Also, if you ever make it to introduce position proficiency to weight the meta rating even more, that could lead to even better squad management using your tool! Again, great work!
OK, thanks for the info on the weighting choices in your GS file! That's enlightening and actually makes me understand better why seemingly best players are rated lower. And thanks for the infos on position proficiency.
So it is not a rating file that truly shows the "statistically best" player, but the "statistically most promising, considering pace/acc will be trained later". For instance, Haaland is way above Mbappe because Haaland could gain the 1-2 pace/acc that Mbappe has on him, while Mbappe could never gain the 10 jumping reach that Haaland has on him, even with perfect CA reallocation through Harvest's training regime.
So if I'm using the file to figure out the "best XI" of my team for a given tactic at a given date, your earlier "FM26 GS file" would make more sense, but for long-game recruiting purposes / understanding best promising youngster from my academy, your new "Premier League 1.0" file is prbly better?
Not sure what the point of that attitude is, but anyways.
I agree that speed and acceleration might be underweighted in the premier league GS file. Jumping reach having high weight is an interesting take, but can you remind me why it has actually higher weight that pace/acc? I feel like nothing should be higher, according to actual testing. Not saying that it's a bad idea, but I wonder the rational behind that choice.
Also, any pointers on how (according to your file, or of general understanding of positional proficiency) we should interpret GS ratings of sub-20 position for a player as per my messages before the interruption?
Some visual (with another player) to complement my point. This guy is proficient as a DC, and can play somewhat as DR, DM and, to a lesser extent, WBR
Hi general rating (purely calculated through the attributes weighting) is similar everywhere (the weights are similar everywhere, except DC and ST where jumping reach has higher value in general)
Pretty much 41 across the board, and 42/43 DC/ST (the dude is huge)
Now, if we look at the actual position rating (the ones that appear if you set position ratings in your columns - it never shows the general rating), we see that the difference between his positional score as DC and as AMR is less than 10 points appart, which feels off. He should be very very low AMR, having 1 proficiency at that position.
Final thing, I never use the actual "role" rating since GS seem to add a layer of its own calculations on top of the user-defined weights. So I don't know how those relate to truly tested attributes.
Another thing about player position proficiency and how it should affect Genie Scout's ratings.
My understanding is that, according to the rating filter, each player gets a score for each position. This is the "general rating", when looking at one player's profil in GS. Then, the general rating is adjusted as a "positional rating" according to the player's position proficiency.
When chosing which player to play at a given position, "positional rating" is thus more relevant since it takes into consideration the position's proficiency. However, this can't seem to be configurable and only a GS inner calculation. We've seen somewhere that 1 point of proficiency has the similar impact on a player's performance than 1 point of pace "lost". E.g. A player with 17 speed and natural (20) is similar in performance than a player with 20 speed and accomplished (17). It's probably more complex than that, but it is the simplest way to compare.
Now, I'm not sure that this translates well into GS "positinal rating". For instance, let's look at 2 players in my team, contenders for playing WBL (for the sake of the discussion). I'm using the GS file in the OG post (zhf2yl)
Player A: General Rating = 45.0 WBL proficiency = 10 Positional Rating = 42.91 (So being only 10 proficient made him drop 2.09 pts) He is 45.0 positional rating for DR
Player B: General Rating = 42.6 WBL proficiency = 15 Positional Rating = 41.74 (So having 5 less than 20 proficiency made him drop 0.86 pts) He is 42.6 positional rating for DL
I feel like, even if GS shows player A as a better WBL, player B might be a better option. It seems to me that GS does not weight positional proficiency enough. My personal impression is that we should remove another 0.5 pt per proficiency below 20 to actually represent the player's efficiency.
That would make the "adjusted positional rating" like so: Player A: 37.91 Player B: 40.24 (He's now the best WBL between the two)
For reference, I have a player C with 1 in WBL proficiency: Player C: General Rating = 53.3 WBL proficiency = 1 Positional Rating = 42.7 (Just 10.6 pts less, even being totally ineffectual) Making him "theoretically" (without the adujsted positional rating) the best WBL even with 1 proficiency.
I'd like thoughts of smarter people than me on this.
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).
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.
