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.
Yarema said: "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. Expand I could be like those guys who put out one file, call it a day, and reap the patreon/'buy me a coffee' money for the next 2-3 years off various 'Ultimate FM26 Weightings Megapack' releases while vigorously defending the unalterable truth of my findings.
The god honest truth is that my releases are haphazard and change drastically because I actually put time and effort into finding new things and don't let myself fall into the trap of getting my knickers in a knot over 'b-but what will people think of me now'.
I don't know where you're getting this work rate 18 and stamina 12 thing from. The current weights have 63 work rate, 94 stamina.
Yarema said: Like do the tests and lets discuss if it makes sense, what are the limitations, can you approach it differently etc. Expand That is literally what I've been doing. It's people such as yourself and keithb who have been trying to interrupt and overwhelm things by constantly posting the same tired complaints of 'you're wrong.. you're just wrong, because I know you're wrong, okay?' over and over and over again. From my perspective, more posts in the thread draw more attention to it, and allows for a kind of dialetical process where I can address normal user's critiques that aren't voiced and also realize certain things I may have done mistakenly or glossed over on occasion. And it's a damn good feeling on those days when I can suddenly present solid data to blow the BS claims out of the water.
Here's a suggestion: Perhaps stop acting like you're the last thing standing between me and human decency, and instead start doing some testing of your own to either support your claims or otherwise complement my findings. Or if you're lazy or uninterested, which is perfectly fine, simply stop insisting on tired outdated BS like 'technicals still matter somewhat' or 'attributes are mostly linear'.
I want to say one more thing on the randomness point.
I tested teams in one league together consisting of 80%, 78%, 76%, and 74% rated players primarily because I wanted to speed the verification process up, but I also had some other reasons in mind. One was to test the 'its too random' theory.
It's one thing to say that Haaland finishes 1st to 4th reliably as a sole player in a largely controlled team. What about when you have a whole squad of real players that's both more variable and realistic - what happens to these small % distinctions then?
You can go back a few pages and see the results, but basically it turned out that even under these conditions, the results were reliably predictable. More than even I thought they would be to be honest. I thought it's probably going to be impossible to distinguish below ~5% difference, but there were clear distinctions even with just 2% Genie Scout difference.
The randomness was seemingly too overwhelming for you to distinguish factors, because you were assessing by the wrong factors. You were looking at league points and passing ability, rather than league position and anticipation, so overall it appeared too random to you to pin down.
You "test" using the best tactics and set pieces? You can get Darmstadt to win the bundesliga in the first season with that setup. Probably the double. You also take man city out of the picture. It's such an easy test, it barely proves anything. You don't even realise half the stuff you do is flawed. It's not even amateur.
Osimhen would easily outscore and get a better rating than Maeda.
keithb said: You "test" using the best tactics and set pieces? You can get Darmstadt to win the bundesliga in the first season with that setup. Probably the double. You also take man city out of the picture. It's such an easy test, it barely proves anything. You don't even realise half the stuff you do is flawed. It's not even amateur.
Osimhen would easily outscore and get a better rating than Maeda. Expand Darmstardt players have ~120 CA. The players I have added to Man City are ~90 CA. Most people use a top tactic I assume. But otherwise the 4 teams test (80%, 78%, 76%, 74%) suffices as proof of validity of the weightings whatever you take exception to, as no custom tactic, set pieces, nor custom players were used (completely default tactics, with squads of real players).
You are not even familiar with what you are arguing against.
Testing players inside plug-and-play tactics proves the tactic is OP, not that attributes work like a magical spreadsheet. High Pace looks great on paper, but role fit, mental attributes, and relative league quality matter far more in practice.
Case in point: I used a striker with just 13–14 Pace/Acc in the Bulgarian league (where average CA starts around 95 and below). He scored 50+ goals a season, won 2 Ballon d'Ors, and helped me reach the Champions League every year—even winning it once. I eventually followed the popular advice to replace him with a 19–20 Pace/Acceleration player, and the speed replacement performed far worse overall simply because he didn't fit my tactic or have the same high Off the Ball and Composure.
With FM26 introducing distinct in-possession and out-of-possession roles, the devs clearly made squad and tactical fit far more critical than just hoarding fast players to break the engine. It's about how a player fits your system across both phases, not how high their physical stats can grow.
To be fair, you (George) are doing some great testing, and the results do show useful directions for squad improvement. Having a table that ranks attributes can definitely help players know what to prioritize. But I still don't believe that just stacking 5 attributes at 18–20 makes a player great. CA is capped at 200, so a player can't have half their stats maxed out and expect to be a complete monster without balance.
When i'm testing different tactics in a controlled testing league where every player had flat 13–14 stats, certain tactics still performed very well. Even when precision is minimized down to 1–1.5%, you can never fully eliminate RNG. Focusing strictly on raw physical players just isn't the right way to look at the game.
Testing players inside plug-and-play tactics proves the tactic is OP, not that attributes work like a magical spreadsheet. Expand It has been tested with default tactics.
Angelski said: High Pace looks great on paper, but role fit, mental attributes, and relative league quality matter far more in practice. Expand Roles do not exist. Even positions seem to have none or at most few attribute differences between each other, except for GK and position proficiency of course.
Edit: On reflection it might be an exaggeration to say that roles do not exist. But not by much. I guess you could point out that in meta tactics, roles are a part of it, and this not my domain. I guess what I really mean to say is that roles do not affect what attributes a player should get. So roles may have some tactical value, but you are clearly talking about getting players with attributes to fit roles, not tactical differences themselves.
