I'm sure there's some method to bear it out properly.
bf3metro said: Also, I noticed there are some strange extra spaces between a few attributes in the list. Is that intentional, or just a formatting issue?
Probably a formatting issue
bf3metro said: One other thing I'm wondering: is it possible that some of your original FMSS weights were simply set too low at the beginning, which would also partly explain why a few attributes have increased so dramatically now?
Do you think these huge increases are entirely a consequence of the different methodology, or could your original FMSS weights also have been underestimating some of these attributes from the start?
The FMSS weights I gave before simply reflect the minimum set of attribute values to attain 5th in the Premier League. They represent the best 'bang-for-buck' relative ratio of attributes.
I guess the question that the objective ranking raises in relation to that is, if work rate supposedly caps out at 13, why is it so critical for Maeda, and important in general? And if dribbling isn't so essential, is it really necessary to include it high - even if it does actually have significant benefits. So it does shine a new light on certain things. Personally I strongly favor what is true in realistic testing (the player rankings derived from the team positions), rather than what the isolated or constrained testing shows (including my own).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: The main thing would be the non-linearity of attributes, which the testing did show, but can't be reflected in linear weightings.
HarvestGreen did do some theorizing on attribute interactions, and I've dug up quotes from the Collyer brothers and in-game tips and whatnot which describe attribute interactions as well. I found that those latter things turn out to be generally untrue, or at least outdated.
I reckon there are attribute interactions though, and HarvestGreen's ideas on it are interesting.. just lack the solid data on it at the moment though.
I don't really have solid data to back it, but I'm personally convinced that aggression x dirtiness is an interaction, it just seems logical and seemed to solve something insoluble with the ratings at one point too.
This is partly why I decided to release it as is now with mostly linear weights, because one could go down the rabbit role of trying out all these different attribute combos and either getting nowhere or being mislead into seeing something that isn't there, while also spending a lot of time doing so. It remains difficult to test attribute combinations, but I'm sure there's some method to bear it out properly.
Probably a formatting issue
The FMSS weights I gave before simply reflect the minimum set of attribute values to attain 5th in the Premier League. They represent the best 'bang-for-buck' relative ratio of attributes.
I guess the question that the objective ranking raises in relation to that is, if work rate supposedly caps out at 13, why is it so critical for Maeda, and important in general? And if dribbling isn't so essential, is it really necessary to include it high - even if it does actually have significant benefits. So it does shine a new light on certain things. Personally I strongly favor what is true in realistic testing (the player rankings derived from the team positions), rather than what the isolated or constrained testing shows (including my own).
I also noticed that you added 5 attributes that weren’t in the previous set: Strength, Finishing, Ambition, Loyalty and Vision.
Was that intentional as part of the new weighting method?
ZaZ said: 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
@keithb
Hi there,
I just want to make it clear.
Arguing with someone about something on the forum is a pretty normal thing and that's what the forum is meant for.
But personal insults ARE NOT OK and such behaviour won’t be tolerated.
If someone is confused about what personal insults are then it’s when you say to someone that "he's stupid”, "he's idiot", "he's retarded", "he's Bozo" and so on - such behavior IS NOT OK and as I said it won’t be tolerated.
This is the last warning. CUT OFF personal insults and keep it civil.
When I say “keep it civil” I mean that if you disagree with someone then feel free to explain your point of view on the subject without using personal insults.
I hope I made it clear.
Cheers.
bf3metro said: I also noticed that you added 5 attributes that weren’t in the previous set: Strength, Finishing, Ambition, Loyalty and Vision.
Was that intentional as part of the new weighting method?
Finishing, strength, and vision were technically in the previous weights. I dropped them from the file because the attributes that are adequate you are bound to get at the required levels most of the time anyway:
Strength - 8
Vision - 7
Finishing - 7
I played around a fair bit with strength in particular in these new weights. I thought maybe it's around 10-20, but turned not to be the case. Vision is 20 on Messi which was food for thought, but it didn't seem to affect ranking alignment for the better.
Actually teamwork is the one I most wonder about.. players like Maeda have high teamwork, and there's some mathematical study on FM24 on github that a guy did for university work that found teamwork was a key correlate of performance.. but I read through it, and overall I think its just full of mistaken findings. My own testing and HarvestGreen's found teamwork doesn't matter, so at the moment I don't see a valid reason to include it.
Loyalty I included as '1' at the last moment pretty much symbolically. It would have some very minor to minor effect via morale, so i felt justified giving it a little '1'. But obviously loyalty deserves some weight for gameplay reasons.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Finishing, strength, and vision were technically in the previous weights. I dropped them from the file because the attributes that are adequate you are bound to get at the required levels most of the time anyway:
Strength - 8
Vision - 7
Finishing - 7
I played around a fair bit with strength in particular in these new weights. I thought maybe it's around 10-20, but turned not to be the case. Vision is 20 on Messi which was food for thought, but it didn't seem to affect ranking alignment for the better.
Actually teamwork is the one I most wonder about.. players like Maeda have high teamwork, and there's some mathematical study on FM24 on github that a guy did for university work that found teamwork was a key correlate of performance.. but I read through it, and overall I think its just full of mistaken findings. My own testing and HarvestGreen's found teamwork doesn't matter, so at the moment I don't see a valid reason to include it.
Loyalty I included as '1' at the last moment pretty much symbolically. It would have some very minor to minor effect via morale, so i felt justified giving it a little '1'. But obviously loyalty deserves some weight for gameplay reasons.
Just one small thing I noticed: you said you included Loyalty as “1” at the last moment, but in the weights you posted, Loyalty is 0.2. Is 0.2 the intended final value, or was Loyalty supposed to be 1?
Also, given what you said about Strength, Vision, Finishing, Teamwork and Loyalty, would you say these are attributes we should actually pay attention to when evaluating a player, or are they basically not worth considering unless the value is particularly low/high?
I’m especially wondering about Teamwork since you still seem a bit uncertain about it.
And one last thing: have you also updated the goalkeeper weights, or are these still the current ones?
Reflexes: 12.8, Agility: 8.0, Acceleration: 4.7, Pressure: 4.1, Pace: 3.5, AerialReach: 3.4
PS: What is the correct way to write it?
Is it still needed to use the filters with the new ratings on Genie Scout or only the ratings?