I haven't done FM26 versions yet and it'll be a while before I do, I recommend just using the FM26 ratings file I did before and replacing the GK ratings with the new values in FM24 Blended. You could use these new files in FM26, but it would be a bit off (still much better than FM Genie Scout default).
I'm increasingly unsatisfied with the result as I've ran into further issues, but I've decided to just put these out there otherwise it'll never get done and it does seem to work better despite the issues.
I've had a dilemma about merging in some of my own findings. One example is that in my 1 CA player testing I found that concentration matters on CB/DL/DR, not other positions. Another is that extra finishing on CBs made no difference to goals scored, which means it's low weight on CBs for a reason. These findings are a part of my previous ratings file, so I wanted to include them again here. But I also figured that my data isn't as strongly evidenced as HarvestGreen's, and some of my conclusions could just simply be wrong. On the other hand, there were a number of different examples which can't all be wrong and it makes sense that different positions benefit from certain attributes to different degrees, so I don't think it's best just to use HarvestGreen's data flatly amongst all players. In the end I decided to just apply a simple -/+25% to a few attributes that I was quite sure had pronounced positional differences. I.e. dribbling 32 > 40, vision 5 > 7. So nothing too drastic, but this leaves me feeling like it is too arbitrary a change and yet it also doesn't go far enough probably. The only reassurance I have is that the actual results seem to be better, which you can see a sample of below.
Another issue I've had is with the new GK data. Initially I just plugged in HarvestGreen's new figures. But looking at the results, I get the impression something isn't quite right with the new data. And if you look at HarvestGreen's old GK data, which only had conceded goals as a measure but was also measuring 10>20 instead of 1>20, you can see there are contradictions. From my own 1 CA player tests, I found that acc & pace seemed best value around ~5-8 rather than 20. And if you look at actual players in the database, a bunch of the best have acc of just 8-10. So I think this is mainly a case of missing the data that shows where ~6-14 is sufficient, which we know some attributes such as work rate are like. So I made some appropriate adjustments. Definitely an improvement on my old ratings file here.
Here are some example results. Two important differences that stand out to me are that the GKs are significantly more correct in the new version (Pickford shouldn't be behind Forster!) and there are no longer 2 japanese players from Celtic in the top 10 ST list (they do have high acc/pace, but this seems an appropriate change). And clearly with Kane as no. 1 ST, FM Genie Scout default ratings are way off.
New (blended):
Pickford 69.53% Pope 67.67% Ramsdale 67.43% Steele 65.41%
Old:
Pope 69.74% Forster 65.89% Pickford 65.13% Ramsdale 65.00%
HarvestGreen (new GK data):
Pope 75.44% Pickford 73.89% Ramsdale 72.98% Butland 72.85%
Kane 91.47% Haaland 90.95% Messi 90.03% Lewandowski 88.43% Mbappe 88.30% Benzema 87.21% Salah 86.97% Son 86.51% Martinez 85.91% Vinicius 85.71% Expand
I am currently trying a Youth Academy Challenge, which makes me unable to buy players, and only use my academy newgens.
With that in mind, I'm trying to put together the best way to approach the GS rating files you provided (I am on FM26 so I know they are not fully compatible, but I am wondering about the philosophy of it anyways, more than the actual scores). In this challenge, I only want to assess my own team a) probable best performers b) probable future best performers. But I don't need to find players who are "good even if low CA" because anyways I have a fixed roster and can't try to find a cheap hidden elite.
The "pure performance" file would provide me with an indication of probable best performers in my team. That part seems straightforward.
But is the "youth" file as relevant in that context? Wouldn't a player's potential, rated by the "pure performance" file, be a better prospect than a player with good "youth" rating? Do we know how GS rates "potential" of a player is computed? Is it simply considering a direct scaling of their current attributes as if linearly scaled up to their PA?
Sorry if these questions are unclear, I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this!
Another thing about the r5xm3t rating file. Anyone here using a strikeless tactic seen any difference in using the Attacking midfields ratings vs the fast strikers ratings for their top line?
I'm using the AMC/Wingers ratings even if there are no strikers up front. It's working well, but wondering if anyone tries to use other ratings?
I tried to put my best "target striker" as my AMC in my strikerless tactic and THAT went poorly.
