GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 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! Expand
Any chance you might answer any of the 12+ questions you always ignore from me?
Anyway
1.) Who called you retarded? Have you made this up again? Did it happen in your fantasy world? You dont respond in kind to a lot of people, so its utterly ridiculous to expect anyone to talk to you in that way.
2.) You tell people they are wrong all the time, only last week for example. Get serious lol. You have no grounds to do so. So if we all start doing our own testing, we can then declare you wrong all the time?
3.) People dont have to do their own testing. Its already been done by people with a proven track record, something you dont and probably never will have. In the real world, not the fantasy one you live in, people call on past experiments, tests, standings and rulings as evidence to say well no thats not correct. It might be its already been proven to be false, or the test has been tried and failed. So no one has to do their own testing, but they can use other peoples testing to say that yours is wrong and awful. Its not complicated.
There's a good chance this whole thing is a troll, you're actually a child or just not very well. Or some of two or all three. Something isn't quite right thats for sure.
The forum and its most interesting threads were overflowed with people criticizing the approach of a user who constantly analyzes the game for players and tries to provide value. Now there are four of them. As someone who regularly follows the entire forum, I haven’t gained the slightest benefit from this group of four, nor have I seen a single analysis from them.
Right or wrong, it doesn’t matter, keep up the analysis, George. And please don’t pay any attention to all these people. Also, there’s one more thing I need to thank you for: you’re truly a patient guy.
Because of these guys, it’s become harder for regular users to follow the forum. For my part, I’ll try to ignore their posts by finding a way and just read the analyses.
keithb said: Any chance you might answer any of the 12+ questions you always ignore from me?
Anyway
1.) Who called you retarded? Have you made this up again? Did it happen in your fantasy world? You dont respond in kind to a lot of people, so its utterly ridiculous to expect anyone to talk to you in that way.
2.) You tell people they are wrong all the time, only last week for example. Get serious lol. You have no grounds to do so. So if we all start doing our own testing, we can then declare you wrong all the time?
3.) People dont have to do their own testing. Its already been done by people with a proven track record, something you dont and probably never will have. In the real world, not the fantasy one you live in, people call on past experiments, tests, standings and rulings as evidence to say well no thats not correct. It might be its already been proven to be false, or the test has been tried and failed. So no one has to do their own testing, but they can use other peoples testing to say that yours is wrong and awful. Its not complicated.
There's a good chance this whole thing is a troll, you're actually a child or just not very well. Or some of two or all three. Something isn't quite right thats for sure. Expand
Hi there,
For the last time, using the post above as an example I'll try to explain what kind of communication is not acceptable on this forum.
First of all, being wrong about something in FM is a pretty normal thing. It happens all the time. Even the game developers sometimes are wrong about how the things work in the game because there might be bugs the which are unknown to them.
I don't want even mention us regular folks that don't have access to the game code, we are wrong about things in FM A LOT and this isn't a crime and no one should be attacked for being wrong about things in FM.
If you think that someone is wrong about something in FM, feel free to point at his mistakes and what's mostly important explain why he is wrong and THAT'S ENOUGH no need to use personal insults like "you're a child", "you're a troll" and so on, no need to zealously convince him that you're right and he's wrong.
Also, feel free to ask questions but if someone doesn't want to answer your questions then he is free not to do that, he is not obliged to answer your answer or communicate with you. You shouldn't attack someone for not answering your questions or refusing to communicate with you.
When you think someone is breaking the forum rules or insulting you then you SHOULD NOT fight it out in public, instead you should contact the moderators, for example, you can contact me via a personal message.
I hope my words are taken seriously and we won't back to it in the future.
( edited 17 hours, 33 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#604
Link to the post:
Angelski said: 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. Expand I think you're painting an inaccurate picture.
You mentioned in a post previously that I should do something actually useful, such as find the ultimate tactic. I actually have had a go at doing that once this year, and found that I couldn't beat Knap's tactic. I did test some other top FM24 tactics though, and found one or two that seemingly do better. I also had a go at set pieces. But I don't talk much about tactics at all really, because I have no real insight into it. So I don't just profess to know things willy nilly.
The specific areas I concentrate on are:
- Attributes - Training - Newgen generation
I can profess to know to a large extent about how attributes work in FM26 because it's clear nothing has changed fundamentally. The biggest difference is something like long shots going from completely useless to near useless. Sure, secondhand findings can be wrong, but based on doing a lot of testing myself, I have a reasonable amount of faith in HarvestGreen's findings because usually it aligns what what I find. And it depends on what it is - if HarvestGreen's talking about outfield attributes, I'll take his word. If it's GK, I'll ignore it because I know his methodology on GK is no good.
I could have chosen to simply put out FM26 files out there without mentioning that I can't verify the weightings. Who would be able to tell the difference?
The accurate picture is that I test FM24, and FM26 is largely the same to FM24 when it comes to attributes, and that I have always cautioned people that if I offer a FM26 file, it is the FM24 findings with perhaps some tweaks based on other's FM26 data added.
Angelski said: 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." Expand Another trigger point for me.
SI is an absolute disgrace, and I won't let this regurgitated marketing spiel get past me. If you choose to blow money on the broken game that is FM26, that's your problem. And my condolences to those who pre-ordered.
But I'm not going to sit here and listen to someone say SI is 'trying new mechanics' or that the game is simply going through 'ups and downs'. FM26 debuted as the 7th worst rated steam game in history and lost half of its users after the first month for a reason.
There are no new mechanics. I don't count OOP as a new mechanic, because it's placebo. The underlying match engine has simply been transposed with only the usual yearly tweaks of 'lets make long shots a little more important, and that a little less important'. That's why exploit tactics continue to destroy FM. Literally everything is the exact same, even the 3D graphics to me look roughly the same even though some people see it as some great improvement for whatever reason. The only substantive change has been the UI, and it's ruined the game.
