I think the issue I’m having is I’m looking for a more universal approach to us, as a group, finding out which attributes are worth prioritising per position. Using the filters available you can find cheap players, but I’m hoping to find a formula to decipher which players will work on the match engine. Like pace and acceleration are a given, the FM Arena test is great, we know which attributes influence a team’s success. I’m wondering how we can narrow that down to individual players though. So on baseball games, a player with incredible plate vision will get get walked to first base a lot and therefore have a high oBP% which is a measurable metric for player value. I’m looking to see if we can find a way to judge players based on attributes, what they will be able to do in the match engine. Like a winger with 16 speed and acc and 16 dribbling, but like 4 in passing, I want to be sure I can discard them. This might not be possible, I’m just wondering if it is, and here is the best place
That's a very good point. However, I do wonder if there is a baseline we can reach where we know a player is going to succeed to a certain degree in the match engine.
Having seen the explosion of Python brilliance into the game this year, coupled with the excellent efforts made by FM Arena in finding what attributes most impact team performance, I'm wondering if as a group we can find a standard for player recruitment.
I know we've had the YKYKYK Balanced filters for previous Genie Scouts, but I'm wondering if we can find a different way. Obviously the most important two attributes are pace and acceleration, irrespective of possession.
However, based on the python model of attributes weighted 5, 3 and 1, I'm wondering if there are filters we can come up with, because even with this system, a lot of the players thrown up are still unattainables like Haaland.
Yet, if you mess with the filters too much, i.e. lower things, you get too few players who don't look great.
I wonder if there is a way we could determine and identify what things equate to match engine performance in individual positions.
I know this could vary from person to person, like I could value passing in my DM, whereas someone else could just want a Lee Cattermole style destroyer with no real ability.
A lot of this is a bit of a ramble, but I'm looking mostly for a discussion, see other people's opinions and see if we can come up with something.
Possibly my best result in a single season simulation yet since the update. Added some new PIs to the left-sided advanced forward so he takes more shots.
That's what they say, but I've gone from averaging 74 points with this system in tests to not being able to get over 60. Even with RNG that is a notable decline.
I wondered if this can get another round of testing, because I believe the last update has done something to the ME even if it wasn't specified. I know can't seem to get over 60 points with this system in my tests now, and I'll only know if something has changed if an FMArena retest can be done. Thank you
I know we've had the YKYKYK Balanced filters for previous Genie Scouts, but I'm wondering if we can find a different way. Obviously the most important two attributes are pace and acceleration, irrespective of possession.
However, based on the python model of attributes weighted 5, 3 and 1, I'm wondering if there are filters we can come up with, because even with this system, a lot of the players thrown up are still unattainables like Haaland.
Yet, if you mess with the filters too much, i.e. lower things, you get too few players who don't look great.
I wonder if there is a way we could determine and identify what things equate to match engine performance in individual positions.
I know this could vary from person to person, like I could value passing in my DM, whereas someone else could just want a Lee Cattermole style destroyer with no real ability.
A lot of this is a bit of a ramble, but I'm looking mostly for a discussion, see other people's opinions and see if we can come up with something.
Tactic:
Player Stats:
PL Table:
Schedule:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule:
Formation:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule:
Formation:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule:
Formation:
Squad Stats:
PL Table:
Schedule:
Formation:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule:
Formation:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule:
Formation:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule:
Formation:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule:
Squad Stats:
PL Table:
Schedule:
Formation:
Squad Stats:
PL Table:
Schedule:
Formation:
PL Table:
Squad Stats:
Schedule: