Chriswin4 said: Have rebuilt my Dortmund team to have the second lowest wage bill at 700k a week. I have to say, I think I may have messed up as my team doesn’t seem great, despite having players that are high rated in the meta stats and fit the attribute profiles we use on python. Expand
I have to say that sometimes i followed the python scores and bought players that have better score than the ones that my team already have and they dont perform well.. it happened to me in more than one save
NandaldiaN said: I have to say that sometimes i followed the python scores and bought players that have better score than the ones that my team already have and they dont perform well.. it happened to me in more than one save Expand
I think it depends on the player traits and RNG. I noticed in the two wingers I posted earlier that one performed much better because they had a strong right foot and cut in from the left. I'm not quite sure what I've done this time, I feel like I've gone too far, or maybe it takes a team a while to gel.
Chriswin4 said: Have rebuilt my Dortmund team to have the second lowest wage bill at 700k a week. I have to say, I think I may have messed up as my team doesn’t seem great, despite having players that are high rated in the meta stats and fit the attribute profiles we use on python. Expand
One thing I would look out for is to make sure that the non-meta stats are at the "acceptable range". Many people conclude that the non-meta stats are completely useless, because of the attribute testing here. What the tests actually show is that non-meta stats don't provide additional benefits after a certain point. So make sure that the non-meta attributes are at that point (the attribute testing control group is the base I use). I have managed to win the Bundesliga and the UCL 3 years in a row with a team that pays sub 1 mil per week in wages by looking for players with high meta stats and good enough non-meta stats.
Floppyaams said: One thing I would look out for is to make sure that the non-meta stats are at the "acceptable range". Many people conclude that the non-meta stats are completely useless, because of the attribute testing here. What the tests actually show is that non-meta stats don't provide additional benefits after a certain point. So make sure that the non-meta attributes are at that point (the attribute testing control group is the base I use). I have managed to win the Bundesliga and the UCL 3 years in a row with a team that pays sub 1 mil per week in wages by looking for players with high meta stats and good enough non-meta stats. Expand
I think this is where I've gone wrong, I've gone too far in the search for cheapness. What are the non-meta stats that I should be looking out for? What should they be over to try and win the CL with under 1m in wages per week.
How would you guys evaluate/judge these guys as Advanced Forwards? Are there any traits that work this year? I generally do, first time shots, blast the ball and beat offside trap?
FM Stag Stats are now in a few Skins including SAS24.
I hope this helps someone. I find it quite interesting Expand
Thats super interesting. Anyone here bought players based on this? I have a small doubt, doesn't the performance of the players who play in the background, let's say, depend on how you have the game configured? I mean, if you have "minimum detail" set or that kind of thing.
Yeah I much prefer attribute evaluation than statistics. Players not being controlled by a human manager don’t necessarily play on the match engine, so you can’t judge if they’ll be good when you buy them
Chriswin4 said: How would you guys evaluate/judge these guys as Advanced Forwards? Are there any traits that work this year? I generally do, first time shots, blast the ball and beat offside trap?
Expand
The second guy is the clear winner imo. Great physicals and better technicals (that matter for an AF) compared to the other two.
Floppyaams said: The second guy is the clear winner imo. Great physicals and better technicals (that matter for an AF) compared to the other two. Expand
How do you make your calls on the non meta stats? I’ve been looking at player roles and trying to make sure the blue highlighted ones are above 10
Chriswin4 said: How do you make your calls on the non meta stats? I’ve been looking at player roles and trying to make sure the blue highlighted ones are above 10 Expand
Experience? Personal preference? When you watch the game you make connections, whether they are true or not is a different story. A guy with 5 aggression who only watches opponents go by instead of tacking them for example.
And as much as people hate on star ratings they are a pretty good general guideline. It's fairly hard to overcome a full star difference by being more "meta", unless you create a player artificially like in these tests. Even half a star difference is a stretch. Not saying these situations don't happen, but lets stick to fundamentals first before bringing phd level math into this.
You can win at this game just fine without having to desperately choose between 87,6 and 88,2 rated players, losing countless hours debating who is better. Both will work well enough and other factors are more important at that point.
Imo a combo of 75 rated players and meta tactics from here is enough to win the top 5 leagues and even UCL in FM 24. Also, 80+ rated players are usually not financially worth it, as their price just seems to skyrocket around that rating (especially for strikers and DMs).
Chriswin4 said: How do you make your calls on the non meta stats? I’ve been looking at player roles and trying to make sure the blue highlighted ones are above 10 Expand
just look at the attribute testing table here. All the tactics that don't improve results are the non-meta stats. But that does not mean they are useless. Just make sure you have a player with 10-12 on those stats. And I absolutely think meta stats can compensate for the difference in star rating (there is a lot of wrong with star rating). There was a old post on reddit where this guy won the PL with a team full of 20 pace, 20 acceleration and 20 jumping but 1s on everything else. His team even won the FA cup against Liverpool on penalty shootout despite having 1s across the board in pen and finishing.
Floppyaams said: just look at the attribute testing table here. All the tactics that don't improve results are the non-meta stats. But that does not mean they are useless. Just make sure you have a player with 10-12 on those stats. And I absolutely think meta stats can compensate for the difference in star rating (there is a lot of wrong with star rating). There was an old post on reddit where this guy won the PL with a team full of 20 pace, 20 acceleration and 20 jumping but 1s on everything else. His team even won the FA cup against Liverpool on penalty shootout despite having 1s across the board in pen and finishing. Expand
I created a few generic "standards" - all measured in an XLS using ykykyk weights for each position.
What I do is enter in the player score for the attributes identified in ykykyk.
Then I multiply that player's score against the weight for the attribute. So if Pace for a position is a .8 weight, and the player is a "10" - they are given an 8.
I then add them all up into a aggregate - Total Weighted Player Score. TWPS becomes the basis for other measurements/comparisons.
As an example, in my current SGE save, N'Dicka has a TWPS of 104.3 as a DC. Baidoo has a TWPS of 93.4 at the same position. Hardley an 86.8.
Next is "weighted player score above average" - where I compare the player in position to a generic "all 12s" player score. Technically, I guess "10" might be average, but I use 12 as my baseline.
So N'Dicka has a WPSAA of 11.9, Baidoo is 1, and poor Hardley is -5.6. N'Dicka is above average, Baidoo is about average, and Hardley, well, I hope I can loan him to a Bundasliga 2 side for his cost in salary.
I've also been playing Bromley from National to (just today) Premier for the 28/29 season. WPSAA has been useful in that journey. At National I was shooting for a WPSAA of -3 for each position in my starting 11. In Championship - +4 to +7 helped me get the highest xG and expected points in the league (Fulham overachieved and took top spot).
The other score I use is % of "Best In World" - when the top 50 in the world reports come out - I find the players with the top TWPS for each position. I then compare my player against the BIW. A simple %. It's tougher to upkeep this stat, and it is variable from save to save. But it can be nice to know how far a 22 year old Junior Kroupi is from an aged Mbappe.
Final use for TWPS is something I'm playing around with called "Positional Difficulty." An attempt to measure market scarcity - "PD" measures the TWPS for Best In World for the position against a TWPS of all "20's."
The theory being that the greater the gap between all 20 and BIW - or the higher the PD score - the more difficult it is to find high TWPS scoring players for that position. This could be total nonsense, of course, but I use it prioritize spending. DR and DM positions have had higher PD scores in a few saves I have - and based on playing style, I tend to spend more aggressively for those positions.
Chriswin4 said: Have rebuilt my Dortmund team to have the second lowest wage bill at 700k a week. I have to say, I think I may have messed up as my team doesn’t seem great, despite having players that are high rated in the meta stats and fit the attribute profiles we use on python.
I have to say that sometimes i followed the python scores and bought players that have better score than the ones that my team already have and they dont perform well.. it happened to me in more than one save
NandaldiaN said: I have to say that sometimes i followed the python scores and bought players that have better score than the ones that my team already have and they dont perform well.. it happened to me in more than one save
I think it depends on the player traits and RNG. I noticed in the two wingers I posted earlier that one performed much better because they had a strong right foot and cut in from the left. I'm not quite sure what I've done this time, I feel like I've gone too far, or maybe it takes a team a while to gel.
Chriswin4 said: Have rebuilt my Dortmund team to have the second lowest wage bill at 700k a week. I have to say, I think I may have messed up as my team doesn’t seem great, despite having players that are high rated in the meta stats and fit the attribute profiles we use on python.
One thing I would look out for is to make sure that the non-meta stats are at the "acceptable range". Many people conclude that the non-meta stats are completely useless, because of the attribute testing here. What the tests actually show is that non-meta stats don't provide additional benefits after a certain point. So make sure that the non-meta attributes are at that point (the attribute testing control group is the base I use). I have managed to win the Bundesliga and the UCL 3 years in a row with a team that pays sub 1 mil per week in wages by looking for players with high meta stats and good enough non-meta stats.
Floppyaams said: One thing I would look out for is to make sure that the non-meta stats are at the "acceptable range". Many people conclude that the non-meta stats are completely useless, because of the attribute testing here. What the tests actually show is that non-meta stats don't provide additional benefits after a certain point. So make sure that the non-meta attributes are at that point (the attribute testing control group is the base I use). I have managed to win the Bundesliga and the UCL 3 years in a row with a team that pays sub 1 mil per week in wages by looking for players with high meta stats and good enough non-meta stats.
I think this is where I've gone wrong, I've gone too far in the search for cheapness. What are the non-meta stats that I should be looking out for? What should they be over to try and win the CL with under 1m in wages per week.
How would you guys evaluate/judge these guys as Advanced Forwards? Are there any traits that work this year? I generally do, first time shots, blast the ball and beat offside trap?
Of interest to you all might be the article linked below:
What does good look like in FM 24?
FM Stag Stats are now in a few Skins including SAS24.
I hope this helps someone. I find it quite interesting
Mark said: Of interest to you all might be the article linked below:
What does good look like in FM 24?
FM Stag Stats are now in a few Skins including SAS24.