The actual enjoyable parts of the game - newgen crafting, immersive narrative, attention to detail - have been methodically disassembled over the years, and FM26 represents a new low that is so bad it's literally intolerable to play for many to most. They replaced % with vague heart icons. Press conferences.. nuff said. They made transfer dealing a pain in the ass with Brexit before Brexit even happened in real life, and tedious agent, club and players interactions where they're not happy with anything - not even what sounds sensible to a reasonable person. We all know what happened to newgen faces. And they changed newgen generation so if you want to reload them, you have to go back months, and now in FM26 my initial impression having glanced through the demo is that the youth team is hidden behind so many mouse clicks that don't even want to bother dealing with newgens at all anymore - I heard that when FM26 was released, you literally couldn't even access the youth team properly!
And the heart of the game turns out to be a lie. For years we've been playing like some complex interplay between passing, decisions, vision, etc. is going on.. when in fact all of that is placebo not even taken into account by the match engine, and actually SI have deliberately been misleading its users - we know this because the players in the starting db have sets of attributes that just so happen to align perfectly with the reduced set of effectual attributes in my template. Exploit tactics put a stopper to much of the game's enjoyment years ago. The challenge is gone. I moved on to newgens, and discovered that a lot of the factors here are baloney too - for instance SI claim youth facilities affect PA; they simply don't. I still enjoy FM24 when I do play, mainly because I can raise up newgens from Div 7 to Div 1, but that seems pretty much dead now with FM26.
I could write a whole book on it. I basically already have here, but there's just so many bad things. The short of it is that the game has devolved into a mess that is too tedious to play, and in all likelihood could very well go broke and die off in the next year or two. But we'll see what FM27 looks like. Personally I expect a rehash of FM26 and further 'product diversification' as we see with the much more polished FMDB Pro they've evidently been spending a lot more of their time on, and I think shows their level of respect for you.
Angelski said: 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. Expand I assume you are talking about a recent post, in which case I did not use HarvestGreen's data, but my own. And I ended up discarding what ChatGPT had to say, as I was getting better results alone.
If you're talking about something months ago, I can't recall, but sometimes I do use ChatGPT to do calculations. It often has errors with complicated calculations though, so usually I use it as one would a calculator - say I want to quickly calculate 15 rows of calculations instead of manually doing '(3x3.68)x110' myself.
So a dud argument from you here. Even if it was valid, say I used AI to get half of my insights.. would that even be a problem, if it was producing valid results? AI is obviously being used a lot now, even by big companies who pay people to do work for them. Overall I think you've chosen to make a very weak point to stand on.
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.
I won't comment on your manifesto—I really don't care about the nonsense. I shared my opinion, you shared yours, and that's it. I'm here for the game, so I'll stop the debate here. Tell me, what is the most optimal way of playing FM26? Let's discuss the actual game. Some people test C++ code and get results, others build tools like FM Super Scout, and you do research—everyone has their results. After 21 pages, I assume you've found the proper way FM26 should actually be played? (It's not irony, I'm not being rude, not trying to ruin the thread)
( edited 16 hours, 8 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#606
Link to the post:
Meet Walter.
Walter plays GK without reflexes. Nice one Walter.
I've got the GKs lining up quite nicely now, but there are some issues at the bottom end. Could be because of the sackings messing up the data, could be for other reasons.
I picked Walter Benitez to test because he had a high % score but only 15 reflexes, and he slots in between Oblak and ter Stegen, which is exactly what my draft set of new GK weightings predicted.
90% | Alisson - 6th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 4 position 87% | Thibaut Courtois - 3rd, 7th, 2nd, 5th, 8th = 5 position 85% | Jan Oblak - 5th, 8th, 6th, 4th, 3rd = 5.2 position 84% | Walter Benitez - 4th, 9th, 4th, 6th, 5th = 5.6 position 85% | Ugurcan Cakir GK - 7th, 9th, 2nd = 6 position 82% | Marc-Andre ter Stegen - 10th, 11th, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 6.4 position 80% | Anatolii Trubin - 15th (sacked), 6th, 4th (sacked), 5th = 7.5 position 61% | Jack Stevens - 13th (sacked), 4th, 9th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 8.4 position 77% | Sinan Bolat - 4th, 2nd, 19th (sacked), 5th, 14th (sacked), 9th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 5th = 8.75 position 70% | Ben Winterbottom - 10th (sacked), 5th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 18th (sacked) = 11.25 position
To be honest though, reflexes seem to be making something of a comeback. As you'll see in my weightings below, I've had to set it very high to align the positions. Also surprising was that flair might possibly be an important attribute for GK. I derived this from player comparison, and was more willing to try it out because I know that technique is important for GK but not outfield. Concentration and determination also appear to be more critical than first thought. It could all just be confusion of attributes though, I'm just satisfied at the moment that I've got something that seems to line up most players well - it correctly predicted 2 goalkeepers I tested afterwards, which is promising.
Back to the reflexes matter though, what seems to be going on is this: Aerial Reach is crucial at the mid-high level. But once have the 15 aerial reach or around that, then reflexes become the pre-eminant consideration at the very high level (so 15 vs. 19 reflexes). As Benitez shows, you can still do very well without green reflexes, but the extra reflexes will push a player above and beyond to the very top if they have everything else that's required at a mid-high level. That's my reading of it. HarvestGreen's data also makes more sense in light of this hypothesis, because what that showed is that having all attributes at 20, and reducing an attribute to 1, reflexes showed a 12.8% difference.. which is what we see here is the difference between Benitez and Alisson (if we surmise the range is 4 to 11 position, then Alisson is 23% better than Benitez). Note that it remains true that green reflexes alone aren't sufficient for a GK, as evidenced by Bolat (16 ref) & ter Stegen (18 ref).
( edited 16 hours, 12 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#607
Link to the post:
Angelski said: I won't comment on your manifesto—I really don't care about the nonsense. I shared my opinion, you shared yours, and that's it. I'm here for the game, so I'll stop the debate here. Tell me, what is the most optimal way of playing FM26? Let's discuss the actual game. Some people test C++ code and get results, others build tools like FM Super Scout, and you do research—everyone has their results. After 21 pages, I assume you've found the proper way FM26 should actually be played? (It's not irony, I'm not being rude, not trying to ruin the thread) Expand How you choose to play the game is up to you.
What I can tell you is:
1) What attributes to look for (what works, what doesnt) 2) What training to use 3) What leagues to load 4) What to do about loans 5) How to manage squad fitness 6) How to get the most out of newgens 7) How to manage morale 8) What weights to use in GS/FMST/FMSS
Most of it is in the OP.