Angelski said: Case in point: I used a striker with just 13–14 Pace/Acc in the Bulgarian league (where average CA starts around 95 and below). He scored 50+ goals a season, won 2 Ballon d'Ors, and helped me reach the Champions League every year—even winning it once. I eventually followed the popular advice to replace him with a 19–20 Pace/Acceleration player, and the speed replacement performed far worse overall simply because he didn't fit my tactic or have the same high Off the Ball and Composure. Expand The first part doesn't contradict my findings. In fact it is fully in line with my template which you can view on page 1, which shows 13-14 pace/acc is a viable minimum for the English Premier League, as exemplified by players such as Harry Kane and Robert Lewandowski.
The second part mistakes the causes. Unless you're simply playing a player completely out of position, tactics make use of all players the same way. Off the ball is a completely useless attribute that has been tested to have no effect, not just by me, but by both HarvestGreen and the FM Arena testing.
Angelski said: With FM26 introducing distinct in-possession and out-of-possession roles, the devs clearly made squad and tactical fit far more critical than just hoarding fast players to break the engine. It's about how a player fits your system across both phases, not how high their physical stats can grow. Expand I don't test FM26, but those who have tested it - HarvestGreen and FM Arena - have found that there are only a few minor differences in the effect of attributes, and that the new OOP thing is pretty much placebo. Again I haven't tested FM26 myself, but if the attributes effect remain largely the same as others have found, then 2/3rds of attributes remain completely useless and hoarding fast players to break the engine remains the way to go.. unless of course you prefer the more realistic and successful method, which is using my weights and following my templates. If anything, FM26 appears even more broken to me, as I notice all the top tactics are the same tactics that lack strikers and I've heard it said that they are, or at least were, more effective than Knap tactics in FM24. Maybe I'm wrong on that though, I don't play FM26 because it's hot garbage.
Angelski said: But I still don't believe that just stacking 5 attributes at 18–20 makes a player great. CA is capped at 200, so a player can't have half their stats maxed out and expect to be a complete monster without balance. Expand You should check out the thread where I have used a team of 1 CA players to consistently win the Premier League.
That was many months ago. Since then I've come up with a more realistic formula: No high pace/acc, no unrealistic attributes like say 16 dribbling, and a total of just ~90 CA on average. The template is on page 1, and yes, you can find similar players in the actual starting database to emulate the template - it would cost only a few mil to find and buy the right players straight off the bat to win the Premier League.
I don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm using attributes at 18-20. The template has no attribute above 15, and it's what I've been using in all my testing for ages now:
Angelski said: Even when precision is minimized down to 1–1.5%, you can never fully eliminate RNG. Focusing strictly on raw physical players just isn't the right way to look at the game. Expand Can't speak for you or anyone else, but 1% margin of error sounds good enough to me.
Please update yourself on the 'raw physical players' claim.
Rain said: I love how whenever Keith posts his burners post within minutes #Noticing Expand
You're the funniest without a doubt. This is your track record:
You tagged me in a thread I wasn't in and then later said someone was rent free in my head haha. Anyway it was nice of you to think of me.
Only a few days ago you said that the DM's I'd received from other people, that I wasn't going to publish or say who sent them, were from my burners. But as I explained, not sure if it understand yet or not (?), if I'm not going to publish or name people I can just lie about receiving them. It would be pretty mad to send myself DM's from burner's. Haha
And now you're saying long-standing members of this website are in fact my burners that I set up years ago, just in case I ever needed to back myself up?
Do you maybe have someone who can read your posts before you hit 'post reply'?
Oh and the kicker is you've used a hashtag, this isn't twitter or whatever you use, and it said "noticing". Well once again the irony is another level. ROFL!! How do you do it? And it comes naturally!?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Darmstardt players have ~120 CA. The players I have added to Man City are ~90 CA. Most people use a top tactic I assume. But otherwise the 4 teams test (80%, 78%, 76%, 74%) suffices as proof of validity of the weightings whatever you take exception to, as no custom tactic, set pieces, nor custom players were used (completely default tactics, with squads of real players).
You are not even familiar with what you are arguing against. Expand
You don't even understand basic points. You often say the other person doesn't understand what they're talking about haha. Using some flimsy reasoning. Just like when you said stamina wasn't important and was the most confident you've ever been. Fast forward a few months and you've rated it 90+ out of 100 lol.
Once again, as always, you're very confident you're correct. Just like you are every, single time. Only to change your mind completely soon after haha.
Half the time you just throw something out that is clearly something you've just made up. For weeks you kept saying how shit Mbappe was in your tests, because I'd said he was excellent, and now you have him as your second best striker. And you state stuff I say is embarrassing 😂😂.
Anyway looking forward to your next set of theories in a few more weeks?
Any comment on Kyle Walker being your top rated centre back using genie scout? You'd previously posted with certainty, that if your centre backs have jumping reach lower than 13/14 you'll get relegated. His jumping reach is 11. That's your top rated centre back
A few quick points because you're completely contradicting yourself here:
FM26 & OOP Roles: You explicitly stated "I don't test FM26" and "I don't play FM26 because it's hot garbage." Calling the in-possession and out-of-possession mechanics "placebo" based on FM24 assumptions and second-hand opinions isn't data—it's guesswork. In FM26, if a player lacks positional discipline during phase transitions, they break the team's defensive structure, regardless of speed.
"Roles Don't Exist": Claiming roles don't exist in FM ignores how the match engine assigns spatial duties, pressing triggers and movement patterns. Attributes are processed through those role instructions—they don't operate in a vacuum.
