being rated at 64, seems unfair. He's a beast, only downside I see is his determination. If I follow these ratings, he won't make the bench in the Portuguese league, where I'm still dominating by far with a team with avg rating way lower than the best in the league.
Can someone clarify this Premier League 1.0 ratings? I was using Orion's and Bafici's rating's a while back, what is everyone's opinion on theese ratings? Expand I'll have a look into it a bit later, but two things are obvious to me here:
1) That is a near perfect player, if you compare his attributes to what I've found to be the ideal set of attributes. The only thing lacking is jumping reach, which is quite important.
2) The Premier League 1.0 GS rating file does not weight hidden & personality attributes, because Genie Scout is too bugged to include them. I haven't given up on this forever, but at the moment there's no viable solution. Your player has ridiculously perfect hiddens & personality, even temperament is very close to its optimal of 10 rather than 20. I daresay this is actually this is the main reason the rating is inaccurate rather than the excellent distribution of visible attributes.
You could make the argument that hiddens & personality should be weighted at least somewhat, even if it messes the ratings up a bit, because a 4% error might be better than a 8% error say. But a player with those hiddens & personality is extremely atypical.. so if we did this it might end up that yes, your player becomes 4% more accurate rating, but 90% of players become ~1-2% less accurate say. I'm sure it could be tweaked a little, but I don't think it's obvious what that tweak would be.
keithb said: Did you say how old these players were? Expand From memory I set them to age 20, and they were age 23 at the end of the loan test.
It's worth saying a few extra things here. I picked this age for two reasons:
1) Age 14-18 is too young for both loans and loan tests. At that age, training takes precedence over match experience (U18s/reserve friendlies largely suffice). Your own training facilities and staff are also likely going to be better than the team you're loaning to, and your training regime certainly will be better. As a player goes beyond 18, the development increasingly skews strongly towards competitive (high reputation) match experience instead of training.
2) I think age 20 is probably the typical age we would start looking to loan out a player, as they're about to be too old for the reserves and/or want to start matches, but not good enough to sell or play.
Combining this info, we can infer that training facilities only matter a little for your loan club. It also means you should probably hold off on loaning out players until they're at least 20.
What about players that already reached 20/20 pace and acceleration? I remember reading something about it somewhere, some time ago, but can't remember the consensus. Is it worth it to keep Quickness as individual training? Expand I guess I would put a training individual focus on dribbling, stamina, balance, agility in that order - or any of the key attributes that are below ~10-12. If they hit PA and start losing quickness, I would train that again.
The quick summary is that matches played and division being inactive are the two most critical factors that you should target when loaning players out.
Beyond that there are some things to keep in mind:
- CA growth is hard capped by the division reputation. Your loan club choice should therefore be a delicate balance between their division reputation and the likelihood the player will play matches. It's probably best to go on the safe side and drop a division than risk not being played. - Club reputation also plays a role, but should be a secondary consideration to division reputation (the influence on CA growth is roughly a 30/70 split, but the club rep difference within a division will only amount to ~5% or less difference anyway) - Morale, rating, opposition quality, probably all have zero or close to zero impact on growth - CA-PA gap remains one of the strongest growth factors, after matches played - Although not tested specifically, it's clear that training facilities (and other club aspects) matter only a bit - A player can improve roughly ~20 CA in one season, so your player's CA should probably be at least ~20 under the division rep hardcap - In England the worst team seems to have its hardcap around ~40-50, so even the worst teams will still enable growth in some players provided their starting CA is low enough
Rough Guide:
140 CA player - Loan to inactive foreign league where possible, or no lower than England Div 2 88 CA player - Loan to inactive foreign league where possible, or no lower than England Div 7 and no higher than England Div 4 30 CA player - Can be loaned to even the worst club in the country and will still grow, so limit to 'Lower Division' clubs
Generally speaking it seems more forgiving placing the player in too low a division than one too high. A 88 CA player should ideally be in Switzerland Div 1 or England Div 4, but England Div 7 would still permit a season of maximum growth while guaranteeing his match experience.
The foreign clubs below I have handpicked as what should be some of the best performers. The only surprise is that the Scottish club did poorly, even when inactive, and I'm not sure why. So I would avoid Scotland for loaning players out.
Lower CA when the division is active is a sign that the division is highly competitive, which is bad from a loan perspective. What we want is high reputation but low competition (increased chance of matches played). If you had to choose an active division to loan to, I would choose South Korea Div 1. But inactive is simply best.
Results (3 year loans):
88 CA 200 PA, Inactive
England Div 2 (Preston) = 102 CA England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 97 CA England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 134 CA England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 114 CA England Div 6 (Worthing) = 100 CA England Div 7 (Chesham) = 107 CA England Lower Div (Bagshot) = 88 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 149 CA Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 135 CA USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 144 CA Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 139 CA South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 148 CA Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 102 CA
88 CA 200 PA, Active
England Div 2 (Preston) = 96 CA England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 90 CA England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 110 CA England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 114 CA England Div 6 (Worthing) = 114 CA England Div 7 (Chesham) = 105 CA England Lower Div (Bagshot) = 88 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 94 CA Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 116 CA USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 96 CA Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 141 CA South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 141 CA Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 92 CA
88 CA 200 PA, Active, Full Detail
England Div 2 (Preston) = 111 CA England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 91 CA England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 127 CA England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 113 CA England Div 6 (Worthing) = 117 CA England Div 7 (Chesham) = 107 CA England Lower Div (Bagshot) = 88 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 92 CA Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 90 CA USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 95 CA Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 118 CA South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 132 CA Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 91 CA
140 CA 200 PA, Inactive
England Div 2 (Preston) = 159 CA England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 149 CA England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 140 CA England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 140 CA England Div 6 (Worthing) = 140 CA England Div 7 (Chesham) = 140 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 181 CA Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 183 CA USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 159 CA Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 170 CA South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 170 CA Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 163 CA
20 CA 200 PA, Inactive
England Lower Div (Bagshot) = 40 CA
100 CA 130 PA, Inactive
England Div 2 (Preston) = 109 CA England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 100 CA England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 105 CA England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 100 CA England Div 6 (Worthing) = 99 CA England Div 7 (Chesham) = 100 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 110 CA Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 117 CA USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 110 CA Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 110 CA South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 110 CA Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 109 CA
I am just starting to learn about all these optimal methods and various schedules for growth, this is super neat thanks for sharing.
However, I'm curious why your recommended schedule does not include any match prep, and I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Seems like in 331 and other styles match prep is usually included to ensure we can win games and have tactical familiarity.
Is this style mainly for growth and doesn't care about winning matches or tactic / team cohension? Expand Can't speak for ZaZ, but from memory EBFM found that all these training units that supposedly affect match performance, don't do anything at all.