I've also done some pretty deep research into the game that I can share - history, misc info, quirks of the game, etc. from Masonic ties the game has, to the state of Israel putting out a statement condemning Miles' politics-based decision of removing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from the game, to the 3D newgen face modeler which you can download a usable demo of (they don't use an in-house program), to SI's inclusion of racist data and subsequent cover up, to somewhat obscure features such as searching for 'faceinthegame' to find all the newgens taking their details from SI staff/volunteers/etc in real life. Probably only a few people like me care about this extra stuff though.
There are a lot of topics here, but I think managing newgens is the main focus to me. Do you have any deep-dive posts or research on newgens that I could read in the thread?
As I see it, there are two main development paths for promising newgens i use to follow:
Keep them in the first team: Use them as backups immediately. This gives you control over their setup, but you risk limiting their development if they don't get enough match context.
Send them out on loan: This gets them minutes, but you run the risk that the loan club won't play them enough or train them properly.
In rarest occassion, I've used the rest exploit combined with quickness individual training on youths while letting the U18 manager handle match time, and their attributes grew quickly. I read somewhere that a youth player's attributes can only grow by a maximum of 25 points per season, but when tracking some of my own wonderkids, I noticed their total attribute growth actually exceeded 25 points. It's not a single case, for a 10 season-long save i got like 4-5 players that became monsters in 2 season, even got first-team GK from youth team at age of 16 and at 18 i sold him to Chelsea.
johnconnerson said: Do you plan to include these GK weightings into your latest Genie Scout file? Expand Yes, I'll be calling it Premier League 2.1
I'm thinking I might have a go at some further tests of players and adjustments first, particularly for players at the lower end, before I put it out in a day or two.
( edited 15 hours, 36 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#611
Link to the post:
Angelski said: There are a lot of topics here, but I think managing newgens is the main focus to me. Do you have any deep-dive posts or research on newgens that I could read in the thread?
As I see it, there are two main development paths for promising newgens i use to follow:
Keep them in the first team: Use them as backups immediately. This gives you control over their setup, but you risk limiting their development if they don't get enough match context.
Send them out on loan: This gets them minutes, but you run the risk that the loan club won't play them enough or train them properly.
In rarest occassion, I've used the rest exploit combined with quickness individual training on youths while letting the U18 manager handle match time, and their attributes grew quickly. I read somewhere that a youth player's attributes can only grow by a maximum of 25 points per season, but when tracking some of my own wonderkids, I noticed their total attribute growth actually exceeded 25 points. It's not a single case, for a 10 season-long save i got like 4-5 players that became monsters in 2 season, even got first-team GK from youth team at age of 16 and at 18 i sold him to Chelsea. Expand So newgens are actually what I know best about.
My first thread here was actually about newgen mechanics, and I started looking deep into it many years ago now.
If you want to get really deep into it, I have explanations even of how newgens interact with geography in the game, and how that all of that complicated process is actually just superficial - it's all just in the end to set birth location and language and whatnot.
But you seem interested in specifically young player development. I have long posts that address in detail the questions you raise, but I'll just give a direct concise answer:
According to EBFM, and another youtuber who did data analysis of FM.. and I think HarvestGreen too.. CA growth is indeed capped at ~25 CA/season. You say you have exceeded that cap. It might be possible; we know there are exceptions that occur in regards to match fitness gains during matches, so CA growth could be the same. I'd doubt you got beyond say ~30 though.
The best way to handle young players is this: Keep at club until at least 19. 19-20, you can loan them out or keep them at club, both are fine. 21+ you have to loan out, or play at least 15 matches/season in first team. Matches are counted as 90 minutes, so a 80th minute substitution 15 times is going to count as less than 2 matches, not 15. It's best to loan to an inactive club if possible, because there is a coded bonus for it which just makes it superior, but the more important thing is that whatever club you loan to, you have to make sure they actually get matches. No matches, zero CA gain. Too low a league, and the CA gain will cap out at a certain CA level dependent on the league's reputation. Match rating makes no difference to their CA gain. So loans should be about playing at as high a level as possible, without risking them not starting matches.
Rather than read longwinded posts, you may be better off starting with, or simply viewing as an alternative, EBFM's youtube videos. There's a lot of great stuff there that largely remains valid and goes quite deep.
Hey @GeorgeFloydOverdosed! I’m messaging you again to ask for your opinion, sorry to bother you.
I wanted to know if you’ve had the chance to form a strong opinion on FMST vs FMSS. Which one seems more accurate to you, and generally speaking, which one do you think is the better tool to use?
Personally, I’m using FMSS, which is why I wanted to get your comparative opinion. Since we know GS is bugged, I’m not including it anymore because I’ve stopped using it.
I’m currently using your new ratings on FMSS as well. Thanks for all the research you’ve been doing, by the way, you’re doing a great job. Keep it up, man!
I wanted to know if you’ve had the chance to form a strong opinion on FMST vs FMSS. Which one seems more accurate to you, and generally speaking, which one do you think is the better tool to use? Expand I don't have an opinion of which is better, but I'm using FMST right now because I can put in more sophisticated weighting formulas easier
( edited 12 hours, 38 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#614
Link to the post:
90% | Alisson - 6th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 4 position 85% | Thibaut Courtois - 3rd, 7th, 2nd, 5th, 8th = 5 position 83% | Jan Oblak - 5th, 8th, 6th, 4th, 3rd = 5.2 position 83% | Walter Benitez - 4th, 9th, 4th, 6th, 5th = 5.6 position 83% | Ugurcan Cakir - 7th, 9th, 2nd = 6 position 80% | Ederson - 6th, 6th, 4th, 8th, 7th (sacked), 7th (sacked) = 6.333 position 82% | Marc-Andre ter Stegen - 10th, 11th, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 6.4 position 78% | Anatolii Trubin - 15th (sacked), 6th, 4th (sacked), 5th = 7.5 position 70% | Davy Roef - 13th (sacked), 4th, 14th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 1st = 7.6 position 61% | Jack Stevens - 13th (sacked), 4th, 9th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 8.4 position 76% | Sinan Bolat - 4th, 2nd, 19th (sacked), 5th, 14th (sacked), 9th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 5th = 8.75 position 68% | Ben Winterbottom - 10th (sacked), 5th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 18th (sacked) = 11.25 position
Adjustments were made to accommodate Ederson, who has gone from 76% > 80%. Ederson is an interesting case, because he's at a top team (Man City), yet predicted to be relatively low, and is quite low in what has been considered the key 3 attributes (aer, ref, agil).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I've got the GKs lining up quite nicely now, but there are some issues at the bottom end. Could be because of the sackings messing up the data, could be for other reasons. Expand
Why don't you make yourself unsackable with fmrte to avoid this ?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I don't have an opinion of which is better, but I'm using FMST right now because I can put in more sophisticated weighting formulas easier Expand
Purity said: Why don't you make yourself unsackable with fmrte to avoid this ? Expand I don't have paid FMRTE. I don't know if the trial version can do that.
