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.
This doesn't effect my templates, as they have 20 pressure, but I will have to update my Genie Scout ratings file.
The other one I'm particularly interested in is important matches. Orion said important matches makes ~6% difference. My results:
115 CA templates important matches 1 - 107, +168 | 108, +175
I forgot to mention that I did a quick test of my Genie Scout ratings before posting, as I'm really not sure if it works as intended.
I took Luton (relegation candidate in premier league), removed their players, and added 15 players who cost 3mil pounds or less who were high in the Genie Scout ratings. Average value *after* transferring to Luton was 3.1mil pounds. Value of top 15 default players was ~10mil pounds average. Using the knap tactic and blue set piece routines, results were:
Unlike the attribute template results, this isn't clear cut enough to be certain it's working as intended. Seems like it's doing alright though.
Samet2772 said: **Hello, if I use this file in FM 26 Genie Scout, will it work?** Expand I assume the ratings files are compatible between versions
My data is for FM24, but I don't think much changed for FM26. I heard long shots got a boost in particular, so maybe make long shots '3' instead of '1' say.
Bogdan said: I've been using your training schedule and got some nice results for half a season but I'm losing a lot of match sharpness between matches. is there any way around this? Expand I've managed it manually myself in testing successfully. It can be a bit tricky, but it's definitely doable, although I played with Man City which have a lot of fixtures. I had to schedule some friendlies during the times when there were 2 week gaps, and I suggest you do the same to maintain match sharpness (you could do it as reserve matches as well).
I would caution against simply adding more training sessions in, as I found it worsens training results in most cases, I would guess because you're replacing a rest session (high distribution to pace/acc) with a training session (distributes more to technicals/mentals) rather than simply 'adding' the training session on top.
Tested the old templates to compare, and also tested the new templates without attribute availability limits (i.e. 20 agil for GK instead of 17; 1 decisions instead of 6):
119.6 CA average (new templates) no limits - 114, +223 | 114, +204 Old templates 139.2 CA average - 110, +221 | 112, +172 | 114, +177 | 114, +167 | 114, +206
To make it fair I made all 0 CA attributes for the old templates the same, except flair and aggression. The results were a bit all over the place, not sure why.
+182.2 for new templates, +188.6 for old templates, but +17% CA cost for old templates, so overall the new templates are about ~14% better.
My 1 CA testing was run with the same conditions, so you can also add this to compare:
Didico said: Im using George's ratings and filtering the best U22 CB's that are south american, under value 15M. I have to go to best DC Rating, am i doing right? Expand Correct
A few extra things I left out of my post:
Genie Scout ratings will be ~70% max. This is necessary, don't try and change this, I put the weight as high as I can but Genie Scout limits it to 120 so I can't make it nicer.
The height values I give on the positions mean something. They are the minimum height you need to have a chance of getting 20 jumping reach off the bat, but more importantly what you need if you intend to train to 20, as the meta training only increases jump reach by ~2 over 4 years. Kudos to ClaudeJ for pointing out this interesting find that comes from an Italian official FM researcher guide page. They tell the low-level researchers to assign jump reach according to this table:
And Aerial Reach for GK:
I put pace/acc as 20 in my templates, but I'll re-emphasize that the rest of the attributes represent high/low attribute values in existing players. I think it's kinda useful, because while we know now that 1 decisions and 20 dribbling is ideal, what we really need to know is whether or not a player with 6 decisions or 14 dribbling is the best we're going to be able to realistically find. With these templates, you can look at a DC with 13 dribbling and realize, this is actually a valuable find.
Kma said: Please, can you explain that altering knap tactic (i.e. 'very attacking'/'defensive', 'work into box', etc.) was worse than default ? Expand I would change the Knap tactic slightly in those ways, i.e. just put 'work ball into box' on, to see if it would boost my results. None of my changes did, the tactic was best as-is.
max 737 said: How do you get to this screen? I am getting this option of IP and OOP roles? Expand I wouldn't know, I'm not using FM26
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing 2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes 3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138 115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183 Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251 200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167 DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175 GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195 outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173 outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170 no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170 outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135 GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173 outfield 1 agil - 109, +144 flair 20 - 112, +173 teamwork 20 - 114, +158 first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223 first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187 AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176 DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182 str 20 - 111, +216 DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190 AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207 DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results. Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now.
flob said: I am a bit late to the party, but I have decided to play FM24 again and wait with FM26. Anyway, I was wondering if I also should team train my U21 and U19 teams + if I should individual train those players. If so, do I use the same team train schedule or a different one? Expand Same training should be applied to all teams and players
However I see now the reason why HarvestGreen suggested full rest for young players before switching to a more balanced regime once they reach near 20 pace/acc. They need the pace/acc first to play good, but also the balanced regimes can be simply too slow to build pace/acc.
