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.
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 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.
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.
Falbravv said: The answer is always ont the same thing, you need low CA player, because the game only take in count the CA to adjust Transfer fee and salary Expand
Low CA players with high "meta" stats such as pace, acc, dribble and jumping is the way to go.
keithb said: Jumping reach is set to 0 for many positions and only 65 for TM? This is all too low and a big mistake.
Haaland is the best FS and the best TM. I agree TM is better in FM because of how powerful jumping reach is. Actually his dribbling is probably a little low to be the best FS? Im not sure. Expand
I agree, Jumping reach should have higher weightage for all central positions (CM, CDM, CB, and even AM). I also think crossing should be another key attribute for WBs because I notice players with high crossing (key example Borja Sosa. Cheap WB with 16-17 crossing) stats generally do very well, especially in terms of assists.
keithb said: My first observation is that Haaland isn't rated as the best striker?? He's one of the best FM players ever, let alone in this version.
Why have you rated jumping reach so poorly?????? It needs to be high for almost every outfield position and max for centre backs. Expand
I am assuming you checked the Fast Man rating? Check out the Target Man rating. It gives quite a high weightage to jumping reach. I use the TM rating because I noticed players with high TM rating generally do better, even when used by the AI. Generally, anything over 79 TM rating seem to do pretty well.
The first thing it mentions is the physical exertion of the tactic. I think you are too hung up on the entomology of the word and forgetting that the meaning of words can evolve with time. When people talk about geggenpressing, they are clearly referring to the relentless high energy press employed by Klopp.
No offense, but this is just silly imo. How many features have SI introduced but flat out don't work? Dynamic youth rating is the main one I can think of. Match preparedness also had no effect on performance as shown by EBFM's experiment and SI just removed that feature after being called out lmao. But heck, look at the FM Arena attribute testing. Many of the attributes highlighted in green or blue as being important for the position by the game flat out don't have much impact on the ME. It's surprising someone on this forum would continue to blindly take SI at face value when even they don't seem to understand how their game is running.
Liverpool won the league they played full pressing and literally played the whole season with 13-15 players. Did they turn into gods or were they all doped up? The following years were not the same. But why? Because they didn't have an effective press and players started getting tired/injured because the runs increased.
As a Liverpool fan, this can't be further from the truth. Yes we pressed more than 20218/2019 in 2019/2020 but our pressing numbers were still lower than Klopp's beginning seasons. Second, Klopp used situational pressing more to adapt to the fact that full on gegengressing is physically taxing on the players. 2017/2018 was the peak of our gegenpressing, and it really showed in the match against Real Madrid. Our players were knackered. Same thing happened in 2016/2017 in the Europa Final against Sevilla. We had many physios leave the club after their warning that such aggressive pressing play would not be sustainable long term because the physical fatigue would eventually catch up to the players. This was the main cause of our injury crisis after our EPL win. You will also notice that Liverpool covered less distance on the pitch that season because our players were too fatigued after two high intensity seasons and 0 reinforcements in the market.
And look what getting fresh and athletic players has done for our pressing now. We are back to having one of the best press in the league after we overhauled our tired and again midfield. So I would not agree with the notion that gegenpressing is not physically demanding. Even Leeds, another team famous for gegenpressing crumbled in their second season after fatigues and injuries mounted. Manchester City is the exception, not the norm. Also, I would attribute their exception to their ability to retain possession so well. No other team in the world can dominate possession like them.
Lastly, this is the most puzzling part for me because it's just a blatant lie, we did not have only 13-15 players in the season we won the league. We had a really strong bench during our UCL winning and EPL winning campaigns. We had a pretty good bench of Chamberlain, Keita, Lallana, Origi, Shaqiri, Lorvren, Milner, Gomez and some youth players. Most Liverpool fans still consider this to be the best bench we have had in recent times.
Gracolas said: Since the meta attributes is pretty much the same as in last FM, i think ykykyk works just fine in this new FM, no need to use any other GS ratings so far. Expand
ykykyk is based on the machine learning findings more than the meta attributes.You will find that it gives high weightage to attributes such as finishing, position, technique, etc even though the FM attribute testing show them to be non-meta. The reasoning behind including non-meta attributes was that it helps find more well rounded players.
ZaZ said: It actually follows this kind of curve below. The peak, zero, is the exact point where it changes from "Fresh" to "Low", so the ideal is to stay in that point of balance.
For reference, Fresh goes from -500 to 0, while Low goes from 1 to 399. I didn't test the number 600, which is when it starts to show "Rst" icon ( "Fatigued" ), but I assume it reaches minimum performance around that value.
Anyway, I am still collecting more data to consolidate those results, as well as checking the changes in numbers caused by playing and training. Expand
Amazing find. Now the problem is, how do we maintain our players' fatigue around that level. Especially in busy leagues such as the EPL.