I hope this helps someone. I find it quite interesting
Thats super interesting. Anyone here bought players based on this? I have a small doubt, doesn't the performance of the players who play in the background, let's say, depend on how you have the game configured? I mean, if you have "minimum detail" set or that kind of thing.
Yeah I much prefer attribute evaluation than statistics. Players not being controlled by a human manager don’t necessarily play on the match engine, so you can’t judge if they’ll be good when you buy them
Chriswin4 said: How would you guys evaluate/judge these guys as Advanced Forwards? Are there any traits that work this year? I generally do, first time shots, blast the ball and beat offside trap?
The second guy is the clear winner imo. Great physicals and better technicals (that matter for an AF) compared to the other two.
Floppyaams said: The second guy is the clear winner imo. Great physicals and better technicals (that matter for an AF) compared to the other two.
How do you make your calls on the non meta stats? I’ve been looking at player roles and trying to make sure the blue highlighted ones are above 10
Chriswin4 said: How do you make your calls on the non meta stats? I’ve been looking at player roles and trying to make sure the blue highlighted ones are above 10
Experience? Personal preference? When you watch the game you make connections, whether they are true or not is a different story. A guy with 5 aggression who only watches opponents go by instead of tacking them for example.
And as much as people hate on star ratings they are a pretty good general guideline. It's fairly hard to overcome a full star difference by being more "meta", unless you create a player artificially like in these tests. Even half a star difference is a stretch. Not saying these situations don't happen, but lets stick to fundamentals first before bringing phd level math into this.
You can win at this game just fine without having to desperately choose between 87,6 and 88,2 rated players, losing countless hours debating who is better. Both will work well enough and other factors are more important at that point.
Imo a combo of 75 rated players and meta tactics from here is enough to win the top 5 leagues and even UCL in FM 24. Also, 80+ rated players are usually not financially worth it, as their price just seems to skyrocket around that rating (especially for strikers and DMs).
Chriswin4 said: How do you make your calls on the non meta stats? I’ve been looking at player roles and trying to make sure the blue highlighted ones are above 10
just look at the attribute testing table here. All the tactics that don't improve results are the non-meta stats. But that does not mean they are useless. Just make sure you have a player with 10-12 on those stats. And I absolutely think meta stats can compensate for the difference in star rating (there is a lot of wrong with star rating). There was a old post on reddit where this guy won the PL with a team full of 20 pace, 20 acceleration and 20 jumping but 1s on everything else. His team even won the FA cup against Liverpool on penalty shootout despite having 1s across the board in pen and finishing.
Floppyaams said: just look at the attribute testing table here. All the tactics that don't improve results are the non-meta stats. But that does not mean they are useless. Just make sure you have a player with 10-12 on those stats. And I absolutely think meta stats can compensate for the difference in star rating (there is a lot of wrong with star rating). There was an old post on reddit where this guy won the PL with a team full of 20 pace, 20 acceleration and 20 jumping but 1s on everything else. His team even won the FA cup against Liverpool on penalty shootout despite having 1s across the board in pen and finishing.
Thank you mate!! I’m going to have a look at this
I created a few generic "standards" - all measured in an XLS using ykykyk weights for each position.
What I do is enter in the player score for the attributes identified in ykykyk.
Then I multiply that player's score against the weight for the attribute. So if Pace for a position is a .8 weight, and the player is a "10" - they are given an 8.
I then add them all up into a aggregate - Total Weighted Player Score. TWPS becomes the basis for other measurements/comparisons.
As an example, in my current SGE save, N'Dicka has a TWPS of 104.3 as a DC. Baidoo has a TWPS of 93.4 at the same position. Hardley an 86.8.
Next is "weighted player score above average" - where I compare the player in position to a generic "all 12s" player score. Technically, I guess "10" might be average, but I use 12 as my baseline.
So N'Dicka has a WPSAA of 11.9, Baidoo is 1, and poor Hardley is -5.6. N'Dicka is above average, Baidoo is about average, and Hardley, well, I hope I can loan him to a Bundasliga 2 side for his cost in salary.
I've also been playing Bromley from National to (just today) Premier for the 28/29 season. WPSAA has been useful in that journey. At National I was shooting for a WPSAA of -3 for each position in my starting 11. In Championship - +4 to +7 helped me get the highest xG and expected points in the league (Fulham overachieved and took top spot).
The other score I use is % of "Best In World" - when the top 50 in the world reports come out - I find the players with the top TWPS for each position. I then compare my player against the BIW. A simple %. It's tougher to upkeep this stat, and it is variable from save to save. But it can be nice to know how far a 22 year old Junior Kroupi is from an aged Mbappe.
Final use for TWPS is something I'm playing around with called "Positional Difficulty." An attempt to measure market scarcity - "PD" measures the TWPS for Best In World for the position against a TWPS of all "20's."
The theory being that the greater the gap between all 20 and BIW - or the higher the PD score - the more difficult it is to find high TWPS scoring players for that position. This could be total nonsense, of course, but I use it prioritize spending. DR and DM positions have had higher PD scores in a few saves I have - and based on playing style, I tend to spend more aggressively for those positions.