Off the Ball & CA Exploits: Calling Off the Ball "completely useless" and boasting about winning the Premier League with a 1 CA / 90 CA team proves @keithb's point: your setup is exploiting match engine pathfinding via broken tactics. When a tactic does 95% of the heavy lifting, claiming your changing attribute weights caused the win is pure confirmation bias.
Templates & Balance: My point about CA balance still stands. My striker had 13–14 Pace/Acc and dominated in Europe because his high Mentals fit my tactic. Swapping him for a 19–20 Pace player with lower Off the Ball/Composure dropped performance—because raw physicals without tactical fit don't magically win matches in dynamic play.
Honestly, I came here hoping to learn something, but reading through all of this has completely killed my desire to stay in this thread or engage with the forum. It's exhausting trying to discuss normal, proper gameplay when someone running 50,000 automated holiday sims insists you're playing the wrong way unless you intentionally break the match engine.
Probably the worst thing that has happened is recently. You've actually missed quoted or misrepresented what harvest green has said, or their data has said. This is someone who has put so much time and effort into this community and a huge amount of people have learned so much from it. At various times they have said they're tired or don't have the time to do more tests. And yet they have come back and carried out more testing for the benefit of all of us.
It is despicable that you would stoop this low. Several people have pointed out you've misrepresented their data or just flat out lied about what they said.
Harvest green revolutionised training. You have done nothing. Nothing at all. But I'm not surprised in the slightest that you would go this far. You still do and say anything to protect your appalling testing and results and endless lies.
And one more thing: if there's already a well-known attribute table showing how the match engine weighs everything, and the engine hasn't even changed, why are we even having this discussion?
If you're going to run thousands of tests anyway, at least BE CREATIVE—go build the ultimate broken tactic to crush the match engine instead of running endless simulations just to prove everyone else is playing wrong.
I came here hoping to actually learn something useful, but watching someone obsessively test a "garbage game" they claim not to play is certainly a choice. Sure, the devs make mistakes, but at least their bugs can be patched. Whatever logic you're using here can't be fixed.
I was trying to be friendly and share a genuine player's perspective, but I won't waste another minute in this thread. I'm off to read something actually worth my time.
Angelski said: A few quick points because you're completely contradicting yourself here:
FM26 & OOP Roles: You explicitly stated "I don't test FM26" and "I don't play FM26 because it's hot garbage." Calling the in-possession and out-of-possession mechanics "placebo" based on FM24 assumptions and second-hand opinions isn't data—it's guesswork. In FM26, if a player lacks positional discipline during phase transitions, they break the team's defensive structure, regardless of speed. Expand You don't trust FM Arena's testing on this? That's not a contradiction on my part, that's a disagreement between us.
Angelski said: "Roles Don't Exist": Claiming roles don't exist in FM ignores how the match engine assigns spatial duties, pressing triggers, and movement patterns. Attributes are processed through those role instructions—they don't operate in a vacuum. Expand Yes.. as you can see by the last edit time of the post you're responding to, I had a change of mind about which I submitted the same time you posted your response.
So I don't expect you to have seen it yet of course, but I'll restate the clarification I wish to make: Roles do exist as tactical differences, but you were denoting attributes which better fit roles, which is a different kettle of fish. Attributes do not fit certain roles better. I know this from experience testing, but I believe FM Arena has also tested this and I could dig it up if you like.
Angelski said: Off the Ball & CA Exploits: Calling Off the Ball "completely useless" and boasting about winning the Premier League with a 1 CA / 90 CA team proves @keithb's point: your setup is exploiting match engine pathfinding via broken tactics. When a tactic does 95% of the heavy lifting, claiming your changing attribute weights caused the win is pure confirmation bias. Expand You seem to have just completely ignored the first line of my response to you.
I'll state it again: It has been tested with default tactics.
..and to a precision of just 2% GS rating difference!
Angelski said: Templates & Balance: My point about CA balance still stands. My striker had 13–14 Pace/Acc and dominated in Europe because his high Mentals fit my tactic. Swapping him for a 19–20 Pace player with lower Off the Ball/Composure dropped performance—because raw physicals without tactical fit don't magically win matches in dynamic play. Expand And how do you that it was off the ball or composure specifically? Was the player identical, or even similar in every other respect?
I can tell you now that off the ball, or even composure, is not going to account for a 20 pace/acc player being worse than 13 pace/acc player.
But putting that aside, you're not proving anything. You're talking as though I have said 13-14 pace/acc players can't be near perfect players. I have stated the opposite of that, and if you actually took the time read the last 2 pages of this thread, you'd see I've been trying to make the specific point that I think the established narrative that pace/acc is everything should be regarded as outdated.
You've just barged in here and started yelling about how I'm wrong on the basis of claims I'm not even making. That's the part that gets me, not so much the naivety around the attributes, but castigating me when you clearly haven't even read what I've written. Bizarre!
Angelski said: Honestly, I came here hoping to learn something, but reading through all of this has completely killed my desire to stay in this thread or engage with the forum. It's exhausting trying to discuss normal, proper gameplay when someone running 50,000 automated holiday sims insists you're playing the wrong way unless you intentionally break the match engine. Expand Aw.. you poor thing.
Maybe I suggest r/footballmanagergames? Or perhaps more up your alley of falsehoods, sensitivity and low effort, the SI forums?
But if you do decide to stick around here, perhaps don't just go in bullheaded saying 'YOU'RE WRONG' with nothing to back up it but confabulations to the person you're choosing to address?