TACO11 said: This test is very interesting, I wonder what the potential reasons are. Could it be that a players CA impacts performance? Expand
nah, there is already a post in the forums showing that the same CAs can perform very differently. Suppose there are 2 players with 150 CA. But one gets most of its CA from physicals while the other gets it from technicals, the first player would outperform the latter. It just happens that most high CA players also have good physicals. But you can see this play scenario play out in old strikers who have high CAs but bad physicals because of their age. Or, look at Kane. One of the highest CA player but constantly underperforms in the game because of his low physicals. This is also why many veterans recommend against looking purely at the CA.
DreadPirateRoberts said: Hello , I have made a filter for positional ratings based on the tests done on attributes (so far). It doesn't include GK rating for obvious reasons. I thought I would post it here and maybe people can give feedback on potential changes that could be made. I have made an estimation on the stats not yet tested based on importance in previous years. The weighings are quite "harsh" but I also didnt want to give points to attributes that have no proven positive effect!
Zeyad said: It's interesting that the player rating is affected but not the final team results. Sounds like bad design to me Expand
The final result seems to have changed, though. He came second and did not win the UCL as Manchester City, a team that can usually walk the league, especially when managed by the player. But, 87 points in the Premier League and UCL QF with 3 attributes set to 1 across the whole team is ridiculous, lol. This game is truly just an Athletics Manager at this point.
jackofarcades said: The Machine Learning weights never felt right to me. I always felt they underrated physicals. On average they put less weight on Acceleration, Agility, Strength, and Jumping to just the default CA weights. By comparison they put a lot more emphases on Aggression, Bravery, Work Rate, and Dribbling.
On average they put about 15% of the total score to pace and acceleration. I'm not sure what the correct percentage would be, but my guess is it might be 30-40 depending on the position. Expand
also, I think the ratings might have to be modified for this FM because of how much more important jumping is all of a sudden. Actually, jumping might have become more important since FM 23 midway, after attribute testings were already done. I noticed that players with high Target man rating in ykykyk always performed better, even when using them as AF, because they would just get into positions and score more headers. I had Simmeone Giovanni score 56 goals in Siere A alone with a pretty mid Roma side becuase he has very good pace, acceleration and jumping. Also, mentality seem even weaker this FM based on the attribute testing, especially with the nerf to anticipation.
skawkclsrn said: I've always been a bit sceptical about ykykyky's ratings because their findings were only based on that single ZaZ tactic. The attribute testing, being done by this website, is obviously also based on a single tactic though.
We've also seen on other tests that attributes, and subsequently good players, do have a bigger impact on a match compared to any tactic though. So in theory these findings should be somewhat universal, regardless of tactic.
There are also some attributes that I believe have low-to-zero impact on the result of any game, as they're only used to determine player's pro- or regression throughout their careers such as Determination and Natural Fitness.
In my personal experience, I've used both ykykyky and Mark's ratings file for Genie Scout. I tend to lean towards Mark's ratings because they seem to consistently identify high-performing players for my team. It's all about finding what works best for your style of play, but it's great to have multiple resources like these at our disposal. 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.
The second guy is the clear winner imo. Great physicals and better technicals (that matter for an AF) compared to the other two.
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.
Low CA players with high "meta" stats such as pace, acc, dribble and jumping is the way to go.
Haaland is the best FS and the best TM. I agree TM is better in FM because of how powerful jumping reach is. Actually his dribbling is probably a little low to be the best FS? Im not sure.
I agree, Jumping reach should have higher weightage for all central positions (CM, CDM, CB, and even AM). I also think crossing should be another key attribute for WBs because I notice players with high crossing (key example Borja Sosa. Cheap WB with 16-17 crossing) stats generally do very well, especially in terms of assists.
Why have you rated jumping reach so poorly?????? It needs to be high for almost every outfield position and max for centre backs.
I am assuming you checked the Fast Man rating? Check out the Target Man rating. It gives quite a high weightage to jumping reach. I use the TM rating because I noticed players with high TM rating generally do better, even when used by the AI. Generally, anything over 79 TM rating seem to do pretty well.
This video explain in 1 minute the difference
Here is a video literally titled "what is geggenpressing" https://youtube.com/shorts/4X3jmVvrjxo?si=saxdnFIwtXD93RjY
The first thing it mentions is the physical exertion of the tactic. I think you are too hung up on the entomology of the word and forgetting that the meaning of words can evolve with time. When people talk about geggenpressing, they are clearly referring to the relentless high energy press employed by Klopp.
No offense, but this is just silly imo. How many features have SI introduced but flat out don't work? Dynamic youth rating is the main one I can think of. Match preparedness also had no effect on performance as shown by EBFM's experiment and SI just removed that feature after being called out lmao. But heck, look at the FM Arena attribute testing. Many of the attributes highlighted in green or blue as being important for the position by the game flat out don't have much impact on the ME. It's surprising someone on this forum would continue to blindly take SI at face value when even they don't seem to understand how their game is running.
