If an attribute point has a value of 10 from 4 to 5 and 1 from 14 to 15, how exactly do you set a fixed value for scoring in GS? That is the fundamental issue. You need linear scaling at least in the vast majority of values. You can't just say oh it's an average of lets say 3 because it'll be right only in a narrow bracket or maybe even never.
What you can do for attributes that have minimal or no value above a certain point is to set it's value to 0 (or whatever minimal value the calculations show) with a caveat that it only applies above X and that you need to filter for it. I am not disputing that some attributes might act that way, but that assigning them some value (by feel?) is misleading. And again FM-Arena tests showed that going from 18 to 19 to 20 pace is more or less just as valuable, it keeps it's scaling. Can you win with 18? Sure, but 20 is still better.
I mean it's kind of the basis of all these weighting systems, because if a point of pace was vastly different from 9 to 10 as opposed to 15 to 16 there would be no point in having a fixed value for an attribute weight.
So you either accept they are pretty much linear (with a few exceptions) or throw GS ratings out the window.
Wigo said: Guys i read all threads about atributes testing ant meta ones... this topic is the most intresting to me and i think i have a question that nobody answers. We found that speed in general is the king, but everytime i start a new save i see that (fm26) first season Harry Kane with speed of turtle is scoring unbelievable amount of goals and is gets player of the year award. So technically is speed is everything how come this happening??? so still plenty theories in my head that maybe for some positions speed is not so overpowered as we all think? Expand Because he is a highly skilled player in a great team that farms the league. Speed is very important but isn't everything. Just as in real life he scores 30 goals per season in Tottenham and 60+ in Bayern
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I think the indisputable contribution of this data is that it tells us what matters in FM26, and it seems like there's not much difference to FM24.
I don't know why you're finding every attribute effect to be linear, I think something going wrong somewhere in regards to that. I suspect it could be that you're randomizing attributes of every player at every club in the league, so that there's no longer set levels to compete against (i.e. in a real league, most players will have ~14 pace for example, or most GKs will have ~14 aerial reach, producing thresholds - it's not necessarily innate to the attribute itself, but a product of the relative competition. So 13 > 14 pace isn't a threshold in Vanarama South, but it is in Premier League). It's not entirely clear though if you're randomizing every player at every club, or just one club.
The part that intrigues me the most are the position weights. Have you simply divided the general results by the CA costs for each position, or have you done comparative testing for each position here? Expand I think FM-Arena attribute tests for the past few editions show linear effect for pretty much all of the attributes.
iezzex said: Just open up tactics and theres 90% of em is absolutely same shapes and main team instructions Only diff is PI but the result is almost same everywhere with 84.5 avg pts lmao Expand If you open the tactics table and sort out by release date there are maybe half of tactics with current meta shape. The rest are different. But yes you won't see them at the top of points table because they simply don't work as well.
Filter them by formation you want to play and browse through a few until you find roles and instructions you like.
apple said: Anyone else having problems with a ridiculous amount of penalties? Expand I find that when player skill is below your opponents you commit more penalites, probably some instructions contribute as well. Thing is the best tactics make you overachieve so much that you tend to play way above the actual skill level of the team so they can't actually cope on an individual level.
You can absolutely win PL without a single player having 18 pace or acceleration, as long as their CA is high enough. And that is the entire point. CA isn't worthless, it may not be best distributed but it is very very hard for a 120 CA player to outperform 160. Even with engineered perfect attribute distribution on 120 it's close and we know those don't actually exist ingame.
Not to mention that somehow you claim that under 18 pace you can't win the league and at the same time it's weighting is almost the same as 12 other attributes. So the scoring only works once you reach the minimum thresholds or what?
Bottom line is people are looking for who is a better player right now kind of rating, not who you can train to be better in 5 seasons. You severely undervalue pace and acceleration for example because you argue that it's easy to train it up, which might be true but it takes a lot of time and some luck.
Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure, but most of people looking for ratings aren't after that. They simply want a scoring system that will tell them player X is better than player Y, and I think you've strayed further and further from the original intention with each iteration.
GrandRegentKone said: Anyone else getting it where if you put rebalance 1 the recovery sessions only show up as rest? and it doesnt let you select it even to change it? Expand You need to have a physio employed in the team, either that or sports scientist can't remember exactly.
Panneton0 said: Anyone managed to find how position rating influences the game in FM26? We've known for a while that having players playing their "natural" position (20) already leads to great gain w/r to playing them in an "accomplished" position (17). However, in FM26, players might play in 2 different positions IP/OOP.