I have to say though that your UI and the simplicity of your tool did make it a way superior tool than Genie Scout (for my use of it, not necessarily as a generic tool). Of course GS is more powerful, but it is way less instinctive to sort out a shortlist of players considering the "meta attributes" than HOW you decided to make it available in your UI.
Panneton0 said: First of all, your tool is amazing and I add my voice to those encouraging you to put a little "donate" button somewhere.
I have two questions that occured while trying it in a low-league save of mine 1) Following the formulaes I can find, I don't understand this (see screenshot). With 4 in an attribute, I'd think his "factor" would be (4-8)/12=-0.333. So I guess there's a supplemental penalty hidden but I don't know where
2) Why do you set "score < 0 --> score = 0" ? Is this a limitation for your squad builder? UI limitation? In one of my saves, in a low league, most players have a negative score (and I am doing a youth-only challenge, so no transfers in!). Trying to optimize my pityfull team so I'd guess I'd field my "less bad" lads I can see their negative scores individually, but not in the squad view. Is this by design?
Again, AMAZING tool, and slick visual! Love it Expand
Another thing: Your "change log" shows "built" as time.now, not the time of the actual build. Keep up the good work and I hope you're having great holidays (if you celebrate it!).
Optimal training + U18/U23 appearances vs Loaner club's training + First team appearances
Has anyone also crunched the numbers for progress between "optimized training" and "loaned players". When a player goes on loan (and let's say he is starter at the loaner club), you can't set his training for [Chosen training]+[Quickness]+[Double], but his progress is uncapped since he'll get many first team appearances.
My little-to-no-basis instinct would be that one should only loan a player if his attributes distribution is already optimal, but with high untapped PA. Any player with high PA and suboptimal attributes distribution should stay with our training to start skewing his attributes back the right way.
First of all, your tool is amazing and I add my voice to those encouraging you to put a little "donate" button somewhere.
I have two questions that occured while trying it in a low-league save of mine 1) Following the formulaes I can find, I don't understand this (see screenshot). With 4 in an attribute, I'd think his "factor" would be (4-8)/12=-0.333. So I guess there's a supplemental penalty hidden but I don't know where
2) Why do you set "score < 0 --> score = 0" ? Is this a limitation for your squad builder? UI limitation? In one of my saves, in a low league, most players have a negative score (and I am doing a youth-only challenge, so no transfers in!). Trying to optimize my pityfull team so I'd guess I'd field my "less bad" lads I can see their negative scores individually, but not in the squad view. Is this by design?
So I guess that the "precomputed" result (if this is the case, I know nothing is yet confirmed) is not only the result, but also pass maps / positions / etc. Because ingame highlights still "kinda" feel like they fit with the tactic (giving the potentially better illusion of micro-computations). Thanks for all your inputs, this is all very interesting
MeanOnSunday said: Doesn’t make sense to worry about it. Sign the best free agents and loans you can get at the start of each year. No young player is ever going to progress enough from training to get into your team, or to stay with the team as you get promoted. Expand
Usually would agree, but in a "Youth academy challenge", that is not an option. I am aware how the challenge makes it very very difficult, but let's say for "academic" interest, if we have any data on what (if any) part-time training can min/max CA gains toward meta attributes, and how it compares to the best full-time ones.
This is purely out of curiosity, to further some understanding of training mechanisms.
Out of curiosity, anyone tested part-time training? Only having 6 slots (2 of them likely being a game) changes things. Not clear to me if the "unavailable" slots count as rest. Anyone tested the progress cap with that? Wondering how to boost a semi-pro team :P
I might not have been clear. I am fully aware that attributes have their strenghts and that this is all a multi-variable problem. The question is whether the ME makes micro-computations "on the spot" with true complex interactions between attributes or if it is only a render of more macro-computations that only ponderates "success" with main attributes.
In other words, is it true that "high pace = best decisions" or is the huge success of pace more an indicator that ME does not make "decisions" and "vision" shine enough during the play-by-play computations.
You guys (or gals) have tested things WAY more than the average Joe. Your inputs on this might help MANY players better understand their favorite games. As I also saw many people getting disenchanted with the ME, while I feel all of your findings are not as damning as it seems.