Even in a perfect test environment with 5 star coaching, pace/acc with the more balanced training is +6 after 4 years. In a more realistic test I did, it was only +1 acc and +2 pace after 3 years.
Part of what is going on here is that growth is highly influenced by CA-PA difference, so you really don't want to pump all that technical/mental CA into your player until the low CA pace/acc growth is largely done.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but I imagine the best way to go about it would be this:
First team - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack; full rest for congested weeks U21s - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack U18s - Full rest
Age 15 -> 17 (U18s) = +5 pace/acc Age 18 -> 20 (U21s) = +2 pace/acc
The thing is, certain key technicals such as dribbling are very hard to gain, so I think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you choose to start by losing drib points with full rest. But pace/acc is more important than drib. So it's debatable.
Bogdan said: thank you very much! and now for the total noob follow up question - how would you arrange it for a 2 match week? Expand Just fit it in best you can
If your players are too tired, I would just do all rest sessions for that week
Usually I would make it an attacking session + rest, but after testing training a bit, I see that that might have unintended negative consequences. The results of session combinations aren't exactly intuitive, you need to test it to know. At least with full rest, one knows what one is going to get - the best pace/acceleration gains, but losses in mental/technical areas.
Bogdan said: can you please explain what do you mean when you say "Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack"? i think they might be parts of a training schedule and if so can share a screenshot about how to use them in game? i'm a bit of a noob when it comes to training Expand
Sure
You can move them around, but don't add extra training or change rest to recovery, otherwise it will change and give different (inferior) training results. There is a delicate balance between rest sessions and training sessions going on.
This seems best, but you can change it if you want to, it seems to be mainly injury vs training tradeoff. This favors low injury rate.
Quickness focus for outfield Agility & Balance focus for GK
Leave position as default (i.e. AMR) instead of specific role, as it (can) negatively impact attribute allocation if you set specific role
Bar2 said: Thanks for the reply. Based on what you’re saying, do you think focusing our match preparation more on physical training would be more beneficial for overall performance? Expand Yes, the meta is Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack + Quickness focus
I played around with training a fair bit, it's very hard to beat, and it seems to do very well for match performance too not just attribute increases
Pace and acceleration are the two key attributes, not the other physicals
I was wondering about the hidden attributes though. Since they can influence things like consistency, pressure handling, important matches, professionalism, natural fitness, etc., do you plan to test how much impact these hidden attributes have in a 1 CA/PA environment?
It would be really interesting to see whether hidden attributes change the results as much as physical attributes do. Expand I keep them all at optimal since they cost 0 CA
Consistency theoretically should have zero impact because 1 CA - (any) CA = 1 CA, and I tested 1 CA a few times. There didn't seem to be any difference, but I can't say conclusively.
Professionalism, natural fitness, important matches, I know would all impact results significantly without needing to test. Others theoretically have some minor effects.
If you want to know what these attributes are relative to pace/acc, here is my conclusion I've arrived at previously:
Important matches I forgot to take notes properly on, but my general impression was that it's significantly more important than what I initially thought. Because from vague memory it affects all high rep league matches (i.e. premier league), not just the FA cup final say. Maybe like a 5% performance difference for every match say. Compare that to consistency, where consistency is only say ~10 non-physical CA less for the match, which could make 0 difference.
The original test was done on young players with enough PA to develop. I was wondering, if a player is already fully developed, can I mould him into a faster player by quickness training and resting? Or in other words, does a fully developed player loose technical and mental attributes to free up CA points which then are redistributed into physical attributes by this type of training?
Thanks in advance for any answers. And if this was answered earlier and I overread it, then I apologize for it. Expand I don't know if you can boost or even maintain the acc/pace on older players, but I do know that attribute growth slows down a lot as CA approaches PA. These older players would in most cases be at PA limit, so I would assume that even if you could convert mental/technical stats into physical, it would do so at a very slow rate that is also then being eroded by the player's aging.
clox said: Yo, I registered just because I keep wondering if you somehow adjusted your GS values in accordance with your recent findings about player stats and match engine.