Cohesion/familiarity may be a slightly different story, but it doesn't matter that much, and the way training works you can't just add an extra unit on top just in case it works - if you add a unit, it changes the whole combination and effect of the schedule.
'Match practice' which features in the best training usually checks both boxes anyway, and then of course there's friendlies which are very important not just for cohesion/familiarity, but also fitness.
I thought I had overlooked the most obvious cause, which is semi pro vs full pro club status. But it turns out that it had no effect (same CA results after 3-year loan). The players are on full time contracts though, so I wouldn't necessarily assume this work for a part-time player at a semi pro club.
When I swapped Div 5 and Div 6 rep the results were:
Div 5, 46 rep - 110 CA (117 before) Div 6, 72 rep - 103 CA (96 before)
26 rep = 7 CA 3.5 CA unaccounted for (to make them equal)
Div 5, 46 division rep, 1~600 club rep = 115 CA, 108 CA Div 6, 72 division rep, ~10000 club rep = 124 CA
2450 > 10000 club rep resulted in +21 CA. 1 > 3500 club rep is +5 CA at best.
I reckon club rep is following the same curve observed elsewhere in FM, where it's kind of exponential. The difference between Div 5 and Div 6 club would be approx. ~3 CA.
So
Division rep = 7 CA Club rep = 3 CA
And that solves the missing 3.5 CA from earlier.
However comparison of two players from the samples can be surmised as 3500 > 10000 club rep = +7 CA. It should be +16 CA. This could be the inactive vs. active division difference. When I tested the 117 CA result as inactive instead of active, it became 126 CA. The inactive Div 6 player that was at 96 before, was again 96. So indeed the inactive vs. active division difference appears to be 9 CA in this case.
So what we can say so far is that both division rep and club rep set ceilings on your player's CA growth. The division is probably more important than the club they're loaned to. Loaning to inactive division appears to be better, but not if you have to drop a division tier to do so.
Thinking about this as a whole, you want to loan players to divisions that are weak for their reputation. That way the player will be played more games, which is their rate of CA growth, and the high reputation will lift the ceiling on their CA growth.
So what is the ideal club or division to loan to? I found a number of good options, but realized there is more to consider, particularly when picking an affiliate for loans.
In order of importance:
Ability of club to play your players (i.e. foreign player limit) Lower quality of the club's existing players (to ensure get minutes played) Either inactive or top division or already loaded league (to avoid processing slowdowns) Small div size (avoid processing slowdowns, only if active league) Many games during season but fixtures not too crammed (minutes played + avoid injuries) Good Div reputation Good Club reputation Stable team in league (at least mid-table, or no relegation - for affiliate loan club) Good training facilities (10+) Dual use (newgen production, merchandising) Low altitude Same language (or language you want a player to learn, to blend with foreign team-mates later)
In order to benefit from a high rep low quality league, the league would have to be active. With that in mind I suggest the following (if English team):
Scotland Div 1 - Middle team (Hibernian/Hearts/St Mirren)
Pros: High rep (142), 100% English language, good processing speed, occasional newgens Cons: Relegation spots, fairly high quality loanee required
Switzerland Div 1 - Middle team (Zurich)
Pros: High rep (138), best processing speed, 70% English language, decent newgens Cons: Relegation spots, fairly high quality loanee required
Norway Div 1 - Middle team (Stabaek)
Pros: High rep (135), suits lower quality loanee, decent processing speed, 95% English language, occasional newgens Cons: Relegation spots
England Div 2 - Middle team
Pros: High rep (134), 100% English language Cons: Relegation/Promotion spots, high quality loanee required
USA Div 1 - Any team (best training facilities/staff preferred)
Pros: High rep (133), no relegation, 100% English language, merchandising, decent newgens (not sure if required to be active for this) Cons: Bad processing speed, high quality loanee required
South Korea Div 1 - Middle team (Pohang)
Pros: Fairly high rep (127), good processing speed, merchandising, decent newgens Cons: 0% English language
England Div 3 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language Cons: Low rep (107), relegation/promotion spots
Australia Div 1 - Any team (best training facilities/staff preferred)
Pros: No relegation, good processing speed, 100% English language, merchandising, occasional newgens Cons: Low rep (99), fairly high quality loanee required
England Div 4 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language Cons: Very low rep (85)
England Div 5 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language, significantly better option than active/inactive Div 6 Cons: Very low rep (72)
Jolt said: There is potentially a simpler solution: Check the (player with the) maximum CA of the league, the average and the mean CA of the league.
See if the improvement stops when those thresholds are reached. Expand It's a bit hard to check, but I checked a few teams and the highest was 86 CA.
Recall that a player grew from 88 CA to 96 CA in this division.
So I guess it's unlikely to be simply a CA ceiling based on CA of players in the division. It could be all sorts of things. It's an interesting question in itself that may be too difficult to work out, but what I will be able to do is find out what division/clubs are best to loan out to with some precise data.
Since I controlled player reputation, I think that can be ruled out as the factor.
It is likely competition reputation obviously. Perhaps it tells us a little extra about the nature of playing players at older ages in u18s/reserve matches. Perhaps competition reputation is limiting the CA growth at high CAs, but if you had a 1 CA player they might actually grow to 20 CA rapidly.
ifilipic16 said: One note should be starting CA, if i loan my CA 140 player to lower rep league he won't improve no matter if league is active or not. Expand I was skeptical, but this does seem to be the case. In fact I tested this and after a three-year loan to inactive England Div 6, the 140 CA player remained at 140 CA even though the distribution of his CA changed and his PA was 200.
A 88 CA player (148 PA) I put in inactive Div 6, grew to 96 CA by contrast. An identical player I put in active Div 3, grew to 94 CA but only had ~1/4 the games. An identical player I put in active Div 5, grew to 117 CA.
All players were 20 years old starting.
I will be doing more testing of this, but so far it seems like CA growth is hardcapped by league quality or reputation. And given the active Div 5 player did a lot better than inactive Div 6, maybe they changed the inactive league growth in FM24.. or at least, whatever's causing it, active Vanarama National is simply far better to loan to than inactive Vanarama National North.
This also has some implications beyond loans. It would affect training in general, and I guess suggests optimizing for low CA is even more important.
I've read that the optimal match rating for growth is not too low, not too high. So ~6.7-6.9 supposedly.
I was about to do a test to find out, but then I realized we can deduce pretty much everything we need to know from EBFM's data.
