we want to know who is the best player, what if liverpool has a awesome season in a simulation and my position got lower than in another simulation, what this have to do with alisson be better thank ter stegen?
it's just randomness, that not prove nothing nothing nothing about atributes...c'mon einstein scientist (never wrong) get your scientific method together and don't do this bs
keithb said: You keep saying what others have said or thought and you're always wrong haha. Like Yarema said above. I set stamina higher for positions that lose more condition in matches. Thats it. But you still haven't worked out why its important.............. no surprise there.
More ground breaking results everyone; speed is important for centre backs as well as strikers!!
And there's more;
" 2/3rds of attributes continue to have zero effect on final season position" Who bloody knew!!
What are you even talking about when you say "The trouble with the 'pace/acc is everything' explanation is that it failed to account for players such as Kane and Lewandowski" What does that even mean?!?! They are accounted for lol.
More than half the stuff you say is just from your fantasy world. Its a complete fiction that you've created and then talk about. Its not real.
In your last testing you said jumping reach was super important for every position and now you've set it quite low. Before you said Mbappe was shit hahah. Now he's your 2nd best player lol. And lets not forget you said I was pissing in my own face for saying stamina was important haha. You said you didn't need it at all and now you say its 80%!! What level of reality are we supposed to be operating on? Because I cant operate on yours.
Keepers dont need technique
Forwards dont need concentration
Wingers and 10's can have jumping reach 1.
Centre backs dont need high stamina. Expand
use logical arguments with the crazy never wrong scientist , he will never get
before he said courtouis it1s not the best (ter stegen were is his prem 1.0), then he was the best, now let's take courtouis out of the test to not expose my bs
treath said: use logical arguments with the crazy never wrong scientist , he will never get
before he said courtouis it1s not the best (ter stegen were is his prem 1.0), then he was the best, now let's take courtouis out of the test to not expose my bs Expand
He barely answers any questions I ask or points I make. Funny that. Just some ridiculous reply that has no relevance or he lies about what I said.
keithb said: You keep saying what others have said or thought and you're always wrong haha. Like Yarema said above. I set stamina higher for positions that lose more condition in matches. Thats it. But you still haven't worked out why its important.............. no surprise there.
More ground breaking results everyone; speed is important for centre backs as well as strikers!!
And there's more;
" 2/3rds of attributes continue to have zero effect on final season position" Who bloody knew!!
What are you even talking about when you say "The trouble with the 'pace/acc is everything' explanation is that it failed to account for players such as Kane and Lewandowski" What does that even mean?!?! They are accounted for lol.
More than half the stuff you say is just from your fantasy world. Its a complete fiction that you've created and then talk about. Its not real.
In your last testing you said jumping reach was super important for every position and now you've set it quite low. Before you said Mbappe was shit hahah. Now he's your 2nd best player lol. And lets not forget you said I was pissing in my own face for saying stamina was important haha. You said you didn't need it at all and now you say its 80%!! What level of reality are we supposed to be operating on? Because I cant operate on yours.
Keepers dont need technique
Forwards dont need concentration
Wingers and 10's can have jumping reach 1.
Centre backs dont need high stamina. Expand Rattling off a bunch of falsehoods doesn't make them true.
Unfortunately for you, EBFM's uploads on Youtube still exist there and can be referred to.
We see that work rate reduces in-match condition % identically to stamina. So stamina cannot be more important than work rate, or at least not more than ~20% more important say.
But the real showstopper to your argument is that in the video Max also states 'a player will use 15-20% OPC per half' while showing a match in progress that shows players that started with identical condition % and attributes, and the DL/DR condition % is indistinguishable from other positions.
That said, anecdotally I know that in standard play, fullbacks tend to use a bit more condition % than the other players. I suspect this is due to the 'best' fullbacks also tending to have high work rate. This is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: People use GS weightings that select for high work rate on fullbacks, so they end up using more condition %, requiring higher stamina, and therefore favoring stamina too. But very high work rate on fullbacks isn't necessary to begin with. Testing shows that work rate above ~11-13 is largely superfluous.
We also see that 1 > 20 sta is equivalent to 100% vs 97% condition difference when starting match. We know that bad natural fitness will result in an inevitable condition difference of at least that, yet you have natural fitness weighted at 0.
