saycarramrod
Seems pretty wild with 4 defenders and 2 DMs that Marking does effectively nothing.
@Mark Do you plan on doing any GS rating updates with the FM23 attribute tests? Seems they are a bit different than previous years, although largely still in line of course.
keithb said: I think the other poster might need to chill out a bit and possibly gain some more knowledge of FM!!!

Holiday test the new tactic did well, but I need to run more tests for consistent results. In my manual save the tactic is growing game-by-game and my defence is really good. Will report more after xmas and having played the ECL and some harder league games.


Literally all he does is spam the forums with "not good enough" and "when is it done?" to the top tactic creators like anyone owes him anything. Dude doesn't realize they take time to test new things AND that people just may be trying to enjoy the game themselves as well.
ZaZ said: There is a table with ranks.
https://fm-arena.com/table/17-patch-23-1-0/



I'm working on a tactic while also testing with the things that FM-Arena tested.


@ZaZ Have you tried what is effectively this formation but moving both strikers to SS? So basically this in strikerless. I tried it (playing, not simming) for a season and thought it was actually pretty fantastic. DMs were maybe a different role though (DM-Support, possibly).
ZaZ said: I am currently testing team and player instructions, and only after that I will test roles and formations.

Might be time to look back at the 4 at the back - 2 DM - 2 Wide Mids - 2 SS - 0 Strikers formation as it looks possibly a little broken or at least pretty powerful like it was in 2019?
@kvasir I have asked this before, but the answer is frankly Katinic is better (easily) by the Pace/Accel alone. Look at the Attributes Table for reference. Anyways, the Role does not matter because the position testing has meant that certain positions require certain attributes regardless of their role.
Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.

I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.

So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.

Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:

=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)

This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.

Hope this helps.


@Mark Just curious if there's an inverse formula for this? For instance say I was looking for a player that was out of position that I wanted to convert and figure out their GS Rating if they went from 1 in a position to 20 (extreme example, but lets roll with it). If I have a CM that is a 1 for the position rating and is a 60% GS Rating, it's not as simple as adding the ~40% to that if he became a 20 in the position rating and becomes a 100% for the CM rating - so just curious if it's something you've looked into. Thanks!
Mark said: I just use the ykykyky rating file but use the filters with the attributes highlighted above. For example, with a DC I look at the Squad / Analyst Report for defenders and get the highest attributes for the Division I am in for Passing, Vision, Composure and Work Rate and put those values into the filter on Genie Scout, rounding up. I then make sure the players have 20 out of 20 for DC.

Ah, I see now, thanks. Theoretically, could I use the ratings above to create a GS file based just on those attributes at the ratings listed for the best supposed value?
Mark said: I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.

I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.



I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.

If you give it a try, please let me know how you go.


@Mark Will try this - just want to make sure I understand that in GS I will change the rating for each position with the above screenshot and search only with that for best player/position% I can find and they should (theoretically) be lower cost but better performace? If you have the re-rated file please feel free to share so I don't mess it up/misunderstand the ratings! Thanks! :)
Mark said: Testing wasn't a huge sample. I think if you believe in the machine learning work then you go with their total results. I had a lot of faith in my original ratings and these seem to be slightly better. So I continue to use the ykykyky one successfully.

This is the "ykykyky balanced" file specifically that was shared?
@Mark @ZaZ I had asked before but never clarified. When looking in Genie Scout, you are using the Position (Fast Striker, Central Defender, Mid Left) as opposed to Role (Advanced Forward, Ball Playing Defender - Def, Defensive Winger - Support) is there any reason for that? It appears that the Role Ratings do change along with the Ratings files. For example: I have a Winger who is a 79% ML (Mid Left) but is a 92% as a Winger - Support.

Now of course they tend to go along with each other, but there is some variation in the ratings when comparing the players in Position vs. Role.
@Mark Thank you as always!!!
@Mark Will you post the balanced ykykyk when done? :love:
Thanks gentlemen as always!
Mark said: That is correct ZaZ.

And that is the best Genie file to use so far?
@Mark @ZaZ Have either of you looked at the Genie Role ratings while using either of your rating files? Seems that it DOES change the underlying positional ratings you have modified, while also giving additional percentage points to the critical role attributes. Just wondering if that helps to even further differentiate better players, although I understand ZaZ's point of "wasting" CA on useless attributes.
Looking at and testing through both ratings files from @Mark and @ZaZ I'd say if you are looking for most "bang for your buck" and maybe not a lot of money I'd use the one from Zaz as it strictly looks at the attributes table and if you have no money you can squeeze in pretty much any MFer that has important atts and they will do well. Personally as I go up and have any money to spend on players I like Mark's better as it still prioritizes the important attributes, however truly seems to differentiate the top players (assuming other stats DO matter somewhat)

Edit: no disrespect to either - both your ratings files are definitely better than the standard rating file, just my opinion on them. Your mileage may vary :)
If you simply drop the file in the Ratings folder, you can simply click "Rating" in Genie Scout and the file will be there to select. No need to Edit and save as your own file name.
My man
@Mark Waiting for your updated Genie Scout ratings file based off these updates ;)