Age 21 player:
Ambition 1 > 20 = 12 > 13 CA Determination 1 > 20 = 10 > 13.5 CA Professionalism 1 > 20 = 5.5 > 17.5 CA Staff attributes 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA Training facilities 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA League Rep 1 > 100 > 200 = 9 > 11 > 12 CA
Active league = 12.5 CA View only = 16 CA Inactive league = 20 CA
0 games > 41+ games = 0 > 14.5 CA All friendlies > 20-30 games = 4 > 12.5 CA
Loaned out vs not (all other factors equal) = No difference Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA 21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
So overall match rating means nothing for growth, because of the inactive/view-only growth bonuses. But if we're just assessing active leagues and assume roughly +0.15 match rating per division drop, then +0.1 match rating = -0.25 CA/season (-2% growth rate). 6.5 match rating -> 7.4 match rating = -18% growth. This isn't causative of course, just a correlation from which you can infer what's going on.
keithb said: Good to see you've not lost that world class irony haha.
No one in their right mind is paying for a file which doesn't have Mbappe in the top 20 players. And you say other people have ego's. Expand We all have egos, and I'm saying we can fall for the trap of pumping it up on the praise (positive appraisals) of those who wouldn't have a clue. It also makes you vulnerable to being torn down later on by the same people. He successfully requested his own FM24 megapack thread to be closed because one of his patreon subscribers shattered his ego.
Honestly, what he's doing isn't that difficult, I could do it. And I reckon I'd do it better. And as a point of comparison, I've said that EBFM is just next level to me, I can't really do (or be bothered to do at least) my testing as good as he did.
If it was $50/month, I wouldn't bother. All it would do is compromise your integrity. $2500/month though? Not gonna lie, that's pretty tempting. Even Judas sold out Jesus for less than that.
lossantos said: What do you think about daveincid realism mod for fm24? Expand Coincidentally just a week ago I was about to cite him specifically as the example of what I don't want to be.
I was going to say that I know how frustrating it is when certain people make big claims but don't actually do the testing. And it seems what happens is that because these people are the few bold enough to make these claims (since nobody is bothered to do testing), the ordinary users assume they must be an expert on the matter, and this feeds into their ego where - often with years of reinforcement of this - they actually come to believe they are the experts, and they will start lying in order to maintain their status if challenged.
That is the story of many SI staff/mods and users like BusttheNet.
With daveincid, my beef with him goes back to years ago. It was something like he had claimed he had fixed up FM's youth generation, but I took a look at it and could see that he did not understand how the newgen factors work and was therefore applying them as one would play a game of chess if you believed the pieces move like in checkers. He was just making the same assumptions as other people before him who also didn't know any better.
But I guess that was around his beginning, so I thought I'd investigate a file of his now.
I looked at his SI forums page, and in the side bio it said:
I had a rough start when I opened my eyes for the first time. Struggling through life since 28 years. Finally I know the reason. FM gave me so much hold through the years. I accept my dissabilities and will always have a smile on my face
So then I felt sorry for the guy, and decided I wouldn't attempt to put a hole in what gives his life meaning. Then I ended up on his patreon, where he paywalls his files, and saw he's making $2500/month. I thought blimey, maybe I should have monetized those Genie Scout rating files! And the sob story unraveled for me, as it turned out he was using it for moneygrubbing. You see, he isn't 'able to work' (and instead needs you to make monthly payments to him) because:
My life has not always been easy. I was born three months too early
Struggled for many years with...anxiety and the feeling that something was different
at the age of 28, I was diagnosed with autism
Ok I know it sounds like I'm obsessed with the guy, but you asked me what I think about his realism mod, and my instinctive response is I don't trust him, and I wanted to paint the full picture for you as to why. I ended up not writing all this a week ago, because I decided to omit the rant, and instead just do comparison tests of the genie scout files and post the results.
Now addressing his file pack directly, I glanced at recent explanations by him saying that he adjusts edits until they produce the results he wants. I'm skeptical, but in theory this could work, and it would be too great an undertaking by me to investigate it adequately.
The files with names that promise a lot are the first to pique my interest. One is 'Daveincid's PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS'. How can an editor file, improve FM performance exactly? I already guessed correctly before I opened it, it seems to be mostly deleted entries in the database. But I've tested this before, deleting entries has no effect on FM performance.
I was ready to unleash on the rest of the files, but after examining a few, I can't find anything else disagreeable apart from the newgen changes obviously.
In 'GEOGRAPHICS & LANGUAGES' I scrolled randomly to find Cairo had been changed from 0 > 223 (feet) elevation. Thought it was worth a check. Apparently Cairo is a city with a great variation in elevation, from 2m to 522m. Daveincid has given it 68m. I checked the stadium for a top team, which is Cairo International Stadium, and google says that is 23m but this is wrong. A topographic map website shows it to be ~104m. But this just shows the kind of dilemmas that can arise, it's not always clear cut what the data should be.
A few things raised an eyebrow. Indonesia is a developed state? Depression should be included as an injury? But these are minor quibbles, and there are always going to be mistakes with tens of thousands of changes.
I noticed that the attribute changes to players and clubs were modest and yet questionable. For instance, some club in Bumfuckistan get its youth coaching increased from 3 to 5, and this seems repeated thousands of times for no-name clubs across the world. I doubt this information can be accurately ascertained, but at least the changes are going to be pretty harmless in the case they are wrong or risk upsetting the balance of the game.
I think the upside of these files are mainly in their corrections of grossly inaccurate or inadequate data. For instance where hundreds of clubs have altitude of 0, founding date of 1800, and wrong nicknames. And it seems very comprehensive in this regard. And it's not just fluff either, because weather & altitude actually do have impacts on match performance, both in the game and in real life. And the data on these aspects seems researched rather than guesstimated.
So maybe my initial presumptions were too critical. Overall I would personally give the files a go, except for that which affects newgens, and probably transfers too.
Kriek said: To select the player for the national team, I'm doing the following: I'm first filtering the players based on the hidden attributes. For a national team, how important are the injury proneness and dirtiness?
Then I'm filtering on speed, selecting first the players with 15 speed and acceleration. Then, for the missing spots, I'm selecting the ones with at least 14 and the 13 and so on.
For the DC, I'm following the same logic but with 17 jump. Should I then look for 14 speed/acc and 16 jump or should I only pick players with 17 jump? I'm playing without targetman but with 3 DC.
Is this a good way to use your findings? Expand I would think the key thing to select for, especially for a national team, would be match fitness. Low match fitness increases losses and injuries drastically, and can't be fixed in a short amount of time either (i.e. even if you have 1 friendly in advance).
Injury proneness isn't such a huge deal, as it means you're playing a 67% player instead of a 70% one.
Dirtiness should be inversely proportional to aggression. Again it doesn't impact performance severely, because even if a player is red carded, the game doesn't count it as you fielding a 0% player.
In my 'essential' weights, I make the target man/DC 99 jump/61 pace. That's 1.62x for jump, or expressed another way, I would trade 1.62 pace for 1 jump on them. So I would choose 17 jump 13 pace over 16 jump 14 pace, but not 17 jump 12 pace over 16 jump 14 pace.
