Any tips for actually getting good loans for your players and getting teams to pay something as well? I know for some reason it seems to give you more offers when you input monthly fees as opposed to leaving it unspecified and also it's best to offer out at the beginning of a window. Was wondering if anyone had anything else?
bf3metro said: Thanks, I’m going with 214 as the main schedule then.
One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear.
Would you place the four 214 sessions on specific days/slots to make the schedule as travel-proof as possible?
For example, if I usually have matches on Wednesday and Saturday, where would you ideally put:
Physical x2 Attacking x2
so that Travel interferes with them as little as possible? Expand
Set matches to only Wednesday and Saturday then setting it up like this works fine
LightningFlik said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed Are you in the market for an FM 24 scouting tool with customisable weights? or do you have one already? Mine is nearly done but there's been so many released recently, I can't even keep track. Expand
I'm not a fan of the other ones so glad to hear it
Yarema said: I see GKs almost maxing out all 3 trained attributes with that individual training. Never had much luck with agility though, but maybe I never gave it enough chance. Expand
Maybe I'll have to keep it on then. Could just be the main player I was using it on
Winksy said: Hi, I'm new to this rabbit hole of training schedules. With the format in which you all write these (e.g. "Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution" ), does it matter on which days and in which order I put them when creating a schedule in-game, as long as I keep super rest after home matches? Expand
No it doesn't matter. Also helps if you set your matches to only be Wednesday and Saturday that way you can set it and forget it.
I hadn't thought about just duplicating the starters that's a good idea. I just wouldn't want them to end up playing alongside eachother in the starting 11. If I was smarter I would have came up with a way to automate the whole process, but I figured in the end it probably didn't make much difference to what I already knew.
I think what I've learned recently is when buying young players I might just start using all the weights except Pace/Accel and just set a minimum there knowing I can train that up pretty easily before they actually end up playing for me.
So one thing I'm interested in seeing in your save, is the relative cost/value of each squad. I don't actually know if Premier League 2.1 would be significantly less expensive to purchase, but I suspect it would be. Expand
I mentioned this before, but forgot to add it to the post. Everyone was £1 million sale value or lower on Genie Scout. I tried to use FMST specifically for your 2.1 file but was tough to do considering you can't filter by sale value and that program just constantly freezes for me. I'm sure this test has a lot of rng, but it was more so for myself to see if there's even a big difference at this point. Made me feel better about using the blended and pure performance the most when buying players I guess. I didn't really take a close look at stats, but when I did look it seemed Zrelak was doing really well. I uploaded the save file to that google drive folder.
FM24 Ratings File Tests - Max Players Loaded and full detail for matches - Removed all players from teams and added starters and backups at every position according to best rating for the position at £1 million sale value or lower (Did not use De Gea, Leno or Neto as they were by far the top GKs and Free agents) - Clones were made via FMRTE of players that were used on more than one team (Disregard pictures of players as I used academy players to import the stats on) - All teams used the top 4-2-3-1 tactic Highway Star and Blues Routines on set pieces - All players were frozen given homegrown status, work permits, healed, and changed all morale to good
After doing all this honestly we all know which attributes are the most important and there really isn't that big of a difference anywhere. To be fair the best three are the most recent ones. Harvestgreen's file was made by translating the percentages to weights. If anyone is interested in doing more I can upload the save file, but it seems very up and down with Pure Performance really being the most consistent hovering around 6th-10th besides one finish in 15th. Also makes sense seeing Pure Performance had the most dupes from other teams. All the data is in the google sheet below as well as the screenshots. Attached are the starting teams.
Summary Pure Performance: 8.90 Position, 56.80 Points, 5.20 GD Keith File: 10.40 Position, 52.30 Points, 2.10 GD Premier League 2.1: 10.70 Position, 51.70 Points, 3.10 GD Orion Classic Match Engine File: 11.40 Position, 47.70 Points, -8.30 GD Harvestgreen Weights: 11.90 Position, 49.20 Points, -8.20 GD
Make sure you're using full detail, can be overlooked Expand
FM 24 and yes I'm using full detail. I went with Orion's classic, Harvestgreen's test weights, Keiths he posted, your Pure Performance, and Premier League 2.1
Rain said: We could really solve this "which file is best?" problem pretty easily. Take whichever files say your original, pure performance, prem 2.1, keith, etc. and just use each file to make a team in the league based on the best player you can buy for 1 mil and under (Should filter out teams using a bunch of the same top players) and if they do have the same player just clone them. Then just run the league a good amount of times and take the median results. Expand
Currently running sims it will probably take a while to get a good sample size. Took me forever just setting it up for 5 teams. There's definitely dupes (Especially pure performance team), but should be different enough. Had to avoid the big 3 FA GKs in the original db as they would have been in every team (De Gea, Leno, Neto) Although ended up with a few Ochoa anyway.