When FM26 came out, and you posted your ratings in this thread, I based mine on yours but made some changes, mostly trying to 'highlight' acc and pace more.
Now that you said in a different thread that acc and pace are basically a huge game changer only if a player reaches 20 in both, I wanted to ask if you adjusted your GS values as well. Much appreciated. Expand I'll probably update the GS filter in the next 2 weeks. It's a bit outdated now.
I'm thinking I will make the updated GS filter use pre-training values. For instance, I now know that in an optimal scenario, the best overall training schedule does +6-7 acc and +1-2 drib on DC after 4 years. If you put on 'ball control' focus it's +4 drib, but that comes at expense of acc/pace. For 2 years, and presumably less optimal conditions, it's +3 acc and +1 drib. So for DC filter I'd want to configure it to favor players that are ~17 acc and ~19 drib. Maybe I'll have to make 2 filters though, as GS can be used to choose players to play too, in which case you'll want the % to be based on their current stats.
I'm also thinking about player availability, i.e. max values you will typically find are far lower at ~15 acc and ~13 drib, but if I'm thinking about this correctly, I don't think that has to be taken into account in the GS filter numbers themselves (it's the scoring system we're talking about, not the filter).
Acc/pace are highly valuable in any amount. A team of low acc/pace players will never be competitive, regardless of what other stats they have. What I meant was that in order for them to get away with acc/pace/jump/drib alone, the acc/pace needs to be ~17+ at least (for premier league). So the implication here isn't favor 13 acc 18 ant over 15 acc 10 ant, it's more like favor 17 acc 4 ant over 13 acc 18 con. The 15 acc 10 ant would still beat the 13 acc 18 ant.
FM24 I think someone said the training .jsb file is same in FM26, but I'm not sure if that's all that controls the training variables. I'd guess it does.
I was mistaken about HarvestGreen not including the breakdown of all attributes. I had actually seen it before but forgotten. However, it doesn't breakdown by each position. It would be good if this could be provided.
Anyway, I've been having a crack at it, and the long and short of it is that quickness + match practice + 2xAttack is still king.
I think I found one combo that may edge it out slightly:
Quickness + Match Practice + Aerial Defence + Play From The Back + Handling
After 4 years:
GK +1 dec (compared to Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack) DL/DR +1 pac, -2 flair, +1 work DC +1 acc, -1 dec, -1 con, -1 work DM +1 dec, +1 work AML/AMR +1 pac, +1 dec, -1 tech ST -2 acc, +1 pac, -1 dec, -2 tech, -1 flair, -2 finish, -2 drib
7 injuries (1 major, 1 moderate) vs 13 (2 major, 5 moderate) for Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack.
Hard to say if it's better, the results are so close it could be just statistical noise, but overall it is +2 speed as well as 3 less of CA wasting attributes (basically another +3 speed). That's +0.45 speed per position after 4 years.
It seems at least some sessions, such as match practice and match tactics, changed for FM24.
BulldozerJokic said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed what I am getting from your data is that I can actually focus less on pace/acc on my wingers in my saves. Potentially opening up a carreer where I get a winger regen I can play until his 40s Expand No, I strongly recommend maxxing out pace/acc for all positions including wingers.
This is a bit complicated to explain, so I'll just put it in separate points:
- I think you can get away with 1-2 slow players because of the red card system where teams lose 1-2 players in matches sometimes yet can still play on decently. This is pure speculation though. - My players were constrained to 1 CA, and wingers are most CA demanding, so I had no choice but to make them the least useful players. - If you make a player useless, another team member will seemingly pick up the slack where they can. For instance, my STs had 1 finishing, so my 6 finishing AML/AMRs did most of the goals. If I made AML/AMRs 1 finishing, my ST or DL/DR would score the goals. - 10-20 CA is adequate to make wingers non-useless - Because I only had 1 CA, I basically made my AML/AMRs into extra striker pressure while my DL/DRs did all the heavy lifting, but I think how it's supposed to work in the tactic is that the AML/AMRs are an extra set of runner options who do strong pressing work to reclaim the ball quickly as well - My testing was in premier league, and I found even 16/16 pace/acc for all players to fail badly. So you can't skimp on pace/acc, unless in low leagues I guess.