Premier League 1.0, Pure Performance overlap = 10/27 players Premier League 1.0, 'Essential' weights from further up this page overlap = 14/27 players
Pure Performance: Peak acc/pace/jump/drib = 18/18/19/14 Median acc/pace/jump/drib = 14/14/12/11
Prem 1.0: Peak acc/pace/jump/drib = 15/17/17/14 Median acc/pace/jump/drib = 13/13/13/11
BTW I didn't realize until just a few days ago that you can get the FM26 pre-game editor with the FM26 database for free without buying FM26. You can get it from the Microsoft store.
I forgot to mention something very important. With my GS Rating tests, I have removed all the problematic (bugged) attribute weightings - personality, consistency, important matches, dirtiness, natural fitness, injury proneness.
So for the Premier League 1.0 weightings, what you see is what you get. But for the test of my Pure Performance weightings, you will not get what you see in the test result. The intention here is to compare non-bugged weights between my files, to see which performs better, so that further deductions can be made.
This doesn't remove the GS bugs 100% either, but I think it should reduce it by a lot. If I wanted completely accurate comparison, I would use the weights in FM26 scoring system, but since the idea here is to continue using Genie Scout anyway.. one may as well test to see what does well using Genie Scout.
OpticFawn said: Can you do this against your max performance rating as I found that to be the best, I just removed injury proneness as I don’t require imo
I did 10 season test on fc Metz and that one out preformed the newest file set but might be some rng possibly please test. Expand FM24 Pure Performance results:
5th*, 6th*, 8th*, 6th, 4th, 10th = 6.5 average
Asterisked results are where I forgot to set injury proneness to 1 as control
Premier League 1.0 results:
6th, 9th, 7th = 7.33 average
I also tried a few alternative tactics with one of these squads, to see if something does better than the Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC tactic I use. The first few did worse, but 424 Classic v164 got 3rd, 3rd, 9th, 5th. Maybe it's just circumstantial, but I'll be taking a closer look at it.
Exellent said: You were absolutely right, it was discovered in the new thread that Genie Scout indeed has bugs. For example, the higher the height, the higher the rating. Expand The thing is, that program isn't actually Genie Scout as far as I can tell..
The bug he encountered is valid though, but also it may be that he hasn't taken into account footedness and position proficiency which is the more likely cause if not ruled out.
I can't take credit for finding Genie Scout is bugged, LightningFlik clued me onto this.
Using the weights in the above post, I've done testing of my Genie Scout weights vs. Orion's weights.
I think it's the first time a results-based comparison of the Genie Scout rating files has been attempted.
Method:
- Luton in Premier League - Remove all players - Filter in Genie Scout for CA-PA gap of 0-3 and current reputation 0-6000 and green proficiency in relevant position - Take top 3-4 in each position - Move them to Luton - Change age, personality, natural fitness, consistency, important matches, nationality, height, weight, etc. so that there is control where there needs to be - Position proficiency is deliberately *not* controlled (this has pros and cons) - One season with Knap tactic and Blue routines (Premier League, FA Cup & Carabao Cup @ full detail)
Extra info:
Player overlap - 13 of 27 players Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 18/18/19/15 Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 18/18/19/13 Median acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 14/14/13/12 Median acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 14/14/14/11
The results:
My weights - 10th, 9th, 4th, 9th, 9th, 9th = 8.333th average Orion's weights - 18th, 12th, 16th, 10th, 10th, 13th = 13.166th average
Now I would caution against reading into these results too much at the moment, but I think it's safe to say at least that Orion's weights do not do significantly better than mine. To my mind, it's further suggestive evidence that all positions share the same necessary attributes; there are not position-specific attributes.
The main reason for caution is that it could simply be that my weights ended up having a higher jumping reach player on the field. The Orion team did start their 19 jump DC most games though, and if my weights are selecting more frequently for high jumping reach players who win then that's a feature not a bug. When I do this test with my Premier League 1.0 weights and one or two others, that will shed more light on this more conclusively.
Kriek said: I would like to be able to make the good decision myself, how should I select the players? Is 12 speed and acceleration ok if the rest of attributes is high? I thought that speed and acceleration was the only things that matters Expand Here are the necessary attributes
For Premier League you can get away with 14 pace/acc. If the player has very high stamina, then as low as 12 is viable.
For winning the Premier League, or tough international competition, you'd need 18+ pace/acc. You also need someone with very high jumping reach on the field, and at least decent levels of jumping reach across the team in general.
I'm currently doing some testing using the following personal estimations of how 'essential' attributes are:
Jumping reach 100% essential - 17 min ST/DC, 13 min rest of team = 99, 63 weight Acceleration/Pace 85% essential - 14 min = 61 Dribbling 45% essential - 13 min = 28 Anticipation 35% essential - 13 min = 22 Concentration 35% essential - 13 min = 22 Determination 25% essential - 14 min = 18 Work Rate 15% essential - 11 min = 7 Agility 15% essential - 10 min = 5 Balance 20% essential - 12 min = 11 Stamina 25% essential - 13 min = 16 Strength 2% essential - 8 min = 1 Finishing 2% essential - 7 min = 1 (ST only) Vision 2% essential - 7 min = 1
How 'essential' they are is just based on my intuitive feel for the data. So for instance, jumping reach is 100% essential because going below the requirement quickly gets you relegated. Acc/Pace I know can go down to ~12 in certain circumstances (i.e. Harry Kane), so a little leeway there. Work Rate, we know is ok down to 6, and the requirement of 11 isn't high to begin with, so you don't even really need to put it in your weights much (as most players will be 8+ anyway).
Kriek said: If I'm managing a national team, what are the hard filters I should use appart the hidden ones? Also 15 Speed and Acc?
So if I'm compairing those 3 MDC/MC, I shouldn't take Kimmich?
Of should I use another value as hard limit for speed and acceleration? Expand Kimmich is superior to those other two in all aspects except pace/acc/jump, and even then he has 20 natural fitness + 17 stamina + 3 injury proneness to mostly offset this downside.
keithb said: Using their test results and others before them I made my own weightings and these consistently produce the best results in genie scout. Expand You could go ahead and share these Genie Scout weightings of yours for the benefit of the people here
keithb said: Who knew eh?!?! Once again we thank you for groundbreaking research(which was initially wrong. As always!!!) Expand What you don't realize is that I stated this before HarvestGreen said anything about pressure.
HarvestGreen's post was 29 March 2026.
15 December 2025:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I was surprised and intrigued by this finding by Orion in FM22 that pressure 1 supposedly results in 47% less performance than pressure 10.
That's a 32% drop in performance. It is important to note though that Orion found the difference between 10 pressure and 20 pressure to only be 10%, but even that is significant. Expand 19 December 2025:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I would guess that ~8 is not too bad either, based on how work rate matters a great deal up to just 6 then it tails off. Expand Both in this very thread.