I did exactly this with 2 of my files and Orion's as a control. The search isn't working right now, so I can't find the exact results right now, both of my files did something like 6 positions better.
I think I used $1mil budget per player, and picked the 60th ranked player in position + backups just beneath them of course.
It was tedious (even for me!), and unfortunately when it came to revisiting it for testing the new file that came after that, I hadn't tracked everything properly so I would have to redo the selection for all 3 files in addition again so I didn't bother and used a different method of assessment instead.
But it's probably worth revisiting in the future.
Although no doubt we'll still hear in response 'I don't want players under $1mil! I want the best players! If they have an extra 6 passing for an extra $50mil, I don't care, I want it!' from Yarema, treath, and friends. Expand
Yeah it doesn't have to be 1 mil exactly was just an idea. Why did you do 60th ranked? I figured give each team or file that is being tested the top 18 or so guys by rating and positions at 1 mil or under and every team use the same exact tactic. Could either replace the lowest prem teams or just run it in whatever test league is used. I could set it up I'm sure I just need to know which files to even test I'm losing track at this point.
I'm honestly sick of seeing people b*tch about this when all these files will do fine no matter what you use as long as you even have basic FM knowledge.
We could really solve this "which file is best?" problem pretty easily. Take whichever files say your original, pure performance, prem 2.1, keith, etc. and just use each file to make a team in the league based on the best player you can buy for 1 mil and under (Should filter out teams using a bunch of the same top players) and if they do have the same player just clone them. Then just run the league a good amount of times and take the median results.
ZaZ said: In any game where results depend on the position of autonomous agents, the speed in which they change position will always be one of the most important factors. It is only natural because moving faster allows agents to correct their inefficiency. Expand
Yeah exactly it's always been the same thing in every sports game (i.e. Pace in Fifa and speed in other sport games) so I'm always surprised to see people complaining about it being such a big issue in football manager.
Zighnetar said: I'm also adding this test. While it applies to the 2018 version, it seems that the 2017 and 2018 versions may differ in their use of attributes that are dead in versions 24 and 26. Expand
I think physical attributes becoming so good were related to Gegenpress being added in FM 19, so that may be why it's not as good in 17 and 18.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 4) I don't recall the Blended file vs template problem. And I'm not sure which came first, so I can't assume it's that the template invalidated the Blended file. All I can say is that when I did my best attempt at an objective comparative test of all the files, the Blended one did poorly. From memory, the Blended file was mainly based on HarvestGreen22's data + consideration of CA weights + consideration of player growth. I was also still using positional differences at that time, which now turns out to be bunk. As a point of history now, we can go back and ask 'Well, was the Blended file actually a step backwards from even the first file, and therefore do you regret putting it out there?'. At least that's the question I ask myself. And for the other files, I can say, 'they were better than the first file, but perhaps only marginally in hindsight'. Actually was striking to me was how although the improvement was marginal, the improvements of my files and those of others appear remarkably gradual and consistent. I would have expected things to be more over the place. And I could be wrong, but I think this latest method and the weightings derived from it are a big step forward. Expand Weirdly enough the blended file has been my favorite one so far out of all the ones I've used, but I'm generally not only looking for the "best" player and prefer getting a mix of performance and potential.
What am I missing here why do you think Mbappe and Sterling should be closer in terms of results? I would assume the +5 Pace, +3 Acceleration, +3 Dribbling, and +5 Determination alone would speak for itself.
keithb said: Im a bit confused as to why calling someone Bozo, after the clown, leaps to a last warning? Other people have called me a retard, told me im pissing in my own face and compared me to an intolerable third worlder. Would any of these come with a warning? What about continuously lying about a user or lying about what they've said? Thats ok?
On another note I notice your website now comes with a red warning from chrome and a critical warning on another browser. Have you addressed these security issues? Expand
Probably because if you look at your posts they are all attacking the same guy for months
I haven't seen those other insults to you, but those are most likely just as true
One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear.
Would you place the four 214 sessions on specific days/slots to make the schedule as travel-proof as possible?
For example, if I usually have matches on Wednesday and Saturday, where would you ideally put:
Physical x2
Attacking x2
so that Travel interferes with them as little as possible?
Set matches to only Wednesday and Saturday then setting it up like this works fine
I'm not a fan of the other ones so glad to hear it
Maybe I'll have to keep it on then. Could just be the main player I was using it on
So for now should we stick with 331 then you think?
No it doesn't matter. Also helps if you set your matches to only be Wednesday and Saturday that way you can set it and forget it.
I think what I've learned recently is when buying young players I might just start using all the weights except Pace/Accel and just set a minimum there knowing I can train that up pretty easily before they actually end up playing for me.