BulldozerJokic said: Also, I know that jumping reach on wingers is quite important as I saw a lot of goals from them when they respond to crosses and score headers. From your tests, having tall striker didn't make a difference? And what about short DMs, is that a no-go? Expand I think I fiddled around with jumping reach a bit but not too much. Mainly on the STs and DCs, because jumping reach on all other positions such as AML/AMR is so cheap.
As you can see, 1 jump ST won out. I don't know if this is because AML/AMR picked up the slack. I think heading also ties in with a bit - and you can see heading was 6 or 20 on my AML/AMR in spite of the painfully low CA to go around.
I did try a slow tall strong ST + fast short finish ST combo. It did high mid-table, but was inferior to fast 1 jump 1 drib STs in the end. I tried 20 pace/acc/jump STs early on of course.
With DM, they have 20 jump, but I think I didn't bother testing 1 jump because their jump CA cost is minuscule and DMs have the highest abundance of CA as well. I doubt it would be significantly detrimental if they were short, but I can't really say.
Kma said: After that 1 CA test please can you make a liste of attributes for : - GK - DC - DR/DL - DM - AMR/AML - AMC - ST I will create filters in game Expand If you mean updated attributes for my 'ideal' ~140 CA players, I made improvements to them before the 1 CA test which are ~10% better, and I've also made a ~70 CA version, but these 1 CA results have thrown a lot of attributes into question. So I'm sitting on it right now.
My plan is to test each attribute one by one at ~140 CA. And I'll have to test certain attribute combos as well to be sure.
Not sure how long it will take me to get this done, could be a few days, could be a few weeks.
BulldozerJokic said: So, basically retrain wingers into DL/DR, retrain DL/DR into wingers Expand Yes, this is what kind of struck me about it.
In my post, you'll see I say "(Only) wingers 1 pace/acc = high mid-table". The reason I tested this is because if you look at the knap tactic, the wingers are told to dribble more, cross less often, but also hold up ball, while the fullbacks are to dribble all the way up the pitch. I put all those leftover CA points into making the wingers technical/mental geniuses. My thinking was that that way my team would dominate in every area appropriately.
While 1 pace/acc for wingers surprisingly did ok, it didn't make things better. I had also tried making them decent tacklers/defenders with minimal pace/acc decrease, that didn't work either. I tried this with other positions too, i.e. 1 tall/strong/passing/slow DC, 1 fast/dribbling DC. Didn't work. By contrast, 20 pace/acc/drib on fullbacks seems to make them the most valuable players on the pitch.
And in looking at training, I notice that 'play from the back' aligns well with my attribute distribution. In fact a lot of training sessions names seem to match what they say they do in practice. So for example, 'play from the back' is the best way to give your defenders dribbling skill (+0.65 DC, +0.45 DL/DR), whereas 'defend from the front' gives forwards +1 drib but defenders get 0 drib. You can't actually simply just fill up your training with all these sessions, but in cases where you're deciding between two of the same types of session, i.e. 'endurance' vs 'quickness', you can pretty much rely on what the name is telling you in terms of what it will tactically achieve.
Kma said: I think that the 210cm height who make all the difference can you please test with 180cm height???? Expand Changed to more realistic heights & weights (173-190cm, 67-89kg)
No significant difference:
I didn't expect it would change it much, if at all. I can't remember if height is taken into amount in jumping calculations, or if it just influences what jumping reach players are set initially with. Even if it is in jumping calculations, most of the players have 20 jumping reach already anyway, and pace/acc are more important
keithb said: Come across as? Bit? Expand I guess a better way of putting it is that I don't want to come across as being snide, as I'm not driven by putting other people down and I also think there's a lot of great info being posted by this Zippo fellow (does he run the joint as well? I don't know).
The obvious retort is, well don't be snide. But how else are you meant to point out contradictions? It's not like I'm calling him an idiot. I'm just saying, look I think you're mistaken on this matter and here's my reasoning why. My name is a reference to this problem. A lot of people will read it and get their knickers in a knot. But it's just a factual claim. Even if it's not true, the real point of contention here for me is apparently we can't debate the facts out in the open on certain matters because it is tantamount to humiliation for people. I don't want to humiliate people, I just want to have a sober discussion about the facts as I see them. And aside from that, what's wrong with getting some enjoyment out of saying 'ackshally you're wrong' sometimes?
In my other thread you said you agreed with the comment that my name isn't appropriate for a FM forum. I chose it for an FM forum because my experience with SI staff has been that if you point out inconvenient truths about the game mechanics, you get hounded as ruining the game for people and banned for being 'insulting' or 'trolling'. Whereas here seems to be a forum where you can say such truths about the game openly. This is an pseudonymous forum, which lessens the need for decorum than in everyday human interaction, but I recognize that there's still a fellow egotist on the other side of the screen.
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.
This doesn't effect my templates, as they have 20 pressure, but I will have to update my Genie Scout ratings file.
The other one I'm particularly interested in is important matches. Orion said important matches makes ~6% difference. My results:
115 CA templates important matches 1 - 107, +168 | 108, +175
So ~6% decrease, which matches Orion's finding.
I took Luton (relegation candidate in premier league), removed their players, and added 15 players who cost 3mil pounds or less who were high in the Genie Scout ratings. Average value *after* transferring to Luton was 3.1mil pounds. Value of top 15 default players was ~10mil pounds average. Using the knap tactic and blue set piece routines, results were:
Luton (3mil< pound players) 7th, 70, +33
Luton default players 5th, 77, +33
Unlike the attribute template results, this isn't clear cut enough to be certain it's working as intended. Seems like it's doing alright though.
Samet2772 said: **Hello, if I use this file in FM 26 Genie Scout, will it work?**
I assume the ratings files are compatible between versions
My data is for FM24, but I don't think much changed for FM26. I heard long shots got a boost in particular, so maybe make long shots '3' instead of '1' say.
is there any way around this?
I've managed it manually myself in testing successfully. It can be a bit tricky, but it's definitely doable, although I played with Man City which have a lot of fixtures. I had to schedule some friendlies during the times when there were 2 week gaps, and I suggest you do the same to maintain match sharpness (you could do it as reserve matches as well).
I would caution against simply adding more training sessions in, as I found it worsens training results in most cases, I would guess because you're replacing a rest session (high distribution to pace/acc) with a training session (distributes more to technicals/mentals) rather than simply 'adding' the training session on top.
119.6 CA average (new templates) no limits - 114, +223 | 114, +204
Old templates 139.2 CA average - 110, +221 | 112, +172 | 114, +177 | 114, +167 | 114, +206
To make it fair I made all 0 CA attributes for the old templates the same, except flair and aggression. The results were a bit all over the place, not sure why.
+182.2 for new templates, +188.6 for old templates, but +17% CA cost for old templates, so overall the new templates are about ~14% better.
My 1 CA testing was run with the same conditions, so you can also add this to compare:
1 CA templates (best single result) - 91, +78
I have to go to best DC Rating, am i doing right?
Correct
A few extra things I left out of my post:
Genie Scout ratings will be ~70% max. This is necessary, don't try and change this, I put the weight as high as I can but Genie Scout limits it to 120 so I can't make it nicer.
The height values I give on the positions mean something. They are the minimum height you need to have a chance of getting 20 jumping reach off the bat, but more importantly what you need if you intend to train to 20, as the meta training only increases jump reach by ~2 over 4 years. Kudos to ClaudeJ for pointing out this interesting find that comes from an Italian official FM researcher guide page. They tell the low-level researchers to assign jump reach according to this table:
And Aerial Reach for GK:
I put pace/acc as 20 in my templates, but I'll re-emphasize that the rest of the attributes represent high/low attribute values in existing players. I think it's kinda useful, because while we know now that 1 decisions and 20 dribbling is ideal, what we really need to know is whether or not a player with 6 decisions or 14 dribbling is the best we're going to be able to realistically find. With these templates, you can look at a DC with 13 dribbling and realize, this is actually a valuable find.
I would change the Knap tactic slightly in those ways, i.e. just put 'work ball into box' on, to see if it would boost my results. None of my changes did, the tactic was best as-is.
max 737 said: How do you get to this screen? I am getting this option of IP and OOP roles?
I wouldn't know, I'm not using FM26
115 CA average:
200 CA:
Genie Scout ratings file:
https://files.catbox.moe/f2052w.grf
GK, FB, DC, DM, Winger, Fast ST are valid.