Angelski said: And one more thing: if there's already a well-known attribute table showing how the match engine weighs everything, and the engine hasn't even changed, why are we even having this discussion? Expand That table refers to the CA weights. In this thread recently, we are talking about attribute weightings. They are two different things. CA weights largely determine the cost of an attribute in CA; attribute weightings reflect the importance of a particular attribute in terms of performance.
Angelski said: I came here hoping to actually learn something useful, but watching someone obsessively test a "garbage game" they claim not to play is certainly a choice. Expand There's plenty here that's useful, and much of it is derived from the extensive testing you deride. I test FM24, not FM26. I didn't say FM24 is a garbage game, even though it does have its shortcomings, I said FM26 is.
Angelski said: I was trying to be friendly and share a genuine player's perspective Expand Perhaps that was your intention, but I can't help but feel a bit miffed when I'm mischaracterized. Especially when you start by saying the guy who has been harassing me and lying about me for months on end, is 'totally right'. Hope you understand, if you ever do come back to read this.
You literally said yourself in previous posts that FM26 is "hot garbage" and that you don't even play it. I'll just leave that there so anyone reading this can decide for themselves how much weight to give your advice.
Angelski said: You literally said yourself in previous posts that FM26 is "hot garbage" and that you don't even play it. I'll just leave that there so anyone reading this can decide for themselves how much weight to give your advice. Expand This shouldn't be news to anyone who has been following my posts here.
People have asked me for FM26 GS files over time, and I have to tell them that I don't really do FM26 files because I can't test FM26 and can only provide at best some sort of adjustment based on what HarvestGreen's findings are (now there are also FM Arena test results to go by). It does work though, I'm quite sure, because attributes/the match engine in FM26 hasn't really changed much. I just can't say anything with the same certainty in regards to FM26.
Pretty sure I've always made it clear that I test in FM24 only.
You've just rocked up and are claiming I'm wrong without reading anything I've actually written. I mean what kind of response from me did you expect?
Quite a few people here seem to be having trouble communicating with me. I'm not particularly upset or dismayed. In fact I rather relish the opportunities to demonstrate my undeniable superiority. But I do somewhat wish there were more productive debates, which I know have occurred before at times and are therefore possible.
Here are a few suggestions I have for communicating with me:
1) Don't call me retarded, or praise those who call me retarded, if you want me to be pleasant instead of terse towards you. I enjoy 'FM Arena' living up to its name, but expect me to respond in kind, rather than expect me to submit to passive-aggressive shenanigans and the like.
2) Actually comprehend my claims before saying 'you're wrong'. I know I write a lot, I don't expect people to read everything, but you should at least have some awareness of what I'm actually claiming before attempting to prove it wrong. Sometimes people mischaracterize my ideas. I understand, naivety is innocent - if a person is initially polite to me, I give them 4 or 5 or 6 chances to take on board what I'm saying. If they persist with cherry picking or moving on to new points while ignoring the bulk of what I say, I generally start to assume they are being deliberately passive-aggressive and either have ill intent or are simply boneheaded. I have to draw the line somewhere.
3) Maybe, just maybe, do some actual testing yourself and come up with something to say of substance. I can think of two or three people in this thread who have so far. If nobody else is coming up with anything to show, how can you blame me for dominating the field?
I’ve actually read through all 20 pages of this thread. Giving advice on how to tweak FM26 files when you explicitly admit you don't even play or test the game makes zero sense. I wouldn't lecture someone on FC 26 based on secondhand findings from someone else. If you don't like FM26, just ignore it and let people who actively play and put thousands of hours into testing the current engine give proper feedback — like HarvestGreen does.
I respect FM-Arena's data and the massive effort behind automated holiday simulations in custom leagues. They offer a solid general direction, but they don't replace hands-on match-day management. I’ve signed plenty of players with "what used to be the best" ratings from custom GS files who completely flopped during an actual save — even while running an 84+ rated FM-Arena tactic. I had a similar experience with a high-physical striker generated thru FMSS in a top-rated tactic who scored 3 goals in 25 games.
Every FM engine has its ups and downs, but systems evolve. SI has to try new mechanics for the game to move forward, even if people like you dismiss it as "garbage."
And as for your "undeniable superiority" and "dominating the field" — you admitted yourself in Post #21 that you took HarvestGreen's data, fed it into ChatGPT, and had AI output an "approximation" of attribute distributions. Taking other people's hard work, running it through an AI engine and exporting a custom GS file for a game you don't even play isn't "dominating" anything. It's just prompt engineering. One day I'll just set an AI to play the game for me, drink a beer, and lecture everyone on how to play based on what the algorithm outputs — I'll be sure to tag you for the discussion!
People visit forums for different reasons, and if I want to learn on Reddit or SI Forums, I will. I'd rather learn from people doing actual ground-level testing than read AI-generated exports from someone who doesn't even play the game.
At the end of the day, how anyone chooses to run their save is entirely up to them. Cheers!
I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the work you're sharing here. I enjoy reading your results and testing your FM24 files (even if I'm using FM26), and I've found your contributions very useful.
Not everyone will agree with every method or conclusion, but I don't see the point of repeatedly criticizing something they could simply choose not to follow. If people don't enjoy the thread, they can always ignore it.
Please keep sharing your findings. There are definitely readers like me who appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
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.
Yarema said: "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.
I could be like those guys who put out one file, call it a day, and reap the patreon/'buy me a coffee' money for the next 2-3 years off various 'Ultimate FM26 Weightings Megapack' releases while vigorously defending the unalterable truth of my findings.
The god honest truth is that my releases are haphazard and change drastically because I actually put time and effort into finding new things and don't let myself fall into the trap of getting my knickers in a knot over 'b-but what will people think of me now'.
I don't know where you're getting this work rate 18 and stamina 12 thing from. The current weights have 63 work rate, 94 stamina.
Yarema said: Like do the tests and lets discuss if it makes sense, what are the limitations, can you approach it differently etc.
That is literally what I've been doing. It's people such as yourself and keithb who have been trying to interrupt and overwhelm things by constantly posting the same tired complaints of 'you're wrong.. you're just wrong, because I know you're wrong, okay?' over and over and over again. From my perspective, more posts in the thread draw more attention to it, and allows for a kind of dialetical process where I can address normal user's critiques that aren't voiced and also realize certain things I may have done mistakenly or glossed over on occasion. And it's a damn good feeling on those days when I can suddenly present solid data to blow the BS claims out of the water.
Here's a suggestion: Perhaps stop acting like you're the last thing standing between me and human decency, and instead start doing some testing of your own to either support your claims or otherwise complement my findings. Or if you're lazy or uninterested, which is perfectly fine, simply stop insisting on tired outdated BS like 'technicals still matter somewhat' or 'attributes are mostly linear'.
I want to say one more thing on the randomness point.
I tested teams in one league together consisting of 80%, 78%, 76%, and 74% rated players primarily because I wanted to speed the verification process up, but I also had some other reasons in mind. One was to test the 'its too random' theory.
It's one thing to say that Haaland finishes 1st to 4th reliably as a sole player in a largely controlled team. What about when you have a whole squad of real players that's both more variable and realistic - what happens to these small % distinctions then?
You can go back a few pages and see the results, but basically it turned out that even under these conditions, the results were reliably predictable. More than even I thought they would be to be honest. I thought it's probably going to be impossible to distinguish below ~5% difference, but there were clear distinctions even with just 2% Genie Scout difference.
The randomness was seemingly too overwhelming for you to distinguish factors, because you were assessing by the wrong factors. You were looking at league points and passing ability, rather than league position and anticipation, so overall it appeared too random to you to pin down.
You "test" using the best tactics and set pieces? You can get Darmstadt to win the bundesliga in the first season with that setup. Probably the double. You also take man city out of the picture. It's such an easy test, it barely proves anything. You don't even realise half the stuff you do is flawed. It's not even amateur.
Osimhen would easily outscore and get a better rating than Maeda.
keithb said: You "test" using the best tactics and set pieces? You can get Darmstadt to win the bundesliga in the first season with that setup. Probably the double. You also take man city out of the picture. It's such an easy test, it barely proves anything. You don't even realise half the stuff you do is flawed. It's not even amateur.
Osimhen would easily outscore and get a better rating than Maeda.
Darmstardt players have ~120 CA. The players I have added to Man City are ~90 CA. Most people use a top tactic I assume. But otherwise the 4 teams test (80%, 78%, 76%, 74%) suffices as proof of validity of the weightings whatever you take exception to, as no custom tactic, set pieces, nor custom players were used (completely default tactics, with squads of real players).
You are not even familiar with what you are arguing against.
I love how whenever Keith posts his burners post within minutes #Noticing
@keithb is totally right.
Testing players inside plug-and-play tactics proves the tactic is OP, not that attributes work like a magical spreadsheet. High Pace looks great on paper, but role fit, mental attributes, and relative league quality matter far more in practice.
Case in point: I used a striker with just 13–14 Pace/Acc in the Bulgarian league (where average CA starts around 95 and below). He scored 50+ goals a season, won 2 Ballon d'Ors, and helped me reach the Champions League every year—even winning it once. I eventually followed the popular advice to replace him with a 19–20 Pace/Acceleration player, and the speed replacement performed far worse overall simply because he didn't fit my tactic or have the same high Off the Ball and Composure.
With FM26 introducing distinct in-possession and out-of-possession roles, the devs clearly made squad and tactical fit far more critical than just hoarding fast players to break the engine. It's about how a player fits your system across both phases, not how high their physical stats can grow.
To be fair, you (George) are doing some great testing, and the results do show useful directions for squad improvement. Having a table that ranks attributes can definitely help players know what to prioritize. But I still don't believe that just stacking 5 attributes at 18–20 makes a player great. CA is capped at 200, so a player can't have half their stats maxed out and expect to be a complete monster without balance.
When i'm testing different tactics in a controlled testing league where every player had flat 13–14 stats, certain tactics still performed very well. Even when precision is minimized down to 1–1.5%, you can never fully eliminate RNG. Focusing strictly on raw physical players just isn't the right way to look at the game.
Angelski said: @keithb is totally right.
Testing players inside plug-and-play tactics proves the tactic is OP, not that attributes work like a magical spreadsheet.
It has been tested with default tactics.
Angelski said: High Pace looks great on paper, but role fit, mental attributes, and relative league quality matter far more in practice.
Roles do not exist. Even positions seem to have none or at most few attribute differences between each other, except for GK and position proficiency of course.
Edit: On reflection it might be an exaggeration to say that roles do not exist. But not by much. I guess you could point out that in meta tactics, roles are a part of it, and this not my domain. I guess what I really mean to say is that roles do not affect what attributes a player should get. So roles may have some tactical value, but you are clearly talking about getting players with attributes to fit roles, not tactical differences themselves.
Angelski said: Case in point: I used a striker with just 13–14 Pace/Acc in the Bulgarian league (where average CA starts around 95 and below). He scored 50+ goals a season, won 2 Ballon d'Ors, and helped me reach the Champions League every year—even winning it once. I eventually followed the popular advice to replace him with a 19–20 Pace/Acceleration player, and the speed replacement performed far worse overall simply because he didn't fit my tactic or have the same high Off the Ball and Composure.
The first part doesn't contradict my findings. In fact it is fully in line with my template which you can view on page 1, which shows 13-14 pace/acc is a viable minimum for the English Premier League, as exemplified by players such as Harry Kane and Robert Lewandowski.
The second part mistakes the causes. Unless you're simply playing a player completely out of position, tactics make use of all players the same way. Off the ball is a completely useless attribute that has been tested to have no effect, not just by me, but by both HarvestGreen and the FM Arena testing.
Angelski said: With FM26 introducing distinct in-possession and out-of-possession roles, the devs clearly made squad and tactical fit far more critical than just hoarding fast players to break the engine. It's about how a player fits your system across both phases, not how high their physical stats can grow.
I don't test FM26, but those who have tested it - HarvestGreen and FM Arena - have found that there are only a few minor differences in the effect of attributes, and that the new OOP thing is pretty much placebo. Again I haven't tested FM26 myself, but if the attributes effect remain largely the same as others have found, then 2/3rds of attributes remain completely useless and hoarding fast players to break the engine remains the way to go.. unless of course you prefer the more realistic and successful method, which is using my weights and following my templates. If anything, FM26 appears even more broken to me, as I notice all the top tactics are the same tactics that lack strikers and I've heard it said that they are, or at least were, more effective than Knap tactics in FM24. Maybe I'm wrong on that though, I don't play FM26 because it's hot garbage.
Angelski said: But I still don't believe that just stacking 5 attributes at 18–20 makes a player great. CA is capped at 200, so a player can't have half their stats maxed out and expect to be a complete monster without balance.
You should check out the thread where I have used a team of 1 CA players to consistently win the Premier League.
That was many months ago. Since then I've come up with a more realistic formula: No high pace/acc, no unrealistic attributes like say 16 dribbling, and a total of just ~90 CA on average. The template is on page 1, and yes, you can find similar players in the actual starting database to emulate the template - it would cost only a few mil to find and buy the right players straight off the bat to win the Premier League.
I don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm using attributes at 18-20. The template has no attribute above 15, and it's what I've been using in all my testing for ages now:
Angelski said: Even when precision is minimized down to 1–1.5%, you can never fully eliminate RNG. Focusing strictly on raw physical players just isn't the right way to look at the game.
Can't speak for you or anyone else, but 1% margin of error sounds good enough to me.
Please update yourself on the 'raw physical players' claim.
Rain said: I love how whenever Keith posts his burners post within minutes #Noticing
You're the funniest without a doubt. This is your track record:
You tagged me in a thread I wasn't in and then later said someone was rent free in my head haha. Anyway it was nice of you to think of me.
Only a few days ago you said that the DM's I'd received from other people, that I wasn't going to publish or say who sent them, were from my burners. But as I explained, not sure if it understand yet or not (?), if I'm not going to publish or name people I can just lie about receiving them. It would be pretty mad to send myself DM's from burner's. Haha
And now you're saying long-standing members of this website are in fact my burners that I set up years ago, just in case I ever needed to back myself up?
Do you maybe have someone who can read your posts before you hit 'post reply'?
Oh and the kicker is you've used a hashtag, this isn't twitter or whatever you use, and it said "noticing". Well once again the irony is another level. ROFL!! How do you do it? And it comes naturally!?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Darmstardt players have ~120 CA. The players I have added to Man City are ~90 CA. Most people use a top tactic I assume. But otherwise the 4 teams test (80%, 78%, 76%, 74%) suffices as proof of validity of the weightings whatever you take exception to, as no custom tactic, set pieces, nor custom players were used (completely default tactics, with squads of real players).
You are not even familiar with what you are arguing against.
You don't even understand basic points. You often say the other person doesn't understand what they're talking about haha. Using some flimsy reasoning. Just like when you said stamina wasn't important and was the most confident you've ever been. Fast forward a few months and you've rated it 90+ out of 100 lol.
Once again, as always, you're very confident you're correct. Just like you are every, single time. Only to change your mind completely soon after haha.
Half the time you just throw something out that is clearly something you've just made up. For weeks you kept saying how shit Mbappe was in your tests, because I'd said he was excellent, and now you have him as your second best striker. And you state stuff I say is embarrassing 😂😂.
Anyway looking forward to your next set of theories in a few more weeks?
Any comment on Kyle Walker being your top rated centre back using genie scout? You'd previously posted with certainty, that if your centre backs have jumping reach lower than 13/14 you'll get relegated. His jumping reach is 11. That's your top rated centre back
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed
A few quick points because you're completely contradicting yourself here:
FM26 & OOP Roles: You explicitly stated "I don't test FM26" and "I don't play FM26 because it's hot garbage." Calling the in-possession and out-of-possession mechanics "placebo" based on FM24 assumptions and second-hand opinions isn't data—it's guesswork. In FM26, if a player lacks positional discipline during phase transitions, they break the team's defensive structure, regardless of speed.
"Roles Don't Exist": Claiming roles don't exist in FM ignores how the match engine assigns spatial duties, pressing triggers and movement patterns. Attributes are processed through those role instructions—they don't operate in a vacuum.