Not that I discovered the effect of pressure of course, I've always credited Orion for that from the get go. My point is that I have long hypothesized that pressure functions as work rate does, and also I think it's fair to say that Orion's findings had been largely ignored and forgotten, so I think I will give myself a pat on the back for breathing fresh life into this piece of knowledge.
Or is keithb going to claim that, as with everything else, everybody already knew pressure was the most important personality attribute?
being rated at 64, seems unfair. He's a beast, only downside I see is his determination. If I follow these ratings, he won't make the bench in the Portuguese league, where I'm still dominating by far with a team with avg rating way lower than the best in the league.
Can someone clarify this Premier League 1.0 ratings? I was using Orion's and Bafici's rating's a while back, what is everyone's opinion on theese ratings?
I'll have a look into it a bit later, but two things are obvious to me here:
1) That is a near perfect player, if you compare his attributes to what I've found to be the ideal set of attributes. The only thing lacking is jumping reach, which is quite important.
2) The Premier League 1.0 GS rating file does not weight hidden & personality attributes, because Genie Scout is too bugged to include them. I haven't given up on this forever, but at the moment there's no viable solution. Your player has ridiculously perfect hiddens & personality, even temperament is very close to its optimal of 10 rather than 20. I daresay this is actually this is the main reason the rating is inaccurate rather than the excellent distribution of visible attributes.
You could make the argument that hiddens & personality should be weighted at least somewhat, even if it messes the ratings up a bit, because a 4% error might be better than a 8% error say. But a player with those hiddens & personality is extremely atypical.. so if we did this it might end up that yes, your player becomes 4% more accurate rating, but 90% of players become ~1-2% less accurate say. I'm sure it could be tweaked a little, but I don't think it's obvious what that tweak would be.
From memory I set them to age 20, and they were age 23 at the end of the loan test.
It's worth saying a few extra things here. I picked this age for two reasons:
1) Age 14-18 is too young for both loans and loan tests. At that age, training takes precedence over match experience (U18s/reserve friendlies largely suffice). Your own training facilities and staff are also likely going to be better than the team you're loaning to, and your training regime certainly will be better. As a player goes beyond 18, the development increasingly skews strongly towards competitive (high reputation) match experience instead of training.
2) I think age 20 is probably the typical age we would start looking to loan out a player, as they're about to be too old for the reserves and/or want to start matches, but not good enough to sell or play.
Combining this info, we can infer that training facilities only matter a little for your loan club. It also means you should probably hold off on loaning out players until they're at least 20.
Went back to FM24 and this was a major tim saver. One question tho:
What about players that already reached 20/20 pace and acceleration?
I remember reading something about it somewhere, some time ago, but can't remember the consensus. Is it worth it to keep Quickness as individual training?
I guess I would put a training individual focus on dribbling, stamina, balance, agility in that order - or any of the key attributes that are below ~10-12. If they hit PA and start losing quickness, I would train that again.
The quick summary is that matches played and division being inactive are the two most critical factors that you should target when loaning players out.
Beyond that there are some things to keep in mind:
- CA growth is hard capped by the division reputation. Your loan club choice should therefore be a delicate balance between their division reputation and the likelihood the player will play matches. It's probably best to go on the safe side and drop a division than risk not being played.
- Club reputation also plays a role, but should be a secondary consideration to division reputation (the influence on CA growth is roughly a 30/70 split, but the club rep difference within a division will only amount to ~5% or less difference anyway)
- Morale, rating, opposition quality, probably all have zero or close to zero impact on growth
- CA-PA gap remains one of the strongest growth factors, after matches played
- Although not tested specifically, it's clear that training facilities (and other club aspects) matter only a bit
- A player can improve roughly ~20 CA in one season, so your player's CA should probably be at least ~20 under the division rep hardcap
- In England the worst team seems to have its hardcap around ~40-50, so even the worst teams will still enable growth in some players provided their starting CA is low enough
Rough Guide:
140 CA player - Loan to inactive foreign league where possible, or no lower than England Div 2
88 CA player - Loan to inactive foreign league where possible, or no lower than England Div 7 and no higher than England Div 4
30 CA player - Can be loaned to even the worst club in the country and will still grow, so limit to 'Lower Division' clubs
Generally speaking it seems more forgiving placing the player in too low a division than one too high. A 88 CA player should ideally be in Switzerland Div 1 or England Div 4, but England Div 7 would still permit a season of maximum growth while guaranteeing his match experience.
The foreign clubs below I have handpicked as what should be some of the best performers. The only surprise is that the Scottish club did poorly, even when inactive, and I'm not sure why. So I would avoid Scotland for loaning players out.
Lower CA when the division is active is a sign that the division is highly competitive, which is bad from a loan perspective. What we want is high reputation but low competition (increased chance of matches played). If you had to choose an active division to loan to, I would choose South Korea Div 1. But inactive is simply best.
Results (3 year loans):
88 CA 200 PA, Inactive
England Div 2 (Preston) = 102 CA
England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 97 CA
England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 134 CA
England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 114 CA
England Div 6 (Worthing) = 100 CA
England Div 7 (Chesham) = 107 CA
England Lower Div (Bagshot) = 88 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 149 CA
Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 135 CA
USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 144 CA
Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 139 CA
South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 148 CA
Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 102 CA
88 CA 200 PA, Active
England Div 2 (Preston) = 96 CA
England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 90 CA
England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 110 CA
England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 114 CA
England Div 6 (Worthing) = 114 CA
England Div 7 (Chesham) = 105 CA
England Lower Div (Bagshot) = 88 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 94 CA
Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 116 CA
USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 96 CA
Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 141 CA
South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 141 CA
Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 92 CA
88 CA 200 PA, Active, Full Detail
England Div 2 (Preston) = 111 CA
England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 91 CA
England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 127 CA
England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 113 CA
England Div 6 (Worthing) = 117 CA
England Div 7 (Chesham) = 107 CA
England Lower Div (Bagshot) = 88 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 92 CA
Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 90 CA
USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 95 CA
Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 118 CA
South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 132 CA
Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 91 CA
140 CA 200 PA, Inactive
England Div 2 (Preston) = 159 CA
England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 149 CA
England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 140 CA
England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 140 CA
England Div 6 (Worthing) = 140 CA
England Div 7 (Chesham) = 140 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 181 CA
Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 183 CA
USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 159 CA
Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 170 CA
South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 170 CA
Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 163 CA
20 CA 200 PA, Inactive
England Lower Div (Bagshot) = 40 CA
100 CA 130 PA, Inactive
England Div 2 (Preston) = 109 CA
England Div 3 (Blackpool) = 100 CA
England Div 4 (Doncaster) = 105 CA
England Div 5 (Eastleigh) = 100 CA
England Div 6 (Worthing) = 99 CA
England Div 7 (Chesham) = 100 CA
Switzerland Div 1 (Zurich) = 110 CA
Australia Div 1 (Melbourne City FC) = 117 CA
USA Div 1 (St Louis CITY) = 110 CA
Norway Div 1 (Stabaek) = 110 CA
South Korea Div 1 (Pohang) = 110 CA
Scotland Div 1 (Hearts) = 109 CA
50 CA 80 PA, Inactive
England Lower Div (Bagshot) = 50 CA
I am just starting to learn about all these optimal methods and various schedules for growth, this is super neat thanks for sharing.