As far as I've seen to this point, IP's position rating can get better solely by playing a player at this position. But OOP's position rating seems to stall. That appears to be true either by assigning training to "playing position" to IP and specifically putting their OOP position in their OOP individual position training. So that seems to point toward the OOP position being mostly irrelevant - even maybe ignored (in term of ability - not tactically).
If they fix most of what is annoying in the new UI it'll already be a huge step in the right direction.
Like sorting out training needing less than 15 clicks, bringing back the ability to "drag and drop" sessions in the schedule, swap them easily and so on. In the long run training needs a major overhaul but FM27 is probably a bit early for that.
Another very annoying thing is squad selection. Due to out of possession tactics introductions the star ratings are all over the place and a lot of times youth players are not showing in dropdown menu. Make it easy to select a player based on assistant's opinion without having to be so careful which screen you are on (stars vary wildly), who is in senior team and so on. It should be way more intuitive than it currently is.
Bring back attribute progression charts and especially numbers. "This guy gained 5 pace since he joined the club", or in last 3 seasons or whatever. Like how hard can it be, it was working fine in FM24 and before. It's a major mood killer for anyone who enjoys developing players.
Descriptive staff attributes are terrible, was way easier when it was numbers. And especially since the rest of the game is all numbers anyway, in fact so are these attributes they've just hidden them behind words.
Could go on and on with this
Actual new suggestion: Something I would like to see is being able to tell reserve and youth team managers (and maybe your assistant for when you holiday/friendlies) who and in what position to play the players. For example a squad planner that you could set priority list at a position that the manager would actually follow, maybe even a slider how often to rotate like we have in set piece routines. Most of these teams already play the same tactic, I think it would make sense to be able to tell U19 manager "I see this guy as our future right back, can you try to make sure he gets experience and proficiency in that position" (considering how strict FM is with players being able to play a position or not).
After getting more familiar it seems good. Around 15 corner goals per season, only 2 conceded. IFK 3 scored, 4 conceded. Not as broken as previous FMs but I think that's a common theme for all the routines this year. Haven't really tested many others though since this is doing the job I want.
Nozdormu said: For Lukeba , the GS tool says his highest potential acceleration is 15, if I set individual training on quickness for him, can his acceleration surpass 15 and become 16,or 17? Expand GS projections of attributes at maximum CA aren't accurate enough to use them for making decisions. I missed that in your screenshot. It'd be much better to compare their actual attributes. And yes you can steer the training to surpass what GS predicts.
Nozdormu said: Lukeba is better on aggression，brave, anticipation，marking, heading, jump, consistency Expand Make a list of which attributes one and the other have better and by how much and then decide what you prefer. I think it's close but the winner is obvious, but you may have other preferences.
It's quite tough to find where Lukeba is better (on paper), it's close but Udogie seems better almost everywhere where there is a tiny difference. Also whether it's DL or WBL is pretty much the same
Nozdormu said: @Rain Because the maximum input for rating file for attribute X is 100, then actual maximum buff is
100*0.1=10
THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN BUFF attribute-X BY A VALUE OF 30! NEVER!!! This is the biggest problem in GS. Expand Sure you can by reducing other weights by a factor of 0,3
helmen said: Hi ZaZ, I have been using your formation and I really love it. I have got a question for you: how would you set up these three players in your front three?
Expand I'd probably play Ekitike in the middle because of his passing and vision. I find the AMC often drops in the midfield and picks a pass to one of the wingers or even a charging MC. Things I value more than usually on AMC in this tactic are passing, vision, OTB. JR is probably better on a winger though.
But in the end with these things it's more about trial an error. Change it up a bit and see where they perform best, attributes and traits might say one thing and performance in match engine could be somewhat different.
I'd say footedness is pretty important for the wing backs, the rest doesn't really matter although some players may play better on one side than the other.
What you can do for attributes that have minimal or no value above a certain point is to set it's value to 0 (or whatever minimal value the calculations show) with a caveat that it only applies above X and that you need to filter for it. I am not disputing that some attributes might act that way, but that assigning them some value (by feel?) is misleading. And again FM-Arena tests showed that going from 18 to 19 to 20 pace is more or less just as valuable, it keeps it's scaling. Can you win with 18? Sure, but 20 is still better.
So they are not linear. Am i right? Or "linear for pretty much all of the attributes"?
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/40302/
I mean it's kind of the basis of all these weighting systems, because if a point of pace was vastly different from 9 to 10 as opposed to 15 to 16 there would be no point in having a fixed value for an attribute weight.
So you either accept they are pretty much linear (with a few exceptions) or throw GS ratings out the window.
