eXtazzy said: Can someone please share the latest ratings for FM Genie? I would appreciate it Expand I've made a new Genie Scout ratings file with the latest weightings:
I'll call it Premier League 1.0, since that's what it's designed to thrive in and I'll probably have a Championship/lower league one later.
Hiddens are not included, as weighting them seems to just mess things up badly. Use filter: 8 min for consistency, important matches, pressure, professionalism, natural fitness. Dirtiness 14<, Injury Proneness 13<.
Vision, Strength, Finishing are required, but not included because your players will most likely have 7-8+ in these attributes anyway and weighting them would just do more harm than good (i.e. 18 fin/12 pace player gets higher rating than 6 fin/14 pace player).
GK is included. SW is a basic tutor rating.
DC and Target Man have jumping reach valued at 17, but you should really put a filter for this, as 15 can be worthless compared to 17.
I've done a glance comparison with FM26 scoring system vs. these weightings in Genie Scout, it seems to work as intended.. but Genie Scout does have issues with how it calculates things, so if you want to be sure I recommend you use FM26 scoring system to double check the player before signing.
And for GK Agility 13 Reflexes 10 Aerial reach 13 other attributes 1 Expand
I would test that for you, except that I already know that would fail, not because of other attributes 1 (except for certain hiddens) but because of stamina 10 concentration 10. Wouldn't survive relegation.
dor said: Hey, thanks to your research, I’ve been playing FM much more efficiently. I’m always grateful! This filter you made—'FM24 Age 26+/Pure performance: https://files.catbox.moe/8wskjk.grf'—is this the latest version? Expand FM Genie Scout is messed up, but that file will still give you decent results.
But for the latest weightings, you need to download 'FM 26 player scoring system' and use weights I posted on page 8. I'll be posting an updated list of the weights soon. Maybe I can just upload my own edited file that you can just drag-and-drop into the folder.
keithb said: Jumping reach for keepers is basically irrelevant. It's tied to headers, whereas aerial reach is for catching the ball. Reflexes is the strongest attribute for a keeper. Expand GK jump 14 > 10 results in 4th/5th > 7th/8th
I was suddenly finishing ~9th-11th in every result and I couldn't work out why. Turned out the error was thinking I could get away with aer 14 > 13 at the same time and forgot about it.
So aer 14 > 13 has a greater effect than ref 14 > 10 + all outfield bal 13 > 10, nat 14 > 10.
Reflexes - High weight cost. Harder to get great goalkeepers. Minimal performance loss from 13 > 10. Balance - Low weight cost. No benefit at very high values. ~2 position drop from 13 > 11. Natural fitness - Zero weight cost. Easy to find. Crucial for player-managed team fitness in spite of lack of position drop observed.
Overall, I think I'll probably settle on 11 ref 12 bal 12 nat for the weightings.
I also did some other kinds of tests:
No friendlies, team bonding + community outreach only training = No team cohesion improvement by season start
7 friendlies + meta training = Medium team cohesion improvement by season start
17 friendlies + meta training = Large team cohesion improvement by season start. 5th, 5th finishes.
Low altitude match (Tiberias, Israel, -656) = No match fitness/condition difference compared to normal friendlies at 0 altitude. Seems the altitude penalty doesn't invert at negative altitudes.
Low altitude match edited in database to minimum possible (Tiberias, Israel, -1000) = No match fitness/condition difference compared to normal friendlies at 0 altitude.
High altitude match (Cerro de Pasco, Peru, 14189) = Huge condition difference, no match fitness difference. Already knew the first part, but interesting that playing higher altitude friendlies only has big downsides as no match fitness benefit.
Crappy first team opposition vs. their u18 team = No significant difference, but their u18 team should be easier, which may mean better morale for your team.
Custom 'park the bus' style tactic vs. Knap tactic = 4% higher condition for park the bus, while match fitness is identical. The weaker result impairs the morale gain though, so maybe a good idea would be to use Knap tactic 1st half, then a very slow tactic 2nd half. Reason why 1st half is it's when fatigue and anxiety/complacency hasn't set in yet. Probably only worthwhile for mid-season friendly matches, when you already have full Knap tactic familiarity.
So overall I would schedule ~7 pre-season friendlies (whatever manages your team fitness best) against the weakest teams at low altitude stadiums (preferably your own) or weak high rep teams if you need money, and for any appropriate mid-season friendlies use Knap tactic for 1st half then a very slow tactic for 2nd half.