I could redo my database edit to use Luton instead of Man City, but it's more work than it's worth. I'm not particularly concerned about the sackings and lower GK results at the moment. If I did rule out sackings as the cause, I would be left with the problem of elevating GKs with middling stats, which I can't think of an obvious solution to at the moment. Which means I'd have to spend a lot of time coming up with sophisticated formulas. So I don't want to go down that path right now.
I have limited time and energy, and of what remains to be done, I think it's more important to get jump on DC assessed next, and then verifying the hypothesis that all the positions share the same attribute requirements - and if not, finding those differences.
bf3metro said: FMST more accurate or just simpler for you? Expand FMSS someone has said you can add code to make it do the same calculations, so FMST is not less accurate, but FMST allows me to add some complexity more easily right now. I can some utilize some complex operations in FMST without research - with FMSS, I'd have to investigate how to program it.
I've started testing DC. I've started with Jules Kounde, as he has the highest rating with 13 jumping reach and the first thing I want to know is high jump reach on DCs still a valid requirement. Then I did one of the highest rated natural proficiency DCs who did have pretty high jumping reach of 16, Araujo.
82% | Kim Min Jae - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position 83% | Ronald Araujo - 4th, 8th, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 4.6 position 79% | Jules Kounde - 5th, 4th, 7th 5th, 3rd = 4.8 position
So it's looking like high jumping reach isn't strictly necessary, and that the same set of weights works for every position, but still need to do a few more players to adequately demonstrate the latter.
Does one position contribute more than another? Compared to the STs, it seems as though DC is roughly ~1 position off, and the same was true of DR. And it's even clearer that GKs contribute less than STs, to getting higher position at least. The most likely explanation to my mind is that defenders do contribute less to winning than STs, because their focus is on not losing (defending). It'll be interesting to see if wingers reflect this once I test them.
Walter plays GK without reflexes. Nice one Walter.
I've got the GKs lining up quite nicely now, but there are some issues at the bottom end. Could be because of the sackings messing up the data, could be for other reasons.
I picked Walter Benitez to test because he had a high % score but only 15 reflexes, and he slots in between Oblak and ter Stegen, which is exactly what my draft set of new GK weightings predicted.
90% | Alisson - 6th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 4 position 87% | Thibaut Courtois - 3rd, 7th, 2nd, 5th, 8th = 5 position 85% | Jan Oblak - 5th, 8th, 6th, 4th, 3rd = 5.2 position 84% | Walter Benitez - 4th, 9th, 4th, 6th, 5th = 5.6 position 85% | Ugurcan Cakir GK - 7th, 9th, 2nd = 6 position 82% | Marc-Andre ter Stegen - 10th, 11th, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 6.4 position 80% | Anatolii Trubin - 15th (sacked), 6th, 4th (sacked), 5th = 7.5 position 61% | Jack Stevens - 13th (sacked), 4th, 9th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 8.4 position 77% | Sinan Bolat - 4th, 2nd, 19th (sacked), 5th, 14th (sacked), 9th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 5th = 8.75 position 70% | Ben Winterbottom - 10th (sacked), 5th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 18th (sacked) = 11.25 position
To be honest though, reflexes seem to be making something of a comeback. As you'll see in my weightings below, I've had to set it very high to align the positions. Also surprising was that flair might possibly be an important attribute for GK. I derived this from player comparison, and was more willing to try it out because I know that technique is important for GK but not outfield. Concentration and determination also appear to be more critical than first thought. It could all just be confusion of attributes though, I'm just satisfied at the moment that I've got something that seems to line up most players well - it correctly predicted 2 goalkeepers I tested afterwards, which is promising.
Back to the reflexes matter though, what seems to be going on is this: Aerial Reach is crucial at the mid-high level. But once have the 15 aerial reach or around that, then reflexes become the pre-eminant consideration at the very high level (so 15 vs. 19 reflexes). As Benitez shows, you can still do very well without green reflexes, but the extra reflexes will push a player above and beyond to the very top if they have everything else that's required at a mid-high level. That's my reading of it. HarvestGreen's data also makes more sense in light of this hypothesis, because what that showed is that having all attributes at 20, and reducing an attribute to 1, reflexes showed a 12.8% difference.. which is what we see here is the difference between Benitez and Alisson (if we surmise the range is 4 to 11 position, then Alisson is 23% better than Benitez). Note that it remains true that green reflexes alone aren't sufficient for a GK, as evidenced by Bolat (16 ref) & ter Stegen (18 ref).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 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!
Any chance you might answer any of the 12+ questions you always ignore from me?
Anyway
1.) Who called you retarded? Have you made this up again? Did it happen in your fantasy world? You dont respond in kind to a lot of people, so its utterly ridiculous to expect anyone to talk to you in that way.
2.) You tell people they are wrong all the time, only last week for example. Get serious lol. You have no grounds to do so. So if we all start doing our own testing, we can then declare you wrong all the time?
3.) People dont have to do their own testing. Its already been done by people with a proven track record, something you dont and probably never will have. In the real world, not the fantasy one you live in, people call on past experiments, tests, standings and rulings as evidence to say well no thats not correct. It might be its already been proven to be false, or the test has been tried and failed. So no one has to do their own testing, but they can use other peoples testing to say that yours is wrong and awful. Its not complicated.