Because he is a highly skilled player in a great team that farms the league. Speed is very important but isn't everything. Just as in real life he scores 30 goals per season in Tottenham and 60+ in Bayern
I don't know why you're finding every attribute effect to be linear, I think something going wrong somewhere in regards to that. I suspect it could be that you're randomizing attributes of every player at every club in the league, so that there's no longer set levels to compete against (i.e. in a real league, most players will have ~14 pace for example, or most GKs will have ~14 aerial reach, producing thresholds - it's not necessarily innate to the attribute itself, but a product of the relative competition. So 13 > 14 pace isn't a threshold in Vanarama South, but it is in Premier League). It's not entirely clear though if you're randomizing every player at every club, or just one club.
The part that intrigues me the most are the position weights. Have you simply divided the general results by the CA costs for each position, or have you done comparative testing for each position here?
I think FM-Arena attribute tests for the past few editions show linear effect for pretty much all of the attributes.
Only diff is PI but the result is almost same everywhere with 84.5 avg pts lmao
If you open the tactics table and sort out by release date there are maybe half of tactics with current meta shape. The rest are different. But yes you won't see them at the top of points table because they simply don't work as well.
Filter them by formation you want to play and browse through a few until you find roles and instructions you like.
I find that when player skill is below your opponents you commit more penalites, probably some instructions contribute as well. Thing is the best tactics make you overachieve so much that you tend to play way above the actual skill level of the team so they can't actually cope on an individual level.
Not to mention that somehow you claim that under 18 pace you can't win the league and at the same time it's weighting is almost the same as 12 other attributes. So the scoring only works once you reach the minimum thresholds or what?
Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure, but most of people looking for ratings aren't after that. They simply want a scoring system that will tell them player X is better than player Y, and I think you've strayed further and further from the original intention with each iteration.
You need to have a physio employed in the team, either that or sports scientist can't remember exactly.
As far as I've seen to this point, IP's position rating can get better solely by playing a player at this position. But OOP's position rating seems to stall. That appears to be true either by assigning training to "playing position" to IP and specifically putting their OOP position in their OOP individual position training. So that seems to point toward the OOP position being mostly irrelevant - even maybe ignored (in term of ability - not tactically).
This is based on global feeling, but haven't tested it thoroughly. If anyone already have an insight on the new system's position rating influence / how IP/OOP positions influence a player's position rating, I'd love to hear about it.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/18292-the-impact-of-oop-position-proficiency-on-the-result-fm26/
Like sorting out training needing less than 15 clicks, bringing back the ability to "drag and drop" sessions in the schedule, swap them easily and so on. In the long run training needs a major overhaul but FM27 is probably a bit early for that.
Another very annoying thing is squad selection. Due to out of possession tactics introductions the star ratings are all over the place and a lot of times youth players are not showing in dropdown menu. Make it easy to select a player based on assistant's opinion without having to be so careful which screen you are on (stars vary wildly), who is in senior team and so on. It should be way more intuitive than it currently is.
Bring back attribute progression charts and especially numbers. "This guy gained 5 pace since he joined the club", or in last 3 seasons or whatever. Like how hard can it be, it was working fine in FM24 and before. It's a major mood killer for anyone who enjoys developing players.
Descriptive staff attributes are terrible, was way easier when it was numbers. And especially since the rest of the game is all numbers anyway, in fact so are these attributes they've just hidden them behind words.
Could go on and on with this
Actual new suggestion:
Something I would like to see is being able to tell reserve and youth team managers (and maybe your assistant for when you holiday/friendlies) who and in what position to play the players. For example a squad planner
It's in the 2nd post of this thread ... or https://fm-arena.com/thread/18274-optimal-training-schedules/
GS projections of attributes at maximum CA aren't accurate enough to use them for making decisions. I missed that in your screenshot. It'd be much better to compare their actual attributes. And yes you can steer the training to surpass what GS predicts.
Make a list of which attributes one and the other have better and by how much and then decide what you prefer. I think it's close but the winner is obvious, but you may have other preferences.
Because the maximum input for rating file for attribute X is 100, then actual maximum buff is
100*0.1=10
THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN BUFF attribute-X BY A VALUE OF 30! NEVER!!!
This is the biggest problem in GS.
Sure you can by reducing other weights by a factor of 0,3
I'd probably play Ekitike in the middle because of his passing and vision. I find the AMC often drops in the midfield and picks a pass to one of the wingers or even a charging MC. Things I value more than usually on AMC in this tactic are passing, vision, OTB. JR is probably better on a winger though.
But in the end with these things it's more about trial an error. Change it up a bit and see where they perform best, attributes and traits might say one thing and performance in match engine could be somewhat different.