Stamina is never CA cost effective compared to pace/acc, but comes closest on DC. It is also easier to find pace than stamina, except for DM. On the other hand starting 15 pace/15 acc/12+ sta is near impossible to find, however I think it's reasonable to assume you can train up +1 pace/acc by mid-season. Stamina's importance will also diminish as your player's pace/acc increases. So overall I won't be moving to 14 pace/acc/sta (14 pace/acc/sta also does a bit worse).
Since DM has the most CA headroom and stamina is easier to find for DM, I'm probably going to change DM to 14 pace/14 acc/14 sta instead of 15/15/13.
Balance and natural fitness have been lowered to 10 for outfield.
For GK, reflexes has been lowered to 10. 6th, 4th, 4th with just 10 reflexes. So far it's looking like jumping reach and agility will stay at 14.
Edit: Having some issues, retesting these attributes..
ZaZ said: I have no clue what he has better that is much better than other elite games, unless "gets the crowd going" makes him score more goals. Expand I think I've mentioned it before, but it's worth saying again, that I tested player traits and found that they have no positive performance effect as far as I could tell
keithb said: FM is mainly about scoring goals rather than keeping clean sheets. But some have won the league with a lot of 1-0's or 2-1's so if that's your play style then maybe keepers are more important. Expand I was going to add, but decided in the end not to, that you seem to to believe that GK only contributes to goals prevented rather than goals scored. The reason I decided not to is because I had a brief look at the past results to find evidence to disprove this, but realized it would just take too much time to collate all the necessary information to present it neatly. But my impression just from having running the tests and seeing the results, is that GK doesn't just prevent goals, better GK results in more team goals scored. This is more clearly demonstrated/known with better defenders resulting in more goals/wins.
keithb said: You are someone who didn't even have Haaland as the best striker at one point? How can your testing be taken seriously.
Weeks ago you said stamina didn't matter, or words to that affect, and then more recently you said it did. Which is it? It's also obvious why stamina is useful, what happens if your team has low stamina and why certain positions need it more than others.
Most of your work is just other people's you've redone. Bravo. Expand So you're saying I should make your confirmation bias a prerequisite of my testing?
My testing can be taken seriously because I'm running them in the real league on full detail with players that have realistically attainable attributes, with cumulatively thousands of samples not on every attribute precisely but the basic picture. So I can say with certainty that a team of 1 CA players can win the Premier League, and that a team of 15 pace/acc players can also win the Premier League (4th/5th most typically though), but when I found in my 1 CA testing that concentration only mattered for DC/DL/DR that turned out to be wrong - or perhaps it only applied to that 1 CA limitation. Stamina also did not matter for those 1 CA players, and according to HarvestGreen stamina is one of the least important physical attributes - less important than agility he finds.
It is telling that you think changing your mind is a sign of weakness. What the data is showing is actually that there perhaps aren't any outfield positional differences. I think what is going on with stamina is that it affects the decay rate of pace/acc over a match. So in my 1 CA tests where players have 17-20 pace/acc, low stamina is insignificant because pace/acc is from a high starting point to begin with. This would also therefore be true once you have your 18+ pace/acc players in game. For this 15 pace/acc where we are hitting the lower threshold of the pace/acc requirement, stamina is necessary to make up for its shortfall towards the end of the match. I have done another test earlier where 14 pace/acc/sta comes 8th, so it does appear to work this way. What this means is that in any case, stamina is less important than pace/acc in any position including fullbacks, and one would guess that 20 stamina = 4 pace or acc, so 20% of pace/acc. This happens to align neatly with HarvestGreen's finding of 21.7%.
As far as I'm aware, no one else is doing the kind of testing I'm doing, which is using the real league in situ. Everybody else seems to be doing carefully controlled custom leagues where every player has 10 attributes or whatnot, and even making morale and such identical. I've been influenced to take my approach from previous experience, where I couldn't work out the newgen factors based on isolation tests, so I ended up simply testing the median PA for every single playable club in Football Manager. And from those results it turned out that there is a hidden factor I couldn't have found in my isolation tests and why I could never get my formula to work properly. The great thing about this method is that there's no question of 'yes, but will this work in the Premier League?' - it simply does.
ZaZ said: If I run the same tactic five times with Burnley, sometimes it will end 3rd place, sometimes 12th, and sometimes it will have awful results that make me even check if I loaded the right tactic before the test. What I mean is that a single league test is definitely not enough to prove anything, and even two or three would still not be reliable enough to draw any conclusions.
Other than that, the fact that table position have less variance than points in the table do not mean much. The table goes from 1st to 20th, while points go from 0 to 114. Realistically, the same experiment ran multiple times could variate position between 6 different positions, while points in the table would naturally variate 30 or so. They are simply different ranges, but the position in table depends much more from performance of other teams against each other, while points in the table depends mostly of your performance against each of them. Expand My observations are:
1) Certain attributes seem to have more result variability than others. For instance, important matches 13 > 8 results in say 4th, 12th, 4th, 12th instead of the typical 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 10th.
