Hoping someone can help to differentiate the best (actually useful) attributes for two different DM roles. It seems that Volante is definitely a widely used role, but so is DM (Def) - just curious what a good balance/mix of attributes actually is given the importance to Pace/Acc vs Tackling/Marking if I actually want a good DM (Def) to close down games or alternate roles a bit. Or is it just no matter what, even for DM (Def) just get Pacey DMs with decent Jumping Reach and call it a day?
@Mark@ZaZ I know you guys have a lot of experience using Genie Scout and modifying the ratings files on it - a quick question: if hypothetically I wanted to modify the ykykyk balanced or ZaZ ratings file to more heavily rate Pace and Acceleration (or any of the other ~7 or so attributes with most impact) is it as simple as just changing them to 100 in the ratings file in each individual position or is there some greater math behind them that other attribute ratings would need to be lowered for them to be increased?
Just curious if there is a consolidated data file with all tactics tested in an excel file or google docs file or anything like that with all the tests run by tactic with points, GF, GA, GD, W/D/L, all of that for each of the (up to) 18 tests run per tactic? @Zippo I assume would know?
Understood if this is deemed proprietary or something like that and wouldn't be shared, but would be cool if it could be.
Since it is an academy-only save and I don't have an outstanding number of quality regens, every decent player counts and I had to take it into account. To reduce the number of cards, I removed stuck-in team instruction. Whenever I was leading, I would also remove tackle harder from every position possible.
The most important was to save conditions as much as possible. Whenever I was leading in a match, I would drop mentality to defensive, remove counter, add maximum time-wasting, no counter and counter-press, minimum tempo, standard press, mid-block line of engagement, slow down for GK. UPD. Oh yeah, I would also change the strikers role to PF(A) whenever I was leading. Expand
Just curious on the reason? If you were looking to score goals and a Cautious mentality tested at 90 GF, and a Very Attacking mentality had 60 GF, which would you choose?
@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. Expand
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.
I'm working on a tactic while also testing with the things that FM-Arena tested. Expand
@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. Expand
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. Expand
@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. Expand
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. Expand
@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. Expand
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.
Hoping someone can help to differentiate the best (actually useful) attributes for two different DM roles. It seems that Volante is definitely a widely used role, but so is DM (Def) - just curious what a good balance/mix of attributes actually is given the importance to Pace/Acc vs Tackling/Marking if I actually want a good DM (Def) to close down games or alternate roles a bit. Or is it just no matter what, even for DM (Def) just get Pacey DMs with decent Jumping Reach and call it a day?
Thanks!
Understood if this is deemed proprietary or something like that and wouldn't be shared, but would be cool if it could be.
Thanks!
Since it is an academy-only save and I don't have an outstanding number of quality regens, every decent player counts and I had to take it into account. To reduce the number of cards, I removed stuck-in team instruction. Whenever I was leading, I would also remove tackle harder from every position possible.
The most important was to save conditions as much as possible. Whenever I was leading in a match, I would drop mentality to defensive, remove counter, add maximum time-wasting, no counter and counter-press, minimum tempo, standard press, mid-block line of engagement, slow down for GK.
UPD. Oh yeah, I would also change the strikers role to PF(A) whenever I was leading.
UPD?
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.
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).
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?
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!
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?
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!
This is the "ykykyky balanced" file specifically that was shared?
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.