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing
2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes
3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138
115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251
200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167
DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175
GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195
outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173
outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170
no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170
outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135
GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173
outfield 1 agil - 109, +144
flair 20 - 112, +173
teamwork 20 - 114, +158
first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223
first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187
AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176
DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182
str 20 - 111, +216
DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190
AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207
DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results.
Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now.
Same training should be applied to all teams and players
However I see now the reason why HarvestGreen suggested full rest for young players before switching to a more balanced regime once they reach near 20 pace/acc. They need the pace/acc first to play good, but also the balanced regimes can be simply too slow to build pace/acc.
Even in a perfect test environment with 5 star coaching, pace/acc with the more balanced training is +6 after 4 years. In a more realistic test I did, it was only +1 acc and +2 pace after 3 years.
Part of what is going on here is that growth is highly influenced by CA-PA difference, so you really don't want to pump all that technical/mental CA into your player until the low CA pace/acc growth is largely done.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but I imagine the best way to go about it would be this:
First team - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack; full rest for congested weeks
U21s - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack
U18s - Full rest
Age 15 -> 17 (U18s) = +5 pace/acc
Age 18 -> 20 (U21s) = +2 pace/acc
The thing is, certain key technicals such as dribbling are very hard to gain, so I think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you choose to start by losing drib points with full rest. But pace/acc is more important than drib. So it's debatable.
Just fit it in best you can
If your players are too tired, I would just do all rest sessions for that week
Usually I would make it an attacking session + rest, but after testing training a bit, I see that that might have unintended negative consequences. The results of session combinations aren't exactly intuitive, you need to test it to know. At least with full rest, one knows what one is going to get - the best pace/acceleration gains, but losses in mental/technical areas.
i think they might be parts of a training schedule and if so can share a screenshot about how to use them in game?
i'm a bit of a noob when it comes to training
Sure
You can move them around, but don't add extra training or change rest to recovery, otherwise it will change and give different (inferior) training results. There is a delicate balance between rest sessions and training sessions going on.
This seems best, but you can change it if you want to, it seems to be mainly injury vs training tradeoff. This favors low injury rate.
Quickness focus for outfield
Agility & Balance focus for GK
Leave position as default (i.e. AMR) instead of specific role, as it (can) negatively impact attribute allocation if you set specific role
Yes, the meta is Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack + Quickness focus
I played around with training a fair bit, it's very hard to beat, and it seems to do very well for match performance too not just attribute increases
Pace and acceleration are the two key attributes, not the other physicals
I was wondering about the hidden attributes though.
Since they can influence things like consistency, pressure handling, important matches, professionalism, natural fitness, etc., do you plan to test how much impact these hidden attributes have in a 1 CA/PA environment?
It would be really interesting to see whether hidden attributes change the results as much as physical attributes do.
I keep them all at optimal since they cost 0 CA
Consistency theoretically should have zero impact because 1 CA - (any) CA = 1 CA, and I tested 1 CA a few times. There didn't seem to be any difference, but I can't say conclusively.
Professionalism, natural fitness, important matches, I know would all impact results significantly without needing to test. Others theoretically have some minor effects.
If you want to know what these attributes are relative to pace/acc, here is my conclusion I've arrived at previously:
1 pace = 2 professionalism = 5 dirtiness = 17 consistency
Important matches I forgot to take notes properly on, but my general impression was that it's significantly more important than what I initially thought. Because from vague memory it affects all high rep league matches (i.e. premier league), not just the FA cup final say. Maybe like a 5% performance difference for every match say. Compare that to consistency, where consistency is only say ~10 non-physical CA less for the match, which could make 0 difference.
The original test was done on young players with enough PA to develop. I was wondering, if a player is already fully developed, can I mould him into a faster player by quickness training and resting? Or in other words, does a fully developed player loose technical and mental attributes to free up CA points which then are redistributed into physical attributes by this type of training?
Thanks in advance for any answers. And if this was answered earlier and I overread it, then I apologize for it.
I don't know if you can boost or even maintain the acc/pace on older players, but I do know that attribute growth slows down a lot as CA approaches PA. These older players would in most cases be at PA limit, so I would assume that even if you could convert mental/technical stats into physical, it would do so at a very slow rate that is also then being eroded by the player's aging.