Great job btw
So it is not a rating file that truly shows the "statistically best" player, but the "statistically most promising, considering pace/acc will be trained later". For instance, Haaland is way above Mbappe because Haaland could gain the 1-2 pace/acc that Mbappe has on him, while Mbappe could never gain the 10 jumping reach that Haaland has on him, even with perfect CA reallocation through Harvest's training regime.
So if I'm using the file to figure out the "best XI" of my team for a given tactic at a given date, your earlier "FM26 GS file" would make more sense, but for long-game recruiting purposes / understanding best promising youngster from my academy, your new "Premier League 1.0" file is prbly better?
I agree that speed and acceleration might be underweighted in the premier league GS file. Jumping reach having high weight is an interesting take, but can you remind me why it has actually higher weight that pace/acc? I feel like nothing should be higher, according to actual testing. Not saying that it's a bad idea, but I wonder the rational behind that choice.
Also, any pointers on how (according to your file, or of general understanding of positional proficiency) we should interpret GS ratings of sub-20 position for a player as per my messages before the interruption?
This guy is proficient as a DC, and can play somewhat as DR, DM and, to a lesser extent, WBR
Hi general rating (purely calculated through the attributes weighting) is similar everywhere (the weights are similar everywhere, except DC and ST where jumping reach has higher value in general)
Pretty much 41 across the board, and 42/43 DC/ST (the dude is huge)
Now, if we look at the actual position rating (the ones that appear if you set position ratings in your columns - it never shows the general rating), we see that the difference between his positional score as DC and as AMR is less than 10 points appart, which feels off. He should be very very low AMR, having 1 proficiency at that position.
Final thing, I never use the actual "role" rating since GS seem to add a layer of its own calculations on top of the user-defined weights. So I don't know how those relate to truly tested attributes.
My understanding is that, according to the rating filter, each player gets a score for each position.
This is the "general rating", when looking at one player's profil in GS. Then, the general rating is adjusted as a "positional rating" according to the player's position proficiency.
When chosing which player to play at a given position, "positional rating" is thus more relevant since it takes into consideration the position's proficiency. However, this can't seem to be configurable and only a GS inner calculation. We've seen somewhere that 1 point of proficiency has the similar impact on a player's performance than 1 point of pace "lost". E.g. A player with 17 speed and natural (20) is similar in performance than a player with 20 speed and accomplished (17). It's probably more complex than that, but it is the simplest way to compare.
Now, I'm not sure that this translates well into GS "positinal rating". For instance, let's look at 2 players in my team, contenders for playing WBL (for the sake of the discussion). I'm using the GS file in the OG post (zhf2yl)
Player A:
General Rating = 45.0
WBL proficiency = 10
Positional Rating = 42.91 (So being only 10 proficient made him drop 2.09 pts)
He is 45.0 positional rating for DR
Player B:
General Rating = 42.6
WBL proficiency = 15
Positional Rating = 41.74 (So having 5 less than 20 proficiency made him drop 0.86 pts)
He is 42.6 positional rating for DL
I feel like, even if GS shows player A as a better WBL, player B might be a better option. It seems to me that GS does not weight positional proficiency enough. My personal impression is that we should remove another 0.5 pt per proficiency below 20 to actually represent the player's efficiency.
That would make the "adjusted positional rating" like so:
Player A: 37.91
Player B: 40.24 (He's now the best WBL between the two)
For reference, I have a player C with 1 in WBL proficiency:
Player C:
General Rating = 53.3
WBL proficiency = 1
Positional Rating = 42.7 (Just 10.6 pts less, even being totally ineffectual)
Making him "theoretically" (without the adujsted positional rating) the best WBL even with 1 proficiency.
I'd like thoughts of smarter people than me on this.
Thanks Yarema! I hadn't seen this post, much appreciated!
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://files.catbox.moe/owbw3u.grf
FM24 Age 26+/Pure performance:
https://files.catbox.moe/8wskjk.grf
FM24 Blended (recommended):
https://files.catbox.moe/f8hmj7.grf
I haven't done FM26 versions yet and it'll be a while before I do, I recommend just using the FM26 ratings file I did before and replacing the GK ratings with the new values in FM24 Blended. You could use these new files in FM26, but it would be a bit off (still much better than FM Genie Scout default).