There's a good chance this whole thing is a troll, you're actually a child or just not very well. Or some of two or all three. Something isn't quite right thats for sure.
The forum and its most interesting threads were overflowed with people criticizing the approach of a user who constantly analyzes the game for players and tries to provide value. Now there are four of them. As someone who regularly follows the entire forum, I haven’t gained the slightest benefit from this group of four, nor have I seen a single analysis from them.
Right or wrong, it doesn’t matter, keep up the analysis, George. And please don’t pay any attention to all these people. Also, there’s one more thing I need to thank you for: you’re truly a patient guy.
Because of these guys, it’s become harder for regular users to follow the forum. For my part, I’ll try to ignore their posts by finding a way and just read the analyses.
keithb said: Any chance you might answer any of the 12+ questions you always ignore from me?
Anyway
1.) Who called you retarded? Have you made this up again? Did it happen in your fantasy world? You dont respond in kind to a lot of people, so its utterly ridiculous to expect anyone to talk to you in that way.
2.) You tell people they are wrong all the time, only last week for example. Get serious lol. You have no grounds to do so. So if we all start doing our own testing, we can then declare you wrong all the time?
3.) People dont have to do their own testing. Its already been done by people with a proven track record, something you dont and probably never will have. In the real world, not the fantasy one you live in, people call on past experiments, tests, standings and rulings as evidence to say well no thats not correct. It might be its already been proven to be false, or the test has been tried and failed. So no one has to do their own testing, but they can use other peoples testing to say that yours is wrong and awful. Its not complicated.
There's a good chance this whole thing is a troll, you're actually a child or just not very well. Or some of two or all three. Something isn't quite right thats for sure.
Hi there,
For the last time, using the post above as an example I'll try to explain what kind of communication is not acceptable on this forum.
First of all, being wrong about something in FM is a pretty normal thing. It happens all the time. Even the game developers sometimes are wrong about how the things work in the game because there might be bugs the which are unknown to them.
I don't want even mention us regular folks that don't have access to the game code, we are wrong about things in FM A LOT and this isn't a crime and no one should be attacked for being wrong about things in FM.
If you think that someone is wrong about something in FM, feel free to point at his mistakes and what's mostly important explain why he is wrong and THAT'S ENOUGH no need to use personal insults like "you're a child", "you're a troll" and so on, no need to zealously convince him that you're right and he's wrong.
Also, feel free to ask questions but if someone doesn't want to answer your questions then he is free not to do that, he is not obliged to answer your answer or communicate with you. You shouldn't attack someone for not answering your questions or refusing to communicate with you.
When you think someone is breaking the forum rules or insulting you then you SHOULD NOT fight it out in public, instead you should contact the moderators, for example, you can contact me via a personal message.
I hope my words are taken seriously and we won't back to it in the future.
Cheers.
Angelski said: 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 think you're painting an inaccurate picture.
You mentioned in a post previously that I should do something actually useful, such as find the ultimate tactic. I actually have had a go at doing that once this year, and found that I couldn't beat Knap's tactic. I did test some other top FM24 tactics though, and found one or two that seemingly do better. I also had a go at set pieces. But I don't talk much about tactics at all really, because I have no real insight into it. So I don't just profess to know things willy nilly.
The specific areas I concentrate on are:
- Attributes
- Training
- Newgen generation
I can profess to know to a large extent about how attributes work in FM26 because it's clear nothing has changed fundamentally. The biggest difference is something like long shots going from completely useless to near useless. Sure, secondhand findings can be wrong, but based on doing a lot of testing myself, I have a reasonable amount of faith in HarvestGreen's findings because usually it aligns what what I find. And it depends on what it is - if HarvestGreen's talking about outfield attributes, I'll take his word. If it's GK, I'll ignore it because I know his methodology on GK is no good.
I could have chosen to simply put out FM26 files out there without mentioning that I can't verify the weightings. Who would be able to tell the difference?
The accurate picture is that I test FM24, and FM26 is largely the same to FM24 when it comes to attributes, and that I have always cautioned people that if I offer a FM26 file, it is the FM24 findings with perhaps some tweaks based on other's FM26 data added.
Angelski said: 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."
Another trigger point for me.
SI is an absolute disgrace, and I won't let this regurgitated marketing spiel get past me. If you choose to blow money on the broken game that is FM26, that's your problem. And my condolences to those who pre-ordered.
But I'm not going to sit here and listen to someone say SI is 'trying new mechanics' or that the game is simply going through 'ups and downs'. FM26 debuted as the 7th worst rated steam game in history and lost half of its users after the first month for a reason.
There are no new mechanics. I don't count OOP as a new mechanic, because it's placebo. The underlying match engine has simply been transposed with only the usual yearly tweaks of 'lets make long shots a little more important, and that a little less important'. That's why exploit tactics continue to destroy FM. Literally everything is the exact same, even the 3D graphics to me look roughly the same even though some people see it as some great improvement for whatever reason. The only substantive change has been the UI, and it's ruined the game.
The actual enjoyable parts of the game - newgen crafting, immersive narrative, attention to detail - have been methodically disassembled over the years, and FM26 represents a new low that is so bad it's literally intolerable to play for many to most. They replaced % with vague heart icons. Press conferences.. nuff said. They made transfer dealing a pain in the ass with Brexit before Brexit even happened in real life, and tedious agent, club and players interactions where they're not happy with anything - not even what sounds sensible to a reasonable person. We all know what happened to newgen faces. And they changed newgen generation so if you want to reload them, you have to go back months, and now in FM26 my initial impression having glanced through the demo is that the youth team is hidden behind so many mouse clicks that don't even want to bother dealing with newgens at all anymore - I heard that when FM26 was released, you literally couldn't even access the youth team properly!
And the heart of the game turns out to be a lie. For years we've been playing like some complex interplay between passing, decisions, vision, etc. is going on.. when in fact all of that is placebo not even taken into account by the match engine, and actually SI have deliberately been misleading its users - we know this because the players in the starting db have sets of attributes that just so happen to align perfectly with the reduced set of effectual attributes in my template. Exploit tactics put a stopper to much of the game's enjoyment years ago. The challenge is gone. I moved on to newgens, and discovered that a lot of the factors here are baloney too - for instance SI claim youth facilities affect PA; they simply don't. I still enjoy FM24 when I do play, mainly because I can raise up newgens from Div 7 to Div 1, but that seems pretty much dead now with FM26.