However, I'm curious why your recommended schedule does not include any match prep, and I don't see it mentioned anywhere. Seems like in 331 and other styles match prep is usually included to ensure we can win games and have tactical familiarity.
Is this style mainly for growth and doesn't care about winning matches or tactic / team cohension?
Can't speak for ZaZ, but from memory EBFM found that all these training units that supposedly affect match performance, don't do anything at all.
Cohesion/familiarity may be a slightly different story, but it doesn't matter that much, and the way training works you can't just add an extra unit on top just in case it works - if you add a unit, it changes the whole combination and effect of the schedule.
'Match practice' which features in the best training usually checks both boxes anyway, and then of course there's friendlies which are very important not just for cohesion/familiarity, but also fitness.
When I swapped Div 5 and Div 6 rep the results were:
Div 5, 46 rep - 110 CA (117 before)
Div 6, 72 rep - 103 CA (96 before)
26 rep = 7 CA
3.5 CA unaccounted for (to make them equal)
Div 5, 46 division rep, 1~600 club rep = 115 CA, 108 CA
Div 6, 72 division rep, ~10000 club rep = 124 CA
2450 > 10000 club rep resulted in +21 CA.
1 > 3500 club rep is +5 CA at best.
I reckon club rep is following the same curve observed elsewhere in FM, where it's kind of exponential. The difference between Div 5 and Div 6 club would be approx. ~3 CA.
So
Division rep = 7 CA
Club rep = 3 CA
And that solves the missing 3.5 CA from earlier.
However comparison of two players from the samples can be surmised as 3500 > 10000 club rep = +7 CA. It should be +16 CA. This could be the inactive vs. active division difference. When I tested the 117 CA result as inactive instead of active, it became 126 CA. The inactive Div 6 player that was at 96 before, was again 96. So indeed the inactive vs. active division difference appears to be 9 CA in this case.
So what we can say so far is that both division rep and club rep set ceilings on your player's CA growth. The division is probably more important than the club they're loaned to. Loaning to inactive division appears to be better, but not if you have to drop a division tier to do so.
Thinking about this as a whole, you want to loan players to divisions that are weak for their reputation. That way the player will be played more games, which is their rate of CA growth, and the high reputation will lift the ceiling on their CA growth.
So what is the ideal club or division to loan to? I found a number of good options, but realized there is more to consider, particularly when picking an affiliate for loans.
In order of importance:
Ability of club to play your players (i.e. foreign player limit)
Lower quality of the club's existing players (to ensure get minutes played)
Either inactive or top division or already loaded league (to avoid processing slowdowns)
Small div size (avoid processing slowdowns, only if active league)
Many games during season but fixtures not too crammed (minutes played + avoid injuries)
Good Div reputation
Good Club reputation
Stable team in league (at least mid-table, or no relegation - for affiliate loan club)
Good training facilities (10+)
Dual use (newgen production, merchandising)
Low altitude
Same language (or language you want a player to learn, to blend with foreign team-mates later)
In order to benefit from a high rep low quality league, the league would have to be active. With that in mind I suggest the following (if English team):
Scotland Div 1 - Middle team (Hibernian/Hearts/St Mirren)
Pros: High rep (142), 100% English language, good processing speed, occasional newgens
Cons: Relegation spots, fairly high quality loanee required
Switzerland Div 1 - Middle team (Zurich)
Pros: High rep (138), best processing speed, 70% English language, decent newgens
Cons: Relegation spots, fairly high quality loanee required
Norway Div 1 - Middle team (Stabaek)
Pros: High rep (135), suits lower quality loanee, decent processing speed, 95% English language, occasional newgens
Cons: Relegation spots
England Div 2 - Middle team
Pros: High rep (134), 100% English language
Cons: Relegation/Promotion spots, high quality loanee required
USA Div 1 - Any team (best training facilities/staff preferred)
Pros: High rep (133), no relegation, 100% English language, merchandising, decent newgens (not sure if required to be active for this)
Cons: Bad processing speed, high quality loanee required
South Korea Div 1 - Middle team (Pohang)
Pros: Fairly high rep (127), good processing speed, merchandising, decent newgens
Cons: 0% English language
England Div 3 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language
Cons: Low rep (107), relegation/promotion spots
Australia Div 1 - Any team (best training facilities/staff preferred)
Pros: No relegation, good processing speed, 100% English language, merchandising, occasional newgens
Cons: Low rep (99), fairly high quality loanee required
England Div 4 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language
Cons: Very low rep (85)
England Div 5 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language, significantly better option than active/inactive Div 6
Cons: Very low rep (72)
See if the improvement stops when those thresholds are reached.
It's a bit hard to check, but I checked a few teams and the highest was 86 CA.
Recall that a player grew from 88 CA to 96 CA in this division.
So I guess it's unlikely to be simply a CA ceiling based on CA of players in the division. It could be all sorts of things. It's an interesting question in itself that may be too difficult to work out, but what I will be able to do is find out what division/clubs are best to loan out to with some precise data.
Since I controlled player reputation, I think that can be ruled out as the factor.
It is likely competition reputation obviously. Perhaps it tells us a little extra about the nature of playing players at older ages in u18s/reserve matches. Perhaps competition reputation is limiting the CA growth at high CAs, but if you had a 1 CA player they might actually grow to 20 CA rapidly.
I was skeptical, but this does seem to be the case. In fact I tested this and after a three-year loan to inactive England Div 6, the 140 CA player remained at 140 CA even though the distribution of his CA changed and his PA was 200.
A 88 CA player (148 PA) I put in inactive Div 6, grew to 96 CA by contrast.
An identical player I put in active Div 3, grew to 94 CA but only had ~1/4 the games.
An identical player I put in active Div 5, grew to 117 CA.
All players were 20 years old starting.
I will be doing more testing of this, but so far it seems like CA growth is hardcapped by league quality or reputation. And given the active Div 5 player did a lot better than inactive Div 6, maybe they changed the inactive league growth in FM24.. or at least, whatever's causing it, active Vanarama National is simply far better to loan to than inactive Vanarama National North.
This also has some implications beyond loans. It would affect training in general, and I guess suggests optimizing for low CA is even more important.
I was about to do a test to find out, but then I realized we can deduce pretty much everything we need to know from EBFM's data.
