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.
I set up training once per month and for me it's a good enough compromise. Most match days are set by then, chances of any changes are fairly small. Doesn't cover the whole year automatically like we'd want to but it's quite manageable
Additionally to what ZaZ said I really like gets forward whenever possible on wing backs although it might not be needed in current FM26 meta as they are already very offensive.
Small sample. After half a season with old set pieces and half with new production is roughly the same. There are some new types of goals scored though but for and against. With better familiarity over time or just better RNG it might pull ahead. Keeping the new version for now, I seem to be getting hit on the counter less than before and that's probably the most frustrating thing to watch
Still using your old ones that produce a goal here or there from set pieces. Now that I have better jumpers maybe 5-10 per season mostly from corners. And I do occasionally get hit on the counter especially from IFK far from goal which can be frustrating.
So I'll give these a go, but I play slowly so can't really promise any feedback for a few weeks.
Not sure I agree with that broad statement that GK is the least important position. Issue is mostly with the way these attribute tests are done. For outfield players it's usually the whole team change and for goalkeepers it's a single player. To put it another way outfield you are testing the change on 10 players at once vs goalkeeper only 1 player.
Of course they will change training, eventually. But those changes happen once every 5-10 years, they won't reinvent the whole thing every year like we wish. For now their priority is making the game playable and at least at old levels of fun again so I don't expect any training changes in FM27, except maybe making it less of a hassle to handle but without major changes under the hood.
LightningFlik said: My favourite tactic. Is there a concern that your low-CA teams actually aren't good enough to finish fourth on their merits but through the strength of the tactics? I don't want to tell you or any of the other hardworking testers your business but it might be more instructive not to use a tactic that could see even the worst team finish in the top half.
Now it makes sense why that team wasn't comparable in terms of rating to the team who finished fourth in my save. Expand I mean, if you want to win Premier league with 1 CA players you kind of need every possible advantage you can get. Or any other feat that significantly defies odds. But even with the top tactics you can go right or wrong with player selection and that's what is being tested. Fairly sure that with an average tactic you stand no chance.
You need to first establish your club to the point that you can actually attract high potential players. Plus you aren't really developing anyone in Latvian 2nd division with bad facilities, bad coaches and likely semipro status
Not sure if I wrote about it here or not. But from personal observation the first intake is very often abnormally good no matter where you start the save, could be just player's team or globally I haven't really checked. It's been like that for years. Might be something intentionally implemented by SI to get us hooked.
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.
So I'll give these a go, but I play slowly so can't really promise any feedback for a few weeks.
Now it makes sense why that team wasn't comparable in terms of rating to the team who finished fourth in my save.
I mean, if you want to win Premier league with 1 CA players you kind of need every possible advantage you can get. Or any other feat that significantly defies odds. But even with the top tactics you can go right or wrong with player selection and that's what is being tested. Fairly sure that with an average tactic you stand no chance.