When FM26 came out, and you posted your ratings in this thread, I based mine on yours but made some changes, mostly trying to 'highlight' acc and pace more.
Now that you said in a different thread that acc and pace are basically a huge game changer only if a player reaches 20 in both, I wanted to ask if you adjusted your GS values as well. Much appreciated.
I'll probably update the GS filter in the next 2 weeks. It's a bit outdated now.
I'm thinking I will make the updated GS filter use pre-training values. For instance, I now know that in an optimal scenario, the best overall training schedule does +6-7 acc and +1-2 drib on DC after 4 years. If you put on 'ball control' focus it's +4 drib, but that comes at expense of acc/pace. For 2 years, and presumably less optimal conditions, it's +3 acc and +1 drib. So for DC filter I'd want to configure it to favor players that are ~17 acc and ~19 drib. Maybe I'll have to make 2 filters though, as GS can be used to choose players to play too, in which case you'll want the % to be based on their current stats.
I'm also thinking about player availability, i.e. max values you will typically find are far lower at ~15 acc and ~13 drib, but if I'm thinking about this correctly, I don't think that has to be taken into account in the GS filter numbers themselves (it's the scoring system we're talking about, not the filter).
Acc/pace are highly valuable in any amount. A team of low acc/pace players will never be competitive, regardless of what other stats they have. What I meant was that in order for them to get away with acc/pace/jump/drib alone, the acc/pace needs to be ~17+ at least (for premier league). So the implication here isn't favor 13 acc 18 ant over 15 acc 10 ant, it's more like favor 17 acc 4 ant over 13 acc 18 con. The 15 acc 10 ant would still beat the 13 acc 18 ant.
FM24
I think someone said the training .jsb file is same in FM26, but I'm not sure if that's all that controls the training variables. I'd guess it does.
Anyway, I've been having a crack at it, and the long and short of it is that quickness + match practice + 2xAttack is still king.
I think I found one combo that may edge it out slightly:
Quickness + Match Practice + Aerial Defence + Play From The Back + Handling
After 4 years:
GK +1 dec (compared to Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack)
DL/DR +1 pac, -2 flair, +1 work
DC +1 acc, -1 dec, -1 con, -1 work
DM +1 dec, +1 work
AML/AMR +1 pac, +1 dec, -1 tech
ST -2 acc, +1 pac, -1 dec, -2 tech, -1 flair, -2 finish, -2 drib
7 injuries (1 major, 1 moderate) vs 13 (2 major, 5 moderate) for Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack.
Hard to say if it's better, the results are so close it could be just statistical noise, but overall it is +2 speed as well as 3 less of CA wasting attributes (basically another +3 speed). That's +0.45 speed per position after 4 years.
It seems at least some sessions, such as match practice and match tactics, changed for FM24.
No, I strongly recommend maxxing out pace/acc for all positions including wingers.
This is a bit complicated to explain, so I'll just put it in separate points:
- I think you can get away with 1-2 slow players because of the red card system where teams lose 1-2 players in matches sometimes yet can still play on decently. This is pure speculation though.
- My players were constrained to 1 CA, and wingers are most CA demanding, so I had no choice but to make them the least useful players.
- If you make a player useless, another team member will seemingly pick up the slack where they can. For instance, my STs had 1 finishing, so my 6 finishing AML/AMRs did most of the goals. If I made AML/AMRs 1 finishing, my ST or DL/DR would score the goals.
- 10-20 CA is adequate to make wingers non-useless
- Because I only had 1 CA, I basically made my AML/AMRs into extra striker pressure while my DL/DRs did all the heavy lifting, but I think how it's supposed to work in the tactic is that the AML/AMRs are an extra set of runner options who do strong pressing work to reclaim the ball quickly as well
- My testing was in premier league, and I found even 16/16 pace/acc for all players to fail badly. So you can't skimp on pace/acc, unless in low leagues I guess.
BulldozerJokic said: Also, I know that jumping reach on wingers is quite important as I saw a lot of goals from them when they respond to crosses and score headers. From your tests, having tall striker didn't make a difference? And what about short DMs, is that a no-go?
I think I fiddled around with jumping reach a bit but not too much. Mainly on the STs and DCs, because jumping reach on all other positions such as AML/AMR is so cheap.