I'm increasingly unsatisfied with the result as I've ran into further issues, but I've decided to just put these out there otherwise it'll never get done and it does seem to work better despite the issues.
I've had a dilemma about merging in some of my own findings. One example is that in my 1 CA player testing I found that concentration matters on CB/DL/DR, not other positions. Another is that extra finishing on CBs made no difference to goals scored, which means it's low weight on CBs for a reason. These findings are a part of my previous ratings file, so I wanted to include them again here. But I also figured that my data isn't as strongly evidenced as HarvestGreen's, and some of my conclusions could just simply be wrong. On the other hand, there were a number of different examples which can't all be wrong and it makes sense that different positions benefit from certain attributes to different degrees, so I don't think it's best just to use HarvestGreen's data flatly amongst all players. In the end I decided to just apply a simple -/+25% to a few attributes that I was quite sure had pronounced positional differences. I.e. dribbling 32 > 40, vision 5 > 7. So nothing too drastic, but this leaves me feeling like it is too arbitrary a change and yet it also doesn't go far enough probably. The only reassurance I have is that the actual results seem to be better, which you can see a sample of below.
Another issue I've had is with the new GK data. Initially I just plugged in HarvestGreen's new figures. But looking at the results, I get the impression something isn't quite right with the new data. And if you look at HarvestGreen's old GK data, which only had conceded goals as a measure but was also measuring 10>20 instead of 1>20, you can see there are contradictions. From my own 1 CA player tests, I found that acc & pace seemed best value around ~5-8 rather than 20. And if you look at actual players in the database, a bunch of the best have acc of just 8-10. So I think this is mainly a case of missing the data that shows where ~6-14 is sufficient, which we know some attributes such as work rate are like. So I made some appropriate adjustments. Definitely an improvement on my old ratings file here.
Here are some example results. Two important differences that stand out to me are that the GKs are significantly more correct in the new version (Pickford shouldn't be behind Forster!) and there are no longer 2 japanese players from Celtic in the top 10 ST list (they do have high acc/pace, but this seems an appropriate change). And clearly with Kane as no. 1 ST, FM Genie Scout default ratings are way off.
New (blended):
Pickford 69.53%
Pope 67.67%
Ramsdale 67.43%
Steele 65.41%
Old:
Pope 69.74%
Forster 65.89%
Pickford 65.13%
Ramsdale 65.00%
HarvestGreen (new GK data):
Pope 75.44%
Pickford 73.89%
Ramsdale 72.98%
Butland 72.85%
Actual England selected:
Pickford
Pope
Ramsdale
HarvestGreen data:
Haaland 95.34% (Man City)
Mbappe 93.59% (PSG)
Osimhen 93.39% (Napoli)
Vinicius 92.70% (R.Madrid)
Thuram 90.54% (Inter)
Nunez 89.32% (Liverpool)
Isak 88.71% (Newcastle)
Moffi 88.48% (Nice)
Martinez 88.32% (Inter)
Jesus 88.28% (Arsenal)
New (performance):
Haaland 95.25% (Man City)
Mbappe 93.68% (PSG)
Osimhen 93.65% (Napoli)
Vinicius 92.47% (R.Madrid)
Thuram 90.43% (Inter)
Nunez 89.29% (Liverpool)
Moffi 88.57% (Nice)
Isak 88.52% (Newcastle)
Lukaku 87.99% (Roma)
Maritnez 87.51% (Inter)
New (blended):
Mbappe 84.94% (PSG)
Vinicius 83.95% (R.Madrid)
Haaland 82.94% (Man City)
Osimhen 82.80% (Napoli)
Thuram 80.15% (Inter)
Nunez 80.14% (Liverpool)
Jesus 79.15% (Arsenal)
Isak 79.09% (Newcastle)
Messi 78.83% (Inter Miami)
Martinez 78.65% (Inter)
Old:
Mbappe 77.59% (PSG)
Haaland 77.25% (Man City)
Salah 76.89% (Liverpool)
Vinicius 76.86% (R.Madrid)
Martinez 75.23% (Inter)
Son 73.80% (Tottenham)
Furuhashi 73.10% (Celtic)
Nunez 73.08% (Liverpool)
Maeda 72.92% (Celtic)
Osimhen 72.65% (Napoli)
Default Genie Scout:
Kane 91.47%
Haaland 90.95%
Messi 90.03%
Lewandowski 88.43%
Mbappe 88.30%
Benzema 87.21%
Salah 86.97%
Son 86.51%
Martinez 85.91%
Vinicius 85.71%
I am currently trying a Youth Academy Challenge, which makes me unable to buy players, and only use my academy newgens.