I could write a whole book on it. I basically already have here, but there's just so many bad things. The short of it is that the game has devolved into a mess that is too tedious to play, and in all likelihood could very well go broke and die off in the next year or two. But we'll see what FM27 looks like. Personally I expect a rehash of FM26 and further 'product diversification' as we see with the much more polished FMDB Pro they've evidently been spending a lot more of their time on, and I think shows their level of respect for you.
Angelski said: 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.
I assume you are talking about a recent post, in which case I did not use HarvestGreen's data, but my own. And I ended up discarding what ChatGPT had to say, as I was getting better results alone.
If you're talking about something months ago, I can't recall, but sometimes I do use ChatGPT to do calculations. It often has errors with complicated calculations though, so usually I use it as one would a calculator - say I want to quickly calculate 15 rows of calculations instead of manually doing '(3x3.68)x110' myself.
So a dud argument from you here. Even if it was valid, say I used AI to get half of my insights.. would that even be a problem, if it was producing valid results? AI is obviously being used a lot now, even by big companies who pay people to do work for them. Overall I think you've chosen to make a very weak point to stand on.
Kriek said: 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!
Appreciate it
I won't comment on your manifesto—I really don't care about the nonsense. I shared my opinion, you shared yours, and that's it. I'm here for the game, so I'll stop the debate here.
Tell me, what is the most optimal way of playing FM26? Let's discuss the actual game. Some people test C++ code and get results, others build tools like FM Super Scout, and you do research—everyone has their results. After 21 pages, I assume you've found the proper way FM26 should actually be played? (It's not irony, I'm not being rude, not trying to ruin the thread)
Meet Walter.
Walter plays GK without reflexes.
Nice one Walter.
I've got the GKs lining up quite nicely now, but there are some issues at the bottom end. Could be because of the sackings messing up the data, could be for other reasons.
I picked Walter Benitez to test because he had a high % score but only 15 reflexes, and he slots in between Oblak and ter Stegen, which is exactly what my draft set of new GK weightings predicted.
90% | Alisson - 6th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 4 position
87% | Thibaut Courtois - 3rd, 7th, 2nd, 5th, 8th = 5 position
85% | Jan Oblak - 5th, 8th, 6th, 4th, 3rd = 5.2 position
84% | Walter Benitez - 4th, 9th, 4th, 6th, 5th = 5.6 position
85% | Ugurcan Cakir GK - 7th, 9th, 2nd = 6 position
82% | Marc-Andre ter Stegen - 10th, 11th, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 6.4 position
80% | Anatolii Trubin - 15th (sacked), 6th, 4th (sacked), 5th = 7.5 position
61% | Jack Stevens - 13th (sacked), 4th, 9th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 8.4 position
77% | Sinan Bolat - 4th, 2nd, 19th (sacked), 5th, 14th (sacked), 9th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 5th = 8.75 position
70% | Ben Winterbottom - 10th (sacked), 5th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 18th (sacked) = 11.25 position
To be honest though, reflexes seem to be making something of a comeback. As you'll see in my weightings below, I've had to set it very high to align the positions. Also surprising was that flair might possibly be an important attribute for GK. I derived this from player comparison, and was more willing to try it out because I know that technique is important for GK but not outfield. Concentration and determination also appear to be more critical than first thought. It could all just be confusion of attributes though, I'm just satisfied at the moment that I've got something that seems to line up most players well - it correctly predicted 2 goalkeepers I tested afterwards, which is promising.
Back to the reflexes matter though, what seems to be going on is this: Aerial Reach is crucial at the mid-high level. But once have the 15 aerial reach or around that, then reflexes become the pre-eminant consideration at the very high level (so 15 vs. 19 reflexes). As Benitez shows, you can still do very well without green reflexes, but the extra reflexes will push a player above and beyond to the very top if they have everything else that's required at a mid-high level. That's my reading of it. HarvestGreen's data also makes more sense in light of this hypothesis, because what that showed is that having all attributes at 20, and reducing an attribute to 1, reflexes showed a 12.8% difference.. which is what we see here is the difference between Benitez and Alisson (if we surmise the range is 4 to 11 position, then Alisson is 23% better than Benitez). Note that it remains true that green reflexes alone aren't sufficient for a GK, as evidenced by Bolat (16 ref) & ter Stegen (18 ref).
So here are the GK weightings for FMST26:
((aerial_reach * 100 + command_of_area * 48 + first_touch * 52 + passing * 32 + reflexes * 306 + concentration * 152 + determination * 172 + work_rate * 100 + acceleration * 46 + balance * 32 + agility * 100 + jumping_reach * 56 + natural_fitness * 32 + pace * 56 + stamina * 100 + strength * 32 + technique * 48 + pressure * 46 + professionalism * 30 + flair * 150 - injury_proneness * 150 - dirtiness * 50 - ca * 30)) / 214
Angelski said: I won't comment on your manifesto—I really don't care about the nonsense. I shared my opinion, you shared yours, and that's it. I'm here for the game, so I'll stop the debate here.
Tell me, what is the most optimal way of playing FM26? Let's discuss the actual game. Some people test C++ code and get results, others build tools like FM Super Scout, and you do research—everyone has their results. After 21 pages, I assume you've found the proper way FM26 should actually be played? (It's not irony, I'm not being rude, not trying to ruin the thread)
How you choose to play the game is up to you.
What I can tell you is:
1) What attributes to look for (what works, what doesnt)
2) What training to use
3) What leagues to load
4) What to do about loans
5) How to manage squad fitness
6) How to get the most out of newgens
7) How to manage morale
8) What weights to use in GS/FMST/FMSS
Most of it is in the OP.
I've also done some pretty deep research into the game that I can share - history, misc info, quirks of the game, etc. from Masonic ties the game has, to the state of Israel putting out a statement condemning Miles' politics-based decision of removing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from the game, to the 3D newgen face modeler which you can download a usable demo of (they don't use an in-house program), to SI's inclusion of racist data and subsequent cover up, to somewhat obscure features such as searching for 'faceinthegame' to find all the newgens taking their details from SI staff/volunteers/etc in real life. Probably only a few people like me care about this extra stuff though.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: So here are the GK weightings for FMST26:
((aerial_reach * 100 + command_of_area * 48 + first_touch * 52 + passing * 32 + reflexes * 306 + concentration * 152 + determination * 172 + work_rate * 100 + acceleration * 46 + balance * 32 + agility * 100 + jumping_reach * 56 + natural_fitness * 32 + pace * 56 + stamina * 100 + strength * 32 + technique * 48 + pressure * 46 + professionalism * 30 + flair * 150 - injury_proneness * 150 - dirtiness * 50 - ca * 30)) / 214
Do you plan to include these GK weightings into your latest Genie Scout file?
There are a lot of topics here, but I think managing newgens is the main focus to me. Do you have any deep-dive posts or research on newgens that I could read in the thread?
As I see it, there are two main development paths for promising newgens i use to follow:
Keep them in the first team: Use them as backups immediately. This gives you control over their setup, but you risk limiting their development if they don't get enough match context.
Send them out on loan: This gets them minutes, but you run the risk that the loan club won't play them enough or train them properly.
In rarest occassion, I've used the rest exploit combined with quickness individual training on youths while letting the U18 manager handle match time, and their attributes grew quickly. I read somewhere that a youth player's attributes can only grow by a maximum of 25 points per season, but when tracking some of my own wonderkids, I noticed their total attribute growth actually exceeded 25 points. It's not a single case, for a 10 season-long save i got like 4-5 players that became monsters in 2 season, even got first-team GK from youth team at age of 16 and at 18 i sold him to Chelsea.
johnconnerson said: Do you plan to include these GK weightings into your latest Genie Scout file?
Yes, I'll be calling it Premier League 2.1
I'm thinking I might have a go at some further tests of players and adjustments first, particularly for players at the lower end, before I put it out in a day or two.
Angelski said: There are a lot of topics here, but I think managing newgens is the main focus to me. Do you have any deep-dive posts or research on newgens that I could read in the thread?
As I see it, there are two main development paths for promising newgens i use to follow:
Keep them in the first team: Use them as backups immediately. This gives you control over their setup, but you risk limiting their development if they don't get enough match context.
Send them out on loan: This gets them minutes, but you run the risk that the loan club won't play them enough or train them properly.
In rarest occassion, I've used the rest exploit combined with quickness individual training on youths while letting the U18 manager handle match time, and their attributes grew quickly. I read somewhere that a youth player's attributes can only grow by a maximum of 25 points per season, but when tracking some of my own wonderkids, I noticed their total attribute growth actually exceeded 25 points. It's not a single case, for a 10 season-long save i got like 4-5 players that became monsters in 2 season, even got first-team GK from youth team at age of 16 and at 18 i sold him to Chelsea.
So newgens are actually what I know best about.
My first thread here was actually about newgen mechanics, and I started looking deep into it many years ago now.
If you want to get really deep into it, I have explanations even of how newgens interact with geography in the game, and how that all of that complicated process is actually just superficial - it's all just in the end to set birth location and language and whatnot.
But you seem interested in specifically young player development. I have long posts that address in detail the questions you raise, but I'll just give a direct concise answer:
According to EBFM, and another youtuber who did data analysis of FM.. and I think HarvestGreen too.. CA growth is indeed capped at ~25 CA/season. You say you have exceeded that cap. It might be possible; we know there are exceptions that occur in regards to match fitness gains during matches, so CA growth could be the same. I'd doubt you got beyond say ~30 though.
The best way to handle young players is this: Keep at club until at least 19. 19-20, you can loan them out or keep them at club, both are fine. 21+ you have to loan out, or play at least 15 matches/season in first team. Matches are counted as 90 minutes, so a 80th minute substitution 15 times is going to count as less than 2 matches, not 15. It's best to loan to an inactive club if possible, because there is a coded bonus for it which just makes it superior, but the more important thing is that whatever club you loan to, you have to make sure they actually get matches. No matches, zero CA gain. Too low a league, and the CA gain will cap out at a certain CA level dependent on the league's reputation. Match rating makes no difference to their CA gain. So loans should be about playing at as high a level as possible, without risking them not starting matches.
Rather than read longwinded posts, you may be better off starting with, or simply viewing as an alternative, EBFM's youtube videos. There's a lot of great stuff there that largely remains valid and goes quite deep.
Hey @GeorgeFloydOverdosed! I’m messaging you again to ask for your opinion, sorry to bother you.
I wanted to know if you’ve had the chance to form a strong opinion on FMST vs FMSS. Which one seems more accurate to you, and generally speaking, which one do you think is the better tool to use?
Personally, I’m using FMSS, which is why I wanted to get your comparative opinion. Since we know GS is bugged, I’m not including it anymore because I’ve stopped using it.
I’m currently using your new ratings on FMSS as well. Thanks for all the research you’ve been doing, by the way, you’re doing a great job. Keep it up, man!
bf3metro said: Hey @GeorgeFloydOverdosed! I’m messaging you again to ask for your opinion, sorry to bother you.
I wanted to know if you’ve had the chance to form a strong opinion on FMST vs FMSS. Which one seems more accurate to you, and generally speaking, which one do you think is the better tool to use?
I don't have an opinion of which is better, but I'm using FMST right now because I can put in more sophisticated weighting formulas easier
90% | Alisson - 6th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 4 position
85% | Thibaut Courtois - 3rd, 7th, 2nd, 5th, 8th = 5 position
83% | Jan Oblak - 5th, 8th, 6th, 4th, 3rd = 5.2 position
83% | Walter Benitez - 4th, 9th, 4th, 6th, 5th = 5.6 position
83% | Ugurcan Cakir - 7th, 9th, 2nd = 6 position
80% | Ederson - 6th, 6th, 4th, 8th, 7th (sacked), 7th (sacked) = 6.333 position
82% | Marc-Andre ter Stegen - 10th, 11th, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 6.4 position
78% | Anatolii Trubin - 15th (sacked), 6th, 4th (sacked), 5th = 7.5 position
70% | Davy Roef - 13th (sacked), 4th, 14th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 1st = 7.6 position
61% | Jack Stevens - 13th (sacked), 4th, 9th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 8.4 position
76% | Sinan Bolat - 4th, 2nd, 19th (sacked), 5th, 14th (sacked), 9th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 5th = 8.75 position
68% | Ben Winterbottom - 10th (sacked), 5th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 18th (sacked) = 11.25 position
Adjustments were made to accommodate Ederson, who has gone from 76% > 80%. Ederson is an interesting case, because he's at a top team (Man City), yet predicted to be relatively low, and is quite low in what has been considered the key 3 attributes (aer, ref, agil).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I've got the GKs lining up quite nicely now, but there are some issues at the bottom end. Could be because of the sackings messing up the data, could be for other reasons.