Off the Ball & CA Exploits: Calling Off the Ball "completely useless" and boasting about winning the Premier League with a 1 CA / 90 CA team proves @keithb's point: your setup is exploiting match engine pathfinding via broken tactics. When a tactic does 95% of the heavy lifting, claiming your changing attribute weights caused the win is pure confirmation bias.
Templates & Balance: My point about CA balance still stands. My striker had 13–14 Pace/Acc and dominated in Europe because his high Mentals fit my tactic. Swapping him for a 19–20 Pace player with lower Off the Ball/Composure dropped performance—because raw physicals without tactical fit don't magically win matches in dynamic play.
Honestly, I came here hoping to learn something, but reading through all of this has completely killed my desire to stay in this thread or engage with the forum. It's exhausting trying to discuss normal, proper gameplay when someone running 50,000 automated holiday sims insists you're playing the wrong way unless you intentionally break the match engine.
Probably the worst thing that has happened is recently. You've actually missed quoted or misrepresented what harvest green has said, or their data has said. This is someone who has put so much time and effort into this community and a huge amount of people have learned so much from it. At various times they have said they're tired or don't have the time to do more tests. And yet they have come back and carried out more testing for the benefit of all of us.
It is despicable that you would stoop this low. Several people have pointed out you've misrepresented their data or just flat out lied about what they said.
Harvest green revolutionised training. You have done nothing. Nothing at all. But I'm not surprised in the slightest that you would go this far. You still do and say anything to protect your appalling testing and results and endless lies.
And one more thing: if there's already a well-known attribute table showing how the match engine weighs everything, and the engine hasn't even changed, why are we even having this discussion?
If you're going to run thousands of tests anyway, at least BE CREATIVE—go build the ultimate broken tactic to crush the match engine instead of running endless simulations just to prove everyone else is playing wrong.
I came here hoping to actually learn something useful, but watching someone obsessively test a "garbage game" they claim not to play is certainly a choice. Sure, the devs make mistakes, but at least their bugs can be patched. Whatever logic you're using here can't be fixed.
I was trying to be friendly and share a genuine player's perspective, but I won't waste another minute in this thread. I'm off to read something actually worth my time.
Angelski said: A few quick points because you're completely contradicting yourself here:
FM26 & OOP Roles: You explicitly stated "I don't test FM26" and "I don't play FM26 because it's hot garbage." Calling the in-possession and out-of-possession mechanics "placebo" based on FM24 assumptions and second-hand opinions isn't data—it's guesswork. In FM26, if a player lacks positional discipline during phase transitions, they break the team's defensive structure, regardless of speed.
You don't trust FM Arena's testing on this?
That's not a contradiction on my part, that's a disagreement between us.
Angelski said: "Roles Don't Exist": Claiming roles don't exist in FM ignores how the match engine assigns spatial duties, pressing triggers, and movement patterns. Attributes are processed through those role instructions—they don't operate in a vacuum.
Yes.. as you can see by the last edit time of the post you're responding to, I had a change of mind about which I submitted the same time you posted your response.
So I don't expect you to have seen it yet of course, but I'll restate the clarification I wish to make: Roles do exist as tactical differences, but you were denoting attributes which better fit roles, which is a different kettle of fish. Attributes do not fit certain roles better. I know this from experience testing, but I believe FM Arena has also tested this and I could dig it up if you like.
Angelski said: Off the Ball & CA Exploits: Calling Off the Ball "completely useless" and boasting about winning the Premier League with a 1 CA / 90 CA team proves @keithb's point: your setup is exploiting match engine pathfinding via broken tactics. When a tactic does 95% of the heavy lifting, claiming your changing attribute weights caused the win is pure confirmation bias.
You seem to have just completely ignored the first line of my response to you.
I'll state it again: It has been tested with default tactics.
..and to a precision of just 2% GS rating difference!
Angelski said: Templates & Balance: My point about CA balance still stands. My striker had 13–14 Pace/Acc and dominated in Europe because his high Mentals fit my tactic. Swapping him for a 19–20 Pace player with lower Off the Ball/Composure dropped performance—because raw physicals without tactical fit don't magically win matches in dynamic play.
And how do you that it was off the ball or composure specifically? Was the player identical, or even similar in every other respect?
I can tell you now that off the ball, or even composure, is not going to account for a 20 pace/acc player being worse than 13 pace/acc player.
But putting that aside, you're not proving anything. You're talking as though I have said 13-14 pace/acc players can't be near perfect players. I have stated the opposite of that, and if you actually took the time read the last 2 pages of this thread, you'd see I've been trying to make the specific point that I think the established narrative that pace/acc is everything should be regarded as outdated.
You've just barged in here and started yelling about how I'm wrong on the basis of claims I'm not even making. That's the part that gets me, not so much the naivety around the attributes, but castigating me when you clearly haven't even read what I've written. Bizarre!
Angelski said: Honestly, I came here hoping to learn something, but reading through all of this has completely killed my desire to stay in this thread or engage with the forum. It's exhausting trying to discuss normal, proper gameplay when someone running 50,000 automated holiday sims insists you're playing the wrong way unless you intentionally break the match engine.
Aw.. you poor thing.
Maybe I suggest r/footballmanagergames? Or perhaps more up your alley of falsehoods, sensitivity and low effort, the SI forums?
But if you do decide to stick around here, perhaps don't just go in bullheaded saying 'YOU'RE WRONG' with nothing to back up it but confabulations to the person you're choosing to address?
Angelski said: And one more thing: if there's already a well-known attribute table showing how the match engine weighs everything, and the engine hasn't even changed, why are we even having this discussion?