Age 21 player:
Ambition 1 > 20 = 12 > 13 CA
Determination 1 > 20 = 10 > 13.5 CA
Professionalism 1 > 20 = 5.5 > 17.5 CA
Staff attributes 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA
Training facilities 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA
League Rep 1 > 100 > 200 = 9 > 11 > 12 CA
Active league = 12.5 CA
View only = 16 CA
Inactive league = 20 CA
0 games > 41+ games = 0 > 14.5 CA
All friendlies > 20-30 games = 4 > 12.5 CA
Loaned out vs not (all other factors equal) = No difference
Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference
Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA
21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA
Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA
Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA
Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA
Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
So overall match rating means nothing for growth, because of the inactive/view-only growth bonuses. But if we're just assessing active leagues and assume roughly +0.15 match rating per division drop, then +0.1 match rating = -0.25 CA/season (-2% growth rate). 6.5 match rating -> 7.4 match rating = -18% growth. This isn't causative of course, just a correlation from which you can infer what's going on.
No one in their right mind is paying for a file which doesn't have Mbappe in the top 20 players. And you say other people have ego's.
We all have egos, and I'm saying we can fall for the trap of pumping it up on the praise (positive appraisals) of those who wouldn't have a clue. It also makes you vulnerable to being torn down later on by the same people. He successfully requested his own FM24 megapack thread to be closed because one of his patreon subscribers shattered his ego.
Honestly, what he's doing isn't that difficult, I could do it. And I reckon I'd do it better. And as a point of comparison, I've said that EBFM is just next level to me, I can't really do (or be bothered to do at least) my testing as good as he did.
If it was $50/month, I wouldn't bother. All it would do is compromise your integrity. $2500/month though? Not gonna lie, that's pretty tempting. Even Judas sold out Jesus for less than that.
Coincidentally just a week ago I was about to cite him specifically as the example of what I don't want to be.
I was going to say that I know how frustrating it is when certain people make big claims but don't actually do the testing. And it seems what happens is that because these people are the few bold enough to make these claims (since nobody is bothered to do testing), the ordinary users assume they must be an expert on the matter, and this feeds into their ego where - often with years of reinforcement of this - they actually come to believe they are the experts, and they will start lying in order to maintain their status if challenged.
That is the story of many SI staff/mods and users like BusttheNet.
With daveincid, my beef with him goes back to years ago. It was something like he had claimed he had fixed up FM's youth generation, but I took a look at it and could see that he did not understand how the newgen factors work and was therefore applying them as one would play a game of chess if you believed the pieces move like in checkers. He was just making the same assumptions as other people before him who also didn't know any better.
But I guess that was around his beginning, so I thought I'd investigate a file of his now.
I looked at his SI forums page, and in the side bio it said:
I had a rough start when I opened my eyes for the first time. Struggling through life since 28 years. Finally I know the reason. FM gave me so much hold through the years. I accept my dissabilities and will always have a smile on my face
So then I felt sorry for the guy, and decided I wouldn't attempt to put a hole in what gives his life meaning. Then I ended up on his patreon, where he paywalls his files, and saw he's making $2500/month. I thought blimey, maybe I should have monetized those Genie Scout rating files! And the sob story unraveled for me, as it turned out he was using it for moneygrubbing. You see, he isn't 'able to work' (and instead needs you to make monthly payments to him) because:
My life has not always been easy. I was born three months too early
Struggled for many years with...anxiety and the feeling that something was different
at the age of 28, I was diagnosed with autism
Ok I know it sounds like I'm obsessed with the guy, but you asked me what I think about his realism mod, and my instinctive response is I don't trust him, and I wanted to paint the full picture for you as to why. I ended up not writing all this a week ago, because I decided to omit the rant, and instead just do comparison tests of the genie scout files and post the results.
Now addressing his file pack directly, I glanced at recent explanations by him saying that he adjusts edits until they produce the results he wants. I'm skeptical, but in theory this could work, and it would be too great an undertaking by me to investigate it adequately.
The files with names that promise a lot are the first to pique my interest. One is 'Daveincid's PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS'. How can an editor file, improve FM performance exactly? I already guessed correctly before I opened it, it seems to be mostly deleted entries in the database. But I've tested this before, deleting entries has no effect on FM performance.
I was ready to unleash on the rest of the files, but after examining a few, I can't find anything else disagreeable apart from the newgen changes obviously.
In 'GEOGRAPHICS & LANGUAGES' I scrolled randomly to find Cairo had been changed from 0 > 223 (feet) elevation. Thought it was worth a check. Apparently Cairo is a city with a great variation in elevation, from 2m to 522m. Daveincid has given it 68m. I checked the stadium for a top team, which is Cairo International Stadium, and google says that is 23m but this is wrong. A topographic map website shows it to be ~104m. But this just shows the kind of dilemmas that can arise, it's not always clear cut what the data should be.
A few things raised an eyebrow. Indonesia is a developed state? Depression should be included as an injury? But these are minor quibbles, and there are always going to be mistakes with tens of thousands of changes.
I noticed that the attribute changes to players and clubs were modest and yet questionable. For instance, some club in Bumfuckistan get its youth coaching increased from 3 to 5, and this seems repeated thousands of times for no-name clubs across the world. I doubt this information can be accurately ascertained, but at least the changes are going to be pretty harmless in the case they are wrong or risk upsetting the balance of the game.
I think the upside of these files are mainly in their corrections of grossly inaccurate or inadequate data. For instance where hundreds of clubs have altitude of 0, founding date of 1800, and wrong nicknames. And it seems very comprehensive in this regard. And it's not just fluff either, because weather & altitude actually do have impacts on match performance, both in the game and in real life. And the data on these aspects seems researched rather than guesstimated.
So maybe my initial presumptions were too critical. Overall I would personally give the files a go, except for that which affects newgens, and probably transfers too.
I'm first filtering the players based on the hidden attributes.
For a national team, how important are the injury proneness and dirtiness?
Then I'm filtering on speed, selecting first the players with 15 speed and acceleration.
Then, for the missing spots, I'm selecting the ones with at least 14 and the 13 and so on.
For the DC, I'm following the same logic but with 17 jump.
Should I then look for 14 speed/acc and 16 jump or should I only pick players with 17 jump?
I'm playing without targetman but with 3 DC.
Is this a good way to use your findings?
I would think the key thing to select for, especially for a national team, would be match fitness. Low match fitness increases losses and injuries drastically, and can't be fixed in a short amount of time either (i.e. even if you have 1 friendly in advance).
Injury proneness isn't such a huge deal, as it means you're playing a 67% player instead of a 70% one.
Dirtiness should be inversely proportional to aggression. Again it doesn't impact performance severely, because even if a player is red carded, the game doesn't count it as you fielding a 0% player.