In regards to jumping reach, it remains important for every player. I don't know how you consider '46' weighting low. It was in fact viable at lower values of ~20-30, but I thought 46 was more appropriate and it aligned fine. I haven't yet examined if extra jump reach is necessary on DC, which is an important remainder matter to clarify.
In your weightings, Vinicius Junior is no.1 FS, Mbappe is 2nd beating Haaland, while you have to scroll down to find Maeda below a 32-year-old colombian at Orlando City. Comparable analysis showed that your weightings have worse variance than the Genie Scout default values from a decade ago. The question I have is not how did you come up with those ratings, but how did you manage to get them to do worse than even the Genie Scout default??
Unfortunately for you, EBFM's uploads on Youtube still exist there and can be referred to.
We see that work rate reduces in-match condition % identically to stamina. So stamina cannot be more important than work rate, or at least not more than ~20% more important say.
But the real showstopper to your argument is that in the video Max also states 'a player will use 15-20% OPC per half' while showing a match in progress that shows players that started with identical condition % and attributes, and the DL/DR condition % is indistinguishable from other positions.
That said, anecdotally I know that in standard play, fullbacks tend to use a bit more condition % than the other players. I suspect this is due to the 'best' fullbacks also tending to have high work rate. This is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: People use GS weightings that select for high work rate on fullbacks, so they end up using more condition %, requiring higher stamina, and therefore favoring stamina too. But very high work rate on fullbacks isn't necessary to begin with. Testing shows that work rate above ~11-13 is largely superfluous.
We also see that 1 > 20 sta is equivalent to 100% vs 97% condition difference when starting match. We know that bad natural fitness will result in an inevitable condition difference of at least that, yet you have natural fitness weighted at 0.
In regards to jumping reach, it remains important for every player. I don't know how you consider '46' weighting low. It was in fact viable at lower values of ~20-30, but I thought 46 was more appropriate and it aligned fine. I haven't yet examined if extra jump reach is necessary on DC, which is an important remainder matter to clarify.
In your weightings, Vinicius Junior is no.1 FS, Mbappe is 2nd beating Haaland, while you have to scroll down to find Maeda below a 32-year-old colombian at Orlando City. Comparable analysis showed that your weightings have worse variance than the Genie Scout default values from a decade ago. The question I have is not how did you come up with those ratings, but how did you manage to get them to do worse than even the Genie Scout default?? Expand
"Testing" in your fantasy world proves nothing. You rated genie scout default ratings higher than several ratings files created by people in the last 2-4 years lol. No-one believes that to be true. Its just more material from your fictional world. No one else is there with you hahaha.
Even people who hate me and love you dont believe the genie scout default ratings have any resemblance to how the game plays. Its utterly bonkers that you've said this.
Why do you keep repeating this thing about Haaland being the third best player on my file? He is rated the best by some way You know its a lie and yet continue to repeat it. You act like a child.
As I said before you're done. This charade has run its course. Nobody believes you. You also need to stop declaring other people's testing and results as wrong. You have no idea what you're doing.
treath said: we want to know who is the best player, what if liverpool has a awesome season in a simulation and my position got lower than in another simulation, what this have to do with alisson be better thank ter stegen?
it's just randomness, that not prove nothing nothing nothing about atributes...c'mon einstein scientist (never wrong) get your scientific method together and don't do this bs
You are Just misguidind people for fun Expand I didn't mention it, because I thought the data self-evidently refuted the ol' 🤪 iTsAlLrAnDoMaNyWaY 🤪 argument.
As an aside, I'm enjoying these text color options.
We have heard it claimed for a long time that you cannot even measure, let alone employ, various factors in the game, because the inherent volatility is supposedly too great.
Yet observe the results I recorded: When I test Haaland, I don't have him suddenly finishing 9th or 16th. His lowest result in 6 samples taken is 4th. Doesn't seem very random to me. And it's precise enough to even distinguish clearly between him and Mbappe and various other contenders, who finish 2.5 or 3 instead of 1.666.
Now there is the valid point of seasonal variation throwing a spanner into the works, because realistically we're playing for each season, not waiting around for it to eventually get it right in season 2 or 3, even if season 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are all correct.
But I have calculated that variation and taken into account in assessing what level of certainty we can reasonably hold. I've stated before that I asked ChatGPT to combine this seasonal volatility, and the the current degree of statistical error, and it said we can be reasonably confident that to the point of +/- 7.8%. In other words, when I'm looking at GS for the best ST, I can have reasonable confidence that the best ST is going to between 83% and 90%, rather than 67% and 90% for GS default weights, or 60% and 90% for keithb's weights. I don't know if this sounds useless to you, but it doesn't to me!
"We see that work rate reduces in-match condition % identically to stamina. So stamina cannot be more important than work rate, or at least not more than ~20% more important say."
And you have the weights at 18 and 12 respectively? This is why I always ask questions because you come out with statements like this where it's one way for a few days then it completely flips, but you are 100% certain each time. You had one set of weights one day, I found them strange and enquire about the reasoning behind them, then you completely switch the system with massive changes and somehow it's my fault for asking. The "truth" shouldn't switch around so much, sure there is some inaccuracy and with more data we can hone in better.
I generally like that you are pursuing these questions, but the attitude "I am right and everyone else is wrong and stupid" is kind of offputting, especially when you do 180 as often as you do. Like do the tests and lets discuss if it makes sense, what are the limitations, can you approach it differently etc. You've found some interesting stuff that is unfortunately the victim of the level of discussion in here.
keithb said: You rated genie scout default ratings higher than several ratings files created by people in the last 2-4 years lol. Expand Yes, including one or two of my own you'll note.
It's literally just measuring the % disparity between two players where there shouldn't be one, and saying which has the largest or smallest error.
Testing shows that on average, Maeda finishes 3 position, Osimhen finishes 3.833 position. Yet your weights show Osimhen 88.50% FS 88.37% TS, Maeda 79.80% FS 69.06% TS.
That's embarrassing for someone who insists nothing has changed since they learned 'everything' 2 or 3 years ago. Or at least I'm embarrassed for you.
we want to know who is the best player, what if liverpool has a awesome season in a simulation and my position got lower than in another simulation, what this have to do with alisson be better thank ter stegen?
it's just randomness, that not prove nothing nothing nothing about atributes...c'mon einstein scientist (never wrong) get your scientific method together and don't do this bs
You are Just misguidind people for fun
I do think this whole thing is a giant troll.
keithb said: You keep saying what others have said or thought and you're always wrong haha. Like Yarema said above. I set stamina higher for positions that lose more condition in matches. Thats it. But you still haven't worked out why its important.............. no surprise there.
More ground breaking results everyone; speed is important for centre backs as well as strikers!!
And there's more;
" 2/3rds of attributes continue to have zero effect on final season position" Who bloody knew!!
What are you even talking about when you say "The trouble with the 'pace/acc is everything' explanation is that it failed to account for players such as Kane and Lewandowski" What does that even mean?!?! They are accounted for lol.
More than half the stuff you say is just from your fantasy world. Its a complete fiction that you've created and then talk about. Its not real.
In your last testing you said jumping reach was super important for every position and now you've set it quite low. Before you said Mbappe was shit hahah. Now he's your 2nd best player lol. And lets not forget you said I was pissing in my own face for saying stamina was important haha. You said you didn't need it at all and now you say its 80%!! What level of reality are we supposed to be operating on? Because I cant operate on yours.
Keepers dont need technique
Forwards dont need concentration
Wingers and 10's can have jumping reach 1.
Centre backs dont need high stamina.
use logical arguments with the crazy never wrong scientist , he will never get
before he said courtouis it1s not the best (ter stegen were is his prem 1.0), then he was the best, now let's take courtouis out of the test to not expose my bs
treath said: use logical arguments with the crazy never wrong scientist , he will never get
before he said courtouis it1s not the best (ter stegen were is his prem 1.0), then he was the best, now let's take courtouis out of the test to not expose my bs
He barely answers any questions I ask or points I make. Funny that. Just some ridiculous reply that has no relevance or he lies about what I said.
keithb said: You keep saying what others have said or thought and you're always wrong haha. Like Yarema said above. I set stamina higher for positions that lose more condition in matches. Thats it. But you still haven't worked out why its important.............. no surprise there.