With that in mind, I'm trying to put together the best way to approach the GS rating files you provided (I am on FM26 so I know they are not fully compatible, but I am wondering about the philosophy of it anyways, more than the actual scores). In this challenge, I only want to assess my own team a) probable best performers b) probable future best performers. But I don't need to find players who are "good even if low CA" because anyways I have a fixed roster and can't try to find a cheap hidden elite.
The "pure performance" file would provide me with an indication of probable best performers in my team. That part seems straightforward.
But is the "youth" file as relevant in that context? Wouldn't a player's potential, rated by the "pure performance" file, be a better prospect than a player with good "youth" rating? Do we know how GS rates "potential" of a player is computed? Is it simply considering a direct scaling of their current attributes as if linearly scaled up to their PA?
Sorry if these questions are unclear, I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this!
Anyone here using a strikeless tactic seen any difference in using the Attacking midfields ratings vs the fast strikers ratings for their top line?
I'm using the AMC/Wingers ratings even if there are no strikers up front. It's working well, but wondering if anyone tries to use other ratings?
I tried to put my best "target striker" as my AMC in my strikerless tactic and THAT went poorly.
So kudos to you!
I have two questions that occured while trying it in a low-league save of mine
1) Following the formulaes I can find, I don't understand this (see screenshot). With 4 in an attribute, I'd think his "factor" would be (4-8)/12=-0.333. So I guess there's a supplemental penalty hidden but I don't know where
2) Why do you set "score < 0 --> score = 0" ? Is this a limitation for your squad builder? UI limitation? In one of my saves, in a low league, most players have a negative score (and I am doing a youth-only challenge, so no transfers in!). Trying to optimize my pityfull team so I'd guess I'd field my "less bad" lads
Again, AMAZING tool, and slick visual! Love it
Another thing: Your "change log" shows "built" as time.now, not the time of the actual build. Keep up the good work and I hope you're having great holidays (if you celebrate it!).
vs
Loaner club's training + First team appearances
Has anyone also crunched the numbers for progress between "optimized training" and "loaned players". When a player goes on loan (and let's say he is starter at the loaner club), you can't set his training for [Chosen training]+[Quickness]+[Double], but his progress is uncapped since he'll get many first team appearances.
My little-to-no-basis instinct would be that one should only loan a player if his attributes distribution is already optimal, but with high untapped PA. Any player with high PA and suboptimal attributes distribution should stay with our training to start skewing his attributes back the right way.
Thoughts?
I have two questions that occured while trying it in a low-league save of mine
1) Following the formulaes I can find, I don't understand this (see screenshot). With 4 in an attribute, I'd think his "factor" would be (4-8)/12=-0.333. So I guess there's a supplemental penalty hidden but I don't know where
2) Why do you set "score < 0 --> score = 0" ? Is this a limitation for your squad builder? UI limitation? In one of my saves, in a low league, most players have a negative score (and I am doing a youth-only challenge, so no transfers in!). Trying to optimize my pityfull team so I'd guess I'd field my "less bad" lads
Again, AMAZING tool, and slick visual! Love it
Usually would agree, but in a "Youth academy challenge", that is not an option. I am aware how the challenge makes it very very difficult, but let's say for "academic" interest, if we have any data on what (if any) part-time training can min/max CA gains toward meta attributes, and how it compares to the best full-time ones.
This is purely out of curiosity, to further some understanding of training mechanisms.
In other words, is it true that "high pace = best decisions" or is the huge success of pace more an indicator that ME does not make "decisions" and "vision" shine enough during the play-by-play computations.
@harvestgreen22
@Gerrard
You guys (or gals) have tested things WAY more than the average Joe. Your inputs on this might help MANY players better understand their favorite games. As I also saw many people getting disenchanted with the ME, while I feel all of your findings are not as damning as it seems.