As a Liverpool fan, this can't be further from the truth. Yes we pressed more than 20218/2019 in 2019/2020 but our pressing numbers were still lower than Klopp's beginning seasons. Second, Klopp used situational pressing more to adapt to the fact that full on gegengressing is physically taxing on the players. 2017/2018 was the peak of our gegenpressing, and it really showed in the match against Real Madrid. Our players were knackered. Same thing happened in 2016/2017 in the Europa Final against Sevilla. We had many physios leave the club after their warning that such aggressive pressing play would not be sustainable long term because the physical fatigue would eventually catch up to the players. This was the main cause of our injury crisis after our EPL win. You will also notice that Liverpool covered less distance on the pitch that season because our players were too fatigued after two high intensity seasons and 0 reinforcements in the market.
And look what getting fresh and athletic players has done for our pressing now. We are back to having one of the best press in the league after we overhauled our tired and again midfield. So I would not agree with the notion that gegenpressing is not physically demanding. Even Leeds, another team famous for gegenpressing crumbled in their second season after fatigues and injuries mounted. Manchester City is the exception, not the norm. Also, I would attribute their exception to their ability to retain possession so well. No other team in the world can dominate possession like them.
Lastly, this is the most puzzling part for me because it's just a blatant lie, we did not have only 13-15 players in the season we won the league. We had a really strong bench during our UCL winning and EPL winning campaigns. We had a pretty good bench of Chamberlain, Keita, Lallana, Origi, Shaqiri, Lorvren, Milner, Gomez and some youth players. Most Liverpool fans still consider this to be the best bench we have had in recent times.
ykykyk is based on the machine learning findings more than the meta attributes.You will find that it gives high weightage to attributes such as finishing, position, technique, etc even though the FM attribute testing show them to be non-meta. The reasoning behind including non-meta attributes was that it helps find more well rounded players.
For reference, Fresh goes from -500 to 0, while Low goes from 1 to 399. I didn't test the number 600, which is when it starts to show "Rst" icon ( "Fatigued" ), but I assume it reaches minimum performance around that value.
Anyway, I am still collecting more data to consolidate those results, as well as checking the changes in numbers caused by playing and training.
Amazing find. Now the problem is, how do we maintain our players' fatigue around that level. Especially in busy leagues such as the EPL.
nah, there is already a post in the forums showing that the same CAs can perform very differently. Suppose there are 2 players with 150 CA. But one gets most of its CA from physicals while the other gets it from technicals, the first player would outperform the latter. It just happens that most high CA players also have good physicals. But you can see this play scenario play out in old strikers who have high CAs but bad physicals because of their age. Or, look at Kane. One of the highest CA player but constantly underperforms in the game because of his low physicals. This is also why many veterans recommend against looking purely at the CA.
Link to ratings : https://mega.nz/file/KLhl1DiZ#goT2Kvmd_H6UC7YIxV4akOyKZfWe8Cm46k7E8-1GdEE
Thank you for your work! It will be interesting to compare the results of this filter to those of ykykyk balanced, ZaZ 50 and MD.
The final result seems to have changed, though. He came second and did not win the UCL as Manchester City, a team that can usually walk the league, especially when managed by the player. But, 87 points in the Premier League and UCL QF with 3 attributes set to 1 across the whole team is ridiculous, lol. This game is truly just an Athletics Manager at this point.
On average they put about 15% of the total score to pace and acceleration. I'm not sure what the correct percentage would be, but my guess is it might be 30-40 depending on the position.
also, I think the ratings might have to be modified for this FM because of how much more important jumping is all of a sudden. Actually, jumping might have become more important since FM 23 midway, after attribute testings were already done. I noticed that players with high Target man rating in ykykyk always performed better, even when using them as AF, because they would just get into positions and score more headers. I had Simmeone Giovanni score 56 goals in Siere A alone with a pretty mid Roma side becuase he has very good pace, acceleration and jumping. Also, mentality seem even weaker this FM based on the attribute testing, especially with the nerf to anticipation.
The attribute testing, being done by this website, is obviously also based on a single tactic though.
We've also seen on other tests that attributes, and subsequently good players, do have a bigger impact on a match compared to any tactic though. So in theory these findings should be somewhat universal, regardless of tactic.
There are also some attributes that I believe have low-to-zero impact on the result of any game, as they're only used to determine player's pro- or regression throughout their careers such as Determination and Natural Fitness.
In my personal experience, I've used both ykykyky and Mark's ratings file for Genie Scout. I tend to lean towards Mark's ratings because they seem to consistently identify high-performing players for my team. It's all about finding what works best for your style of play, but it's great to have multiple resources like these at our disposal.
Is the "mark ratings" not ykykyk balanced?