More ground breaking results everyone; speed is important for centre backs as well as strikers!!
And there's more;
" 2/3rds of attributes continue to have zero effect on final season position" Who bloody knew!!
What are you even talking about when you say "The trouble with the 'pace/acc is everything' explanation is that it failed to account for players such as Kane and Lewandowski" What does that even mean?!?! They are accounted for lol.
More than half the stuff you say is just from your fantasy world. Its a complete fiction that you've created and then talk about. Its not real.
In your last testing you said jumping reach was super important for every position and now you've set it quite low. Before you said Mbappe was shit hahah. Now he's your 2nd best player lol. And lets not forget you said I was pissing in my own face for saying stamina was important haha. You said you didn't need it at all and now you say its 80%!! What level of reality are we supposed to be operating on? Because I cant operate on yours.
Keepers dont need technique
Forwards dont need concentration
Wingers and 10's can have jumping reach 1.
Centre backs dont need high stamina.
Rattling off a bunch of falsehoods doesn't make them true.
Unfortunately for you, EBFM's uploads on Youtube still exist there and can be referred to.
We see that work rate reduces in-match condition % identically to stamina. So stamina cannot be more important than work rate, or at least not more than ~20% more important say.
But the real showstopper to your argument is that in the video Max also states 'a player will use 15-20% OPC per half' while showing a match in progress that shows players that started with identical condition % and attributes, and the DL/DR condition % is indistinguishable from other positions.
That said, anecdotally I know that in standard play, fullbacks tend to use a bit more condition % than the other players. I suspect this is due to the 'best' fullbacks also tending to have high work rate. This is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: People use GS weightings that select for high work rate on fullbacks, so they end up using more condition %, requiring higher stamina, and therefore favoring stamina too. But very high work rate on fullbacks isn't necessary to begin with. Testing shows that work rate above ~11-13 is largely superfluous.
We also see that 1 > 20 sta is equivalent to 100% vs 97% condition difference when starting match. We know that bad natural fitness will result in an inevitable condition difference of at least that, yet you have natural fitness weighted at 0.
In regards to jumping reach, it remains important for every player. I don't know how you consider '46' weighting low. It was in fact viable at lower values of ~20-30, but I thought 46 was more appropriate and it aligned fine. I haven't yet examined if extra jump reach is necessary on DC, which is an important remainder matter to clarify.
In your weightings, Vinicius Junior is no.1 FS, Mbappe is 2nd beating Haaland, while you have to scroll down to find Maeda below a 32-year-old colombian at Orlando City. Comparable analysis showed that your weightings have worse variance than the Genie Scout default values from a decade ago. The question I have is not how did you come up with those ratings, but how did you manage to get them to do worse than even the Genie Scout default??
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Rattling off a bunch of falsehoods doesn't make them true.
Unfortunately for you, EBFM's uploads on Youtube still exist there and can be referred to.
We see that work rate reduces in-match condition % identically to stamina. So stamina cannot be more important than work rate, or at least not more than ~20% more important say.
But the real showstopper to your argument is that in the video Max also states 'a player will use 15-20% OPC per half' while showing a match in progress that shows players that started with identical condition % and attributes, and the DL/DR condition % is indistinguishable from other positions.
That said, anecdotally I know that in standard play, fullbacks tend to use a bit more condition % than the other players. I suspect this is due to the 'best' fullbacks also tending to have high work rate. This is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: People use GS weightings that select for high work rate on fullbacks, so they end up using more condition %, requiring higher stamina, and therefore favoring stamina too. But very high work rate on fullbacks isn't necessary to begin with. Testing shows that work rate above ~11-13 is largely superfluous.
We also see that 1 > 20 sta is equivalent to 100% vs 97% condition difference when starting match. We know that bad natural fitness will result in an inevitable condition difference of at least that, yet you have natural fitness weighted at 0.
In regards to jumping reach, it remains important for every player. I don't know how you consider '46' weighting low. It was in fact viable at lower values of ~20-30, but I thought 46 was more appropriate and it aligned fine. I haven't yet examined if extra jump reach is necessary on DC, which is an important remainder matter to clarify.