That table refers to the CA weights. In this thread recently, we are talking about attribute weightings. They are two different things. CA weights largely determine the cost of an attribute in CA; attribute weightings reflect the importance of a particular attribute in terms of performance.
Angelski said: I came here hoping to actually learn something useful, but watching someone obsessively test a "garbage game" they claim not to play is certainly a choice.
There's plenty here that's useful, and much of it is derived from the extensive testing you deride. I test FM24, not FM26. I didn't say FM24 is a garbage game, even though it does have its shortcomings, I said FM26 is.
Angelski said: I was trying to be friendly and share a genuine player's perspective
Perhaps that was your intention, but I can't help but feel a bit miffed when I'm mischaracterized. Especially when you start by saying the guy who has been harassing me and lying about me for months on end, is 'totally right'. Hope you understand, if you ever do come back to read this.
You literally said yourself in previous posts that FM26 is "hot garbage" and that you don't even play it. I'll just leave that there so anyone reading this can decide for themselves how much weight to give your advice.
Can you give examples of where I've lied about you? I have given multiple examples of where you've lied about me and what I've said.
I await your reply and evidence. Obviously I will be waiting a long time.......... Can you post that DM I sent you as well?
Can you also post these default tactics you used in tests? Maybe pics and the tactics file?
It wasn't this one? https://fm-arena.com/thread/7499-fm24-preset-4231-gegenpress/
Angelski said: You literally said yourself in previous posts that FM26 is "hot garbage" and that you don't even play it. I'll just leave that there so anyone reading this can decide for themselves how much weight to give your advice.
This shouldn't be news to anyone who has been following my posts here.
People have asked me for FM26 GS files over time, and I have to tell them that I don't really do FM26 files because I can't test FM26 and can only provide at best some sort of adjustment based on what HarvestGreen's findings are (now there are also FM Arena test results to go by). It does work though, I'm quite sure, because attributes/the match engine in FM26 hasn't really changed much. I just can't say anything with the same certainty in regards to FM26.
Pretty sure I've always made it clear that I test in FM24 only.
You've just rocked up and are claiming I'm wrong without reading anything I've actually written. I mean what kind of response from me did you expect?
Quite a few people here seem to be having trouble communicating with me. I'm not particularly upset or dismayed. In fact I rather relish the opportunities to demonstrate my undeniable superiority. But I do somewhat wish there were more productive debates, which I know have occurred before at times and are therefore possible.
Here are a few suggestions I have for communicating with me:
1) Don't call me retarded, or praise those who call me retarded, if you want me to be pleasant instead of terse towards you. I enjoy 'FM Arena' living up to its name, but expect me to respond in kind, rather than expect me to submit to passive-aggressive shenanigans and the like.
2) Actually comprehend my claims before saying 'you're wrong'. I know I write a lot, I don't expect people to read everything, but you should at least have some awareness of what I'm actually claiming before attempting to prove it wrong. Sometimes people mischaracterize my ideas. I understand, naivety is innocent - if a person is initially polite to me, I give them 4 or 5 or 6 chances to take on board what I'm saying. If they persist with cherry picking or moving on to new points while ignoring the bulk of what I say, I generally start to assume they are being deliberately passive-aggressive and either have ill intent or are simply boneheaded. I have to draw the line somewhere.
3) Maybe, just maybe, do some actual testing yourself and come up with something to say of substance. I can think of two or three people in this thread who have so far. If nobody else is coming up with anything to show, how can you blame me for dominating the field?
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
I’ve actually read through all 20 pages of this thread. Giving advice on how to tweak FM26 files when you explicitly admit you don't even play or test the game makes zero sense. I wouldn't lecture someone on FC 26 based on secondhand findings from someone else. If you don't like FM26, just ignore it and let people who actively play and put thousands of hours into testing the current engine give proper feedback — like HarvestGreen does.
I respect FM-Arena's data and the massive effort behind automated holiday simulations in custom leagues. They offer a solid general direction, but they don't replace hands-on match-day management. I’ve signed plenty of players with "what used to be the best" ratings from custom GS files who completely flopped during an actual save — even while running an 84+ rated FM-Arena tactic. I had a similar experience with a high-physical striker generated thru FMSS in a top-rated tactic who scored 3 goals in 25 games.
Every FM engine has its ups and downs, but systems evolve. SI has to try new mechanics for the game to move forward, even if people like you dismiss it as "garbage."
And as for your "undeniable superiority" and "dominating the field" — you admitted yourself in Post #21 that you took HarvestGreen's data, fed it into ChatGPT, and had AI output an "approximation" of attribute distributions. Taking other people's hard work, running it through an AI engine and exporting a custom GS file for a game you don't even play isn't "dominating" anything. It's just prompt engineering. One day I'll just set an AI to play the game for me, drink a beer, and lecture everyone on how to play based on what the algorithm outputs — I'll be sure to tag you for the discussion!
People visit forums for different reasons, and if I want to learn on Reddit or SI Forums, I will. I'd rather learn from people doing actual ground-level testing than read AI-generated exports from someone who doesn't even play the game.
At the end of the day, how anyone chooses to run their save is entirely up to them. Cheers!
Hi George,
I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the work you're sharing here. I enjoy reading your results and testing your FM24 files (even if I'm using FM26), and I've found your contributions very useful.
Not everyone will agree with every method or conclusion, but I don't see the point of repeatedly criticizing something they could simply choose not to follow. If people don't enjoy the thread, they can always ignore it.
Please keep sharing your findings. There are definitely readers like me who appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
Thanks!