As you can see, 1 jump ST won out. I don't know if this is because AML/AMR picked up the slack. I think heading also ties in with a bit - and you can see heading was 6 or 20 on my AML/AMR in spite of the painfully low CA to go around.
I did try a slow tall strong ST + fast short finish ST combo. It did high mid-table, but was inferior to fast 1 jump 1 drib STs in the end. I tried 20 pace/acc/jump STs early on of course.
With DM, they have 20 jump, but I think I didn't bother testing 1 jump because their jump CA cost is minuscule and DMs have the highest abundance of CA as well. I doubt it would be significantly detrimental if they were short, but I can't really say.
- GK
- DC
- DR/DL
- DM
- AMR/AML
- AMC
- ST
I will create filters in game
If you mean updated attributes for my 'ideal' ~140 CA players, I made improvements to them before the 1 CA test which are ~10% better, and I've also made a ~70 CA version, but these 1 CA results have thrown a lot of attributes into question. So I'm sitting on it right now.
My plan is to test each attribute one by one at ~140 CA. And I'll have to test certain attribute combos as well to be sure.
Not sure how long it will take me to get this done, could be a few days, could be a few weeks.
BulldozerJokic said: So, basically retrain wingers into DL/DR, retrain DL/DR into wingers
Yes, this is what kind of struck me about it.
In my post, you'll see I say "(Only) wingers 1 pace/acc = high mid-table". The reason I tested this is because if you look at the knap tactic, the wingers are told to dribble more, cross less often, but also hold up ball, while the fullbacks are to dribble all the way up the pitch. I put all those leftover CA points into making the wingers technical/mental geniuses. My thinking was that that way my team would dominate in every area appropriately.
While 1 pace/acc for wingers surprisingly did ok, it didn't make things better. I had also tried making them decent tacklers/defenders with minimal pace/acc decrease, that didn't work either. I tried this with other positions too, i.e. 1 tall/strong/passing/slow DC, 1 fast/dribbling DC. Didn't work. By contrast, 20 pace/acc/drib on fullbacks seems to make them the most valuable players on the pitch.
And in looking at training, I notice that 'play from the back' aligns well with my attribute distribution. In fact a lot of training sessions names seem to match what they say they do in practice. So for example, 'play from the back' is the best way to give your defenders dribbling skill (+0.65 DC, +0.45 DL/DR), whereas 'defend from the front' gives forwards +1 drib but defenders get 0 drib. You can't actually simply just fill up your training with all these sessions, but in cases where you're deciding between two of the same types of session, i.e. 'endurance' vs 'quickness', you can pretty much rely on what the name is telling you in terms of what it will tactically achieve.
can you please test with 180cm height????
Changed to more realistic heights & weights (173-190cm, 67-89kg)
No significant difference:
I didn't expect it would change it much, if at all. I can't remember if height is taken into amount in jumping calculations, or if it just influences what jumping reach players are set initially with. Even if it is in jumping calculations, most of the players have 20 jumping reach already anyway, and pace/acc are more important
I guess a better way of putting it is that I don't want to come across as being snide, as I'm not driven by putting other people down and I also think there's a lot of great info being posted by this Zippo fellow (does he run the joint as well? I don't know).
The obvious retort is, well don't be snide. But how else are you meant to point out contradictions? It's not like I'm calling him an idiot. I'm just saying, look I think you're mistaken on this matter and here's my reasoning why. My name is a reference to this problem. A lot of people will read it and get their knickers in a knot. But it's just a factual claim. Even if it's not true, the real point of contention here for me is apparently we can't debate the facts out in the open on certain matters because it is tantamount to humiliation for people. I don't want to humiliate people, I just want to have a sober discussion about the facts as I see them. And aside from that, what's wrong with getting some enjoyment out of saying 'ackshally you're wrong' sometimes?
In my other thread you said you agreed with the comment that my name isn't appropriate for a FM forum. I chose it for an FM forum because my experience with SI staff has been that if you point out inconvenient truths about the game mechanics, you get hounded as ruining the game for people and banned for being 'insulting' or 'trolling'. Whereas here seems to be a forum where you can say such truths about the game openly. This is an pseudonymous forum, which lessens the need for decorum than in everyday human interaction, but I recognize that there's still a fellow egotist on the other side of the screen.