In your weightings, Vinicius Junior is no.1 FS, Mbappe is 2nd beating Haaland, while you have to scroll down to find Maeda below a 32-year-old colombian at Orlando City. Comparable analysis showed that your weightings have worse variance than the Genie Scout default values from a decade ago. The question I have is not how did you come up with those ratings, but how did you manage to get them to do worse than even the Genie Scout default??
"Testing" in your fantasy world proves nothing. You rated genie scout default ratings higher than several ratings files created by people in the last 2-4 years lol. No-one believes that to be true. Its just more material from your fictional world. No one else is there with you hahaha.
Even people who hate me and love you dont believe the genie scout default ratings have any resemblance to how the game plays. Its utterly bonkers that you've said this.
Why do you keep repeating this thing about Haaland being the third best player on my file? He is rated the best by some way You know its a lie and yet continue to repeat it. You act like a child.
As I said before you're done. This charade has run its course. Nobody believes you. You also need to stop declaring other people's testing and results as wrong. You have no idea what you're doing.
treath said: we want to know who is the best player, what if liverpool has a awesome season in a simulation and my position got lower than in another simulation, what this have to do with alisson be better thank ter stegen?
it's just randomness, that not prove nothing nothing nothing about atributes...c'mon einstein scientist (never wrong) get your scientific method together and don't do this bs
You are Just misguidind people for fun
I didn't mention it, because I thought the data self-evidently refuted the ol' 🤪 iTs AlL rAnDoM aNyWaY 🤪 argument.
As an aside, I'm enjoying these text color options.
We have heard it claimed for a long time that you cannot even measure, let alone employ, various factors in the game, because the inherent volatility is supposedly too great.
Yet observe the results I recorded: When I test Haaland, I don't have him suddenly finishing 9th or 16th. His lowest result in 6 samples taken is 4th. Doesn't seem very random to me. And it's precise enough to even distinguish clearly between him and Mbappe and various other contenders, who finish 2.5 or 3 instead of 1.666.
Now there is the valid point of seasonal variation throwing a spanner into the works, because realistically we're playing for each season, not waiting around for it to eventually get it right in season 2 or 3, even if season 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are all correct.
But I have calculated that variation and taken into account in assessing what level of certainty we can reasonably hold. I've stated before that I asked ChatGPT to combine this seasonal volatility, and the the current degree of statistical error, and it said we can be reasonably confident that to the point of +/- 7.8%. In other words, when I'm looking at GS for the best ST, I can have reasonable confidence that the best ST is going to between 83% and 90%, rather than 67% and 90% for GS default weights, or 60% and 90% for keithb's weights. I don't know if this sounds useless to you, but it doesn't to me!
"We see that work rate reduces in-match condition % identically to stamina. So stamina cannot be more important than work rate, or at least not more than ~20% more important say."
And you have the weights at 18 and 12 respectively? This is why I always ask questions because you come out with statements like this where it's one way for a few days then it completely flips, but you are 100% certain each time. You had one set of weights one day, I found them strange and enquire about the reasoning behind them, then you completely switch the system with massive changes and somehow it's my fault for asking. The "truth" shouldn't switch around so much, sure there is some inaccuracy and with more data we can hone in better.
I generally like that you are pursuing these questions, but the attitude "I am right and everyone else is wrong and stupid" is kind of offputting, especially when you do 180 as often as you do. Like do the tests and lets discuss if it makes sense, what are the limitations, can you approach it differently etc. You've found some interesting stuff that is unfortunately the victim of the level of discussion in here.
keithb said: You rated genie scout default ratings higher than several ratings files created by people in the last 2-4 years lol.
Yes, including one or two of my own you'll note.
It's literally just measuring the % disparity between two players where there shouldn't be one, and saying which has the largest or smallest error.
Testing shows that on average, Maeda finishes 3 position, Osimhen finishes 3.833 position. Yet your weights show Osimhen 88.50% FS 88.37% TS, Maeda 79.80% FS 69.06% TS.
That's embarrassing for someone who insists nothing has changed since they learned 'everything' 2 or 3 years ago. Or at least I'm embarrassed for you.