So one thing I'm interested in seeing in your save, is the relative cost/value of each squad. I don't actually know if Premier League 2.1 would be significantly less expensive to purchase, but I suspect it would be.
I mentioned this before, but forgot to add it to the post. Everyone was £1 million sale value or lower on Genie Scout. I tried to use FMST specifically for your 2.1 file but was tough to do considering you can't filter by sale value and that program just constantly freezes for me. I'm sure this test has a lot of rng, but it was more so for myself to see if there's even a big difference at this point. Made me feel better about using the blended and pure performance the most when buying players I guess. I didn't really take a close look at stats, but when I did look it seemed Zrelak was doing really well. I uploaded the save file to that google drive folder.
- Max Players Loaded and full detail for matches
- Removed all players from teams and added starters and backups at every position according to best rating for the position at £1 million sale value or lower (Did not use De Gea, Leno or Neto as they were by far the top GKs and Free agents)
- Clones were made via FMRTE of players that were used on more than one team (Disregard pictures of players as I used academy players to import the stats on)
- All teams used the top 4-2-3-1 tactic Highway Star and Blues Routines on set pieces
- All players were frozen given homegrown status, work permits, healed, and changed all morale to good
After doing all this honestly we all know which attributes are the most important and there really isn't that big of a difference anywhere. To be fair the best three are the most recent ones. Harvestgreen's file was made by translating the percentages to weights. If anyone is interested in doing more I can upload the save file, but it seems very up and down with Pure Performance really being the most consistent hovering around 6th-10th besides one finish in 15th. Also makes sense seeing Pure Performance had the most dupes from other teams. All the data is in the google sheet below as well as the screenshots. Attached are the starting teams.
Summary
Pure Performance: 8.90 Position, 56.80 Points, 5.20 GD
Keith File: 10.40 Position, 52.30 Points, 2.10 GD
Premier League 2.1: 10.70 Position, 51.70 Points, 3.10 GD
Orion Classic Match Engine File: 11.40 Position, 47.70 Points, -8.30 GD
Harvestgreen Weights: 11.90 Position, 49.20 Points, -8.20 GD
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11cHLvGbtHfZTvLAGujuHHptqfioZ6SliKMqkDe78S6o/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gS5uI_fK4glwcdYd6bx3VMxX2lXRASAD?usp=sharing
Make sure you're using full detail, can be overlooked
FM 24 and yes I'm using full detail. I went with Orion's classic, Harvestgreen's test weights, Keiths he posted, your Pure Performance, and Premier League 2.1
Currently running sims it will probably take a while to get a good sample size. Took me forever just setting it up for 5 teams. There's definitely dupes (Especially pure performance team), but should be different enough. Had to avoid the big 3 FA GKs in the original db as they would have been in every team (De Gea, Leno, Neto) Although ended up with a few Ochoa anyway.
I did exactly this with 2 of my files and Orion's as a control. The search isn't working right now, so I can't find the exact results right now, both of my files did something like 6 positions better.
I think I used $1mil budget per player, and picked the 60th ranked player in position + backups just beneath them of course.
It was tedious (even for me!), and unfortunately when it came to revisiting it for testing the new file that came after that, I hadn't tracked everything properly so I would have to redo the selection for all 3 files in addition again so I didn't bother and used a different method of assessment instead.
But it's probably worth revisiting in the future.
Although no doubt we'll still hear in response 'I don't want players under $1mil! I want the best players! If they have an extra 6 passing for an extra $50mil, I don't care, I want it!' from Yarema, treath, and friends.
Yeah it doesn't have to be 1 mil exactly was just an idea. Why did you do 60th ranked?
I figured give each team or file that is being tested the top 18 or so guys by rating and positions at 1 mil or under and every team use the same exact tactic. Could either replace the lowest prem teams or just run it in whatever test league is used. I could set it up I'm sure I just need to know which files to even test I'm losing track at this point.
I'm honestly sick of seeing people b*tch about this when all these files will do fine no matter what you use as long as you even have basic FM knowledge.
Yeah exactly it's always been the same thing in every sports game (i.e. Pace in Fifa and speed in other sport games) so I'm always surprised to see people complaining about it being such a big issue in football manager.
I think physical attributes becoming so good were related to Gegenpress being added in FM 19, so that may be why it's not as good in 17 and 18.
Weirdly enough the blended file has been my favorite one so far out of all the ones I've used, but I'm generally not only looking for the "best" player and prefer getting a mix of performance and potential.
On another note I notice your website now comes with a red warning from chrome and a critical warning on another browser. Have you addressed these security issues?
Probably because if you look at your posts they are all attacking the same guy for months
I haven't seen those other insults to you, but those are most likely just as true