In my 'essential' weights, I make the target man/DC 99 jump/61 pace. That's 1.62x for jump, or expressed another way, I would trade 1.62 pace for 1 jump on them. So I would choose 17 jump 13 pace over 16 jump 14 pace, but not 17 jump 12 pace over 16 jump 14 pace.
Premier League 1.0, 'Essential' weights from further up this page overlap = 14/27 players
Pure Performance:
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib = 18/18/19/14
Median acc/pace/jump/drib = 14/14/12/11
Prem 1.0:
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib = 15/17/17/14
Median acc/pace/jump/drib = 13/13/13/11
BTW I didn't realize until just a few days ago that you can get the FM26 pre-game editor with the FM26 database for free without buying FM26. You can get it from the Microsoft store.
So for the Premier League 1.0 weightings, what you see is what you get. But for the test of my Pure Performance weightings, you will not get what you see in the test result. The intention here is to compare non-bugged weights between my files, to see which performs better, so that further deductions can be made.
This doesn't remove the GS bugs 100% either, but I think it should reduce it by a lot. If I wanted completely accurate comparison, I would use the weights in FM26 scoring system, but since the idea here is to continue using Genie Scout anyway.. one may as well test to see what does well using Genie Scout.
I did 10 season test on fc Metz and that one out preformed the newest file set but might be some rng possibly please test.
FM24 Pure Performance results:
5th*, 6th*, 8th*, 6th, 4th, 10th = 6.5 average
Asterisked results are where I forgot to set injury proneness to 1 as control
Premier League 1.0 results:
6th, 9th, 7th = 7.33 average
I also tried a few alternative tactics with one of these squads, to see if something does better than the Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC tactic I use. The first few did worse, but 424 Classic v164 got 3rd, 3rd, 9th, 5th. Maybe it's just circumstantial, but I'll be taking a closer look at it.
Exellent said: You were absolutely right, it was discovered in the new thread that Genie Scout indeed has bugs. For example, the higher the height, the higher the rating.
The thing is, that program isn't actually Genie Scout as far as I can tell..
The bug he encountered is valid though, but also it may be that he hasn't taken into account footedness and position proficiency which is the more likely cause if not ruled out.
I can't take credit for finding Genie Scout is bugged, LightningFlik clued me onto this.
I think it's the first time a results-based comparison of the Genie Scout rating files has been attempted.
Method:
- Luton in Premier League
- Remove all players
- Filter in Genie Scout for CA-PA gap of 0-3 and current reputation 0-6000 and green proficiency in relevant position
- Take top 3-4 in each position
- Move them to Luton
- Change age, personality, natural fitness, consistency, important matches, nationality, height, weight, etc. so that there is control where there needs to be
- Position proficiency is deliberately *not* controlled (this has pros and cons)
- One season with Knap tactic and Blue routines (Premier League, FA Cup & Carabao Cup @ full detail)
Extra info:
Player overlap - 13 of 27 players
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 18/18/19/15
Peak acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 18/18/19/13
Median acc/pace/jump/drib (Orion) - 14/14/13/12
Median acc/pace/jump/drib (My weights) - 14/14/14/11
The results:
My weights - 10th, 9th, 4th, 9th, 9th, 9th = 8.333th average
Orion's weights - 18th, 12th, 16th, 10th, 10th, 13th = 13.166th average
Now I would caution against reading into these results too much at the moment, but I think it's safe to say at least that Orion's weights do not do significantly better than mine. To my mind, it's further suggestive evidence that all positions share the same necessary attributes; there are not position-specific attributes.
The main reason for caution is that it could simply be that my weights ended up having a higher jumping reach player on the field. The Orion team did start their 19 jump DC most games though, and if my weights are selecting more frequently for high jumping reach players who win then that's a feature not a bug. When I do this test with my Premier League 1.0 weights and one or two others, that will shed more light on this more conclusively.
Is 12 speed and acceleration ok if the rest of attributes is high? I thought that speed and acceleration was the only things that matters
Here are the necessary attributes
For Premier League you can get away with 14 pace/acc. If the player has very high stamina, then as low as 12 is viable.
For winning the Premier League, or tough international competition, you'd need 18+ pace/acc. You also need someone with very high jumping reach on the field, and at least decent levels of jumping reach across the team in general.
I'm currently doing some testing using the following personal estimations of how 'essential' attributes are:
Jumping reach 100% essential - 17 min ST/DC, 13 min rest of team = 99, 63 weight
Acceleration/Pace 85% essential - 14 min = 61
Dribbling 45% essential - 13 min = 28
Anticipation 35% essential - 13 min = 22
Concentration 35% essential - 13 min = 22
Determination 25% essential - 14 min = 18
Work Rate 15% essential - 11 min = 7
Agility 15% essential - 10 min = 5
Balance 20% essential - 12 min = 11
Stamina 25% essential - 13 min = 16
Strength 2% essential - 8 min = 1
Finishing 2% essential - 7 min = 1 (ST only)
Vision 2% essential - 7 min = 1
How 'essential' they are is just based on my intuitive feel for the data. So for instance, jumping reach is 100% essential because going below the requirement quickly gets you relegated. Acc/Pace I know can go down to ~12 in certain circumstances (i.e. Harry Kane), so a little leeway there. Work Rate, we know is ok down to 6, and the requirement of 11 isn't high to begin with, so you don't even really need to put it in your weights much (as most players will be 8+ anyway).
Also 15 Speed and Acc?
So if I'm compairing those 3 MDC/MC, I shouldn't take Kimmich?
Of should I use another value as hard limit for speed and acceleration?
Kimmich is superior to those other two in all aspects except pace/acc/jump, and even then he has 20 natural fitness + 17 stamina + 3 injury proneness to mostly offset this downside.
You could go ahead and share these Genie Scout weightings of yours for the benefit of the people here
What you don't realize is that I stated this before HarvestGreen said anything about pressure.
HarvestGreen's post was 29 March 2026.
15 December 2025:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I was surprised and intrigued by this finding by Orion in FM22 that pressure 1 supposedly results in 47% less performance than pressure 10.
So I've tested it, and it really is important:
115 CA templates pressure 1 - 102, +127 | 105, +119
That's a 32% drop in performance. It is important to note though that Orion found the difference between 10 pressure and 20 pressure to only be 10%, but even that is significant.
19 December 2025:
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I would guess that ~8 is not too bad either, based on how work rate matters a great deal up to just 6 then it tails off.
Both in this very thread.
Not that I discovered the effect of pressure of course, I've always credited Orion for that from the get go. My point is that I have long hypothesized that pressure functions as work rate does, and also I think it's fair to say that Orion's findings had been largely ignored and forgotten, so I think I will give myself a pat on the back for breathing fresh life into this piece of knowledge.
Or is keithb going to claim that, as with everything else, everybody already knew pressure was the most important personality attribute?