Why don't you make yourself unsackable with fmrte to avoid this ?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I don't have an opinion of which is better, but I'm using FMST right now because I can put in more sophisticated weighting formulas easier
FMST more accurate or just simpler for you?
Purity said: Why don't you make yourself unsackable with fmrte to avoid this ?
I don't have paid FMRTE. I don't know if the trial version can do that.
I could redo my database edit to use Luton instead of Man City, but it's more work than it's worth. I'm not particularly concerned about the sackings and lower GK results at the moment. If I did rule out sackings as the cause, I would be left with the problem of elevating GKs with middling stats, which I can't think of an obvious solution to at the moment. Which means I'd have to spend a lot of time coming up with sophisticated formulas. So I don't want to go down that path right now.
I have limited time and energy, and of what remains to be done, I think it's more important to get jump on DC assessed next, and then verifying the hypothesis that all the positions share the same attribute requirements - and if not, finding those differences.
bf3metro said: FMST more accurate or just simpler for you?
FMSS someone has said you can add code to make it do the same calculations, so FMST is not less accurate, but FMST allows me to add some complexity more easily right now. I can some utilize some complex operations in FMST without research - with FMSS, I'd have to investigate how to program it.
I've started testing DC. I've started with Jules Kounde, as he has the highest rating with 13 jumping reach and the first thing I want to know is high jump reach on DCs still a valid requirement. Then I did one of the highest rated natural proficiency DCs who did have pretty high jumping reach of 16, Araujo.
82% | Kim Min Jae - 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 5th = 4.286 position
83% | Ronald Araujo - 4th, 8th, 3rd, 1st, 7th = 4.6 position
79% | Jules Kounde - 5th, 4th, 7th 5th, 3rd = 4.8 position
So it's looking like high jumping reach isn't strictly necessary, and that the same set of weights works for every position, but still need to do a few more players to adequately demonstrate the latter.
Does one position contribute more than another? Compared to the STs, it seems as though DC is roughly ~1 position off, and the same was true of DR. And it's even clearer that GKs contribute less than STs, to getting higher position at least. The most likely explanation to my mind is that defenders do contribute less to winning than STs, because their focus is on not losing (defending). It'll be interesting to see if wingers reflect this once I test them.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Meet Walter.
Walter plays GK without reflexes.
Nice one Walter.
I've got the GKs lining up quite nicely now, but there are some issues at the bottom end. Could be because of the sackings messing up the data, could be for other reasons.
I picked Walter Benitez to test because he had a high % score but only 15 reflexes, and he slots in between Oblak and ter Stegen, which is exactly what my draft set of new GK weightings predicted.
90% | Alisson - 6th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 4 position
87% | Thibaut Courtois - 3rd, 7th, 2nd, 5th, 8th = 5 position
85% | Jan Oblak - 5th, 8th, 6th, 4th, 3rd = 5.2 position
84% | Walter Benitez - 4th, 9th, 4th, 6th, 5th = 5.6 position
85% | Ugurcan Cakir GK - 7th, 9th, 2nd = 6 position
82% | Marc-Andre ter Stegen - 10th, 11th, 4th, 4th, 3rd = 6.4 position
80% | Anatolii Trubin - 15th (sacked), 6th, 4th (sacked), 5th = 7.5 position
61% | Jack Stevens - 13th (sacked), 4th, 9th (sacked), 8th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 8.4 position
77% | Sinan Bolat - 4th, 2nd, 19th (sacked), 5th, 14th (sacked), 9th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 5th = 8.75 position
70% | Ben Winterbottom - 10th (sacked), 5th (sacked), 12th (sacked), 18th (sacked) = 11.25 position
To be honest though, reflexes seem to be making something of a comeback. As you'll see in my weightings below, I've had to set it very high to align the positions. Also surprising was that flair might possibly be an important attribute for GK. I derived this from player comparison, and was more willing to try it out because I know that technique is important for GK but not outfield. Concentration and determination also appear to be more critical than first thought. It could all just be confusion of attributes though, I'm just satisfied at the moment that I've got something that seems to line up most players well - it correctly predicted 2 goalkeepers I tested afterwards, which is promising.
Back to the reflexes matter though, what seems to be going on is this: Aerial Reach is crucial at the mid-high level. But once have the 15 aerial reach or around that, then reflexes become the pre-eminant consideration at the very high level (so 15 vs. 19 reflexes). As Benitez shows, you can still do very well without green reflexes, but the extra reflexes will push a player above and beyond to the very top if they have everything else that's required at a mid-high level. That's my reading of it. HarvestGreen's data also makes more sense in light of this hypothesis, because what that showed is that having all attributes at 20, and reducing an attribute to 1, reflexes showed a 12.8% difference.. which is what we see here is the difference between Benitez and Alisson (if we surmise the range is 4 to 11 position, then Alisson is 23% better than Benitez). Note that it remains true that green reflexes alone aren't sufficient for a GK, as evidenced by Bolat (16 ref) & ter Stegen (18 ref).
So here are the GK weightings for FMST26:
((aerial_reach * 100 + command_of_area * 48 + first_touch * 52 + passing * 32 + reflexes * 306 + concentration * 152 + determination * 172 + work_rate * 100 + acceleration * 46 + balance * 32 + agility * 100 + jumping_reach * 56 + natural_fitness * 32 + pace * 56 + stamina * 100 + strength * 32 + technique * 48 + pressure * 46 + professionalism * 30 + flair * 150 - injury_proneness * 150 - dirtiness * 50 - ca * 30)) / 214
You can block sacking with the in game editor.