Tiki taka possession based tactics that can easily achieve that kind of percentage are notorious for not really scoring goals. They pass the ball till they are dead and generate 1 xg per game or something silly low.
The main difference is that Squirrel plays app works with what you see in the game, with all it's limitations. Genie has all the hidden information as well, which some people don't like knowing.
Well I gave you the rough estimate based on description, question is only how much you trust your staff opinion. I've had players who had a description that they can improve a lot and on the day when they hit 22 years old all of it disappeared, there are many others for which it stays. I don't check CA and PA numbers so I'm not really the best to give a definitive answer.
As soon as you start the save every player has a fixed PA, there are no ranges. Same with any newgens that spawn throughout the game.
Those descriptions are kind of like you mentioned but you have to know that they are only your staff's opinion so not 100%. I believe it goes: close to full potential, could improve slightly, could improve significantly, could improve a lot. If I had to assign numbers it would be for example <5, 5-10, 10-15(20?), 20+ respectively. Again the exact number isn't that relevant as it's only staff opinion which can change overnight.
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.
If you ever want Raphinha to become 20/20 you need to play him there. And the differences in ratings are fairly small, almost to the point it doesn't matter who you play or rather whoever is in better form.
Sometimes players need time to settle. There is also a lot of variance season to season. I've had same player score 20 goals in one season and 4 goals in the next and then 15 the next, with similar game time and no tactical or team changes. Sometimes it just clicks and it snowballs into a good season and other times it's a struggle. That's why I think this pursuit of absolutes is pointless. In the end it matters how the player performs and not that we improve the rating system by those last few percentage points.
Also not a fan of league comparisons. Get the best players you can with the budget you have. Whether they are VNN or Championship level doesn't really matter, it's the best you can get at this point in time.
Theoretically you could if you ran enough tests. But the game is too easy as it is with the tools we already have available. Pretty much any rating system on this site will do a good job. To the point that player selection will rarely be a limiting factor in game progress. Club reputation, sponsorships, facilities, country characteristics and similar a the things that will prevent a meteoric rise, not whether player A is 1% better overall than player B.
I think tests on the presets are great, to give a sense of the kind of baseline we are dealing with.
Also a lot of people use presets with a few tweaks to play the game, maybe not on this site. Downloading the most OP tactic can make the game too easy, while on the other hand you don't want to hinder yourself completely by playing catenaccio or whatever performs the worst this year.
NandaldiaN said: I just dont know what ratings use right now... I bought konaté wich is by far better in ratings compared to hojlund but the last one is always performing better, scoring more, assisting more... and its not the first time it is happening to me with some players.. its weird to me Expand
All of them are pretty good, none are perfect. Plus there is more to performance than just these ratings. Hidden attributes, suitability to your tactic, form and so on all play a massive role.
DreadPirateRoberts said: I don't think that is the answer tho. From 1 -> 5, basically every single attribute has big impact on the result. Once you surpass 5-10, suddenly only like 7 attributes have any effect at all. The effectivness of attributes do not happen incrementally, but rather all of the effectivness lie in the first 5-10 points. They go from being astronomically important, to being disregarded completely. Surely if for example passing is hugely important from 1 to 5, it wouldn't be completely useless by the time it reaches 10 if your theory is correct. How come the drop off is so insanely huge ? Expand
I don't even know where you are getting these cutoffs. Maybe I missed a test somewhere?
It's hard to say whether there are diminishing returns on attribute gains or what I suspect it's just harder to achieve higher scores. Going from bad to good is much easier than from good to excellent. Maybe if 5 pace scored 60 points, 10 pace would also be only 81 and not 91.
And anyone reading into anything within 2 points ... just don't.
Lapidus said: I just want to stress once more that the "Match Expertise" level not only depends on "playing matches" but it also depends on "Training".
"No Training/Resting" = rapid declining of "Match Expertise" which might be a very negative thing.
Players by training not only improves their attributes but also build/keep their "Match Expertise" level.
When a player often "resting" then his "Match Expertise" drop much faster and even his CA might drop which to decreasing attributes.
So I'm trying to say that you need to very careful with "resting" thing. Yes, it might decrease "fatigue" but for what cost? Is it worth the cost? Expand
Honestly been using ZaZ training rest settings for at least a year. Never really had problems with match sharpness. Roughly 1 game per 10-14 days will easily maintain their sharpness. If a player plays less than that you can easily give him a game in u21s or something. So I don't think it's ever an issue and I wouldn't compromise physical fitness for it.
ZaZ said: In short, players with "fresh" fatigue perform much worse than those with "low" fatigue (which perform much better than those getting fatigued or fatigued), which is how FM simulates the conditioning of muscles. Expand
That is very interesting and surprising. I always like to keep my guys fresh ...
sponsorkindest said: So stupid, man here we are using ML rating, python code, excel sheet, genie scout and FMRTE to get the recruitment right but when in reality all you need a filter with Pace >= 16 Expand
What do you think all of those do? They all heavily favor pace and acceleration, some of them because of these exact tests.
MeanOnSunday said: It’s loading the db from the game that’s slow; it takes a couple of minutes for something that should take 1-2 seconds. Otherwise you can easily make your own ratings for GS to match any particular python script. Expand
I mean, opening the correct view in FM, copying and pasting, opening the right file and all the other minor things you have to do also take like a minute or two in total. Plus you actually need to be doing stuff in that minute instead of 1 click to load database and do other things while it finishes.
Those descriptions are kind of like you mentioned but you have to know that they are only your staff's opinion so not 100%. I believe it goes: close to full potential, could improve slightly, could improve significantly, could improve a lot. If I had to assign numbers it would be for example <5, 5-10, 10-15(20?), 20+ respectively. Again the exact number isn't that relevant as it's only staff opinion which can change overnight.
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.
Also a lot of people use presets with a few tweaks to play the game, maybe not on this site. Downloading the most OP tactic can make the game too easy, while on the other hand you don't want to hinder yourself completely by playing catenaccio or whatever performs the worst this year.
All of them are pretty good, none are perfect. Plus there is more to performance than just these ratings. Hidden attributes, suitability to your tactic, form and so on all play a massive role.
I don't even know where you are getting these cutoffs. Maybe I missed a test somewhere?
And anyone reading into anything within 2 points ... just don't.
Kind of hilarious
"No Training/Resting" = rapid declining of "Match Expertise" which might be a very negative thing.
Players by training not only improves their attributes but also build/keep their "Match Expertise" level.
When a player often "resting" then his "Match Expertise" drop much faster and even his CA might drop which to decreasing attributes.
So I'm trying to say that you need to very careful with "resting" thing. Yes, it might decrease "fatigue" but for what cost? Is it worth the cost?
Honestly been using ZaZ training rest settings for at least a year. Never really had problems with match sharpness. Roughly 1 game per 10-14 days will easily maintain their sharpness. If a player plays less than that you can easily give him a game in u21s or something. So I don't think it's ever an issue and I wouldn't compromise physical fitness for it.
That is very interesting and surprising. I always like to keep my guys fresh ...
What do you think all of those do? They all heavily favor pace and acceleration, some of them because of these exact tests.
I mean, opening the correct view in FM, copying and pasting, opening the right file and all the other minor things you have to do also take like a minute or two in total. Plus you actually need to be doing stuff in that minute instead of 1 click to load database and do other things while it finishes.