2) Say my team comes 2nd almost every test. Liverpool gets 68 points, I get 66 points. I get 88 points, Liverpool gets 91 points. Liverpool gets 76 points, I get 71 points. I'm not sure how this gels with your idea of how it works, but if it was just 2 sets of randomness, why would two team's points track each other like this? In any case, I don't know on this one, all I want to assert is that table position is an adequately reliable measure. Even if you're correct in that it's just as random, but the scale is smaller so it doesn't show, then for all intents & purposes it still works - the RNG does not overwhelm the predictability of table position. Not that I mean to be dismissive of your theory, I actually think it's somewhat important to get to why it works like this and I'm open to ideas on it.
2) The typical position variability for me is less than you have observed. Maybe it's the tactic, maybe it's the unevenness of players, and so on. Now unfortunately I don't save my dud results, so I can't really present data on this. But based on my saved successes, and recollections of duds, I reckon it will be in the range ~3rd-8th ~80-90% of the time. But I've done a test of this below to determine the truth.
So I did 10 one-season tests of 14 pace/acc/stamina + new GK template since I want more samples on both of those anyway:
8th 4th 3rd 9th (sacked after 14 games) 8th 2nd 13th (sacked after 15 games) 6th (sacked after 36 games) 10th (sacked after 20 games) 6th
So 7/10 times (I'm going to count 6th sacked after 36 games) the team did 8th or better. The mode was 6th or 8th. The median was 7th. The average was 7th (6.9).
And that's assuming those early sackings wouldn't have led to higher results later if not sacked. If I were summing up these results, I'd say 14 pace/acc/sta does ~6th-8th.
keithb said: Keepers are the least important position in FM24 over a season. Expand It's one thing for you to have incorrectly assumed that stamina on fullbacks is crucial for success. Since you never did any testing yourself, it was a fair and widely held assumption to bet your dignity on. You couldn't have known my finding in advance that both DL/DR with 1 stamina (along with a bunch of serious shortfalls in other positions) results in coming 8th (instead of 4th-5th).
But this time you're making an assertion after it's shown to be wrong. In a team where both wingers have 1 pace, and fullbacks have 1 stamina, the team finishes 8th. In a team where just the goalkeeper has technique '8' instead of '13', the team goes from 6th to relegated. And although I did not mention this, I actually switched from aerial reach to handling for my reduced team attribute, because aerial reach 13 > 1 resulted in 15th.
I have more data to pull from. When the 15 pace/acc team was normal, and the GK lacked 4 key stats (that weren't the big three of aer/ref/agil), the result was 12th. When just the single attribute of GK acceleration was low ('8' ), the result was 9th - and that was with boosts to many other GK attributes that I later deemed superfluous.
I thought it would be amusing to give a jarring illustration of something that is possible that I learned from my 1 CA testing
Unfortunately I couldn't quite finish the season before getting sacked, but here you can see I was 8th with 4 games to go (Man City):
The conditions were:
All fullbacks - 1 stamina All wingers - 1 pace All strikers - 1 finishing All defensive midfielders - 1 passing All centrebacks - 1 tackling All goalkeepers - 1 handling
All players - No other changes from my 15 pace/acc template
Example player (AML/AMR):
There's something useful in this. For some attributes you only need 1 or 2 guys to do the job (i.e. finishing, jumping reach), whereas others need to be on everyone (i.e. pace, acc). However there also seems to be some built-in leeway for at least 1 missing player, even for pace/acc. My guess is that this is to cope with the red card system. The takeaway here is that the 15 pace/acc template will be brittle, yes, but even if you skirt it fine you can still afford to have one player that has say 13 instead of 15 pace, and another who has 5 stamina instead of 13.
Rain said: Based on this are you going to be changing GK weights drastically or mostly just technique? Expand Drastic changes I reckon
You can use chatgpt to calculate the new weights already. Important hiddens are same as outfield: Consistency, Important Matches, Professionalism, Pressure 13.
I haven't done it myself yet because I haven't finished completely yet. I haven't actually tested Agility & Reflexes individually yet for example, but I think there's probably only some minor changes to go.
So it turns out the GK does matter quite a bit. The most surprising finding is that technique 13 > 8 results in going from 6th to relegation, though that is with my knife-edge 15 pace/acc roster of outfield players. Both pace & acc also turn out to be fairly important.
A fair number of the attributes result in 1-2 places position drop if you go from 13/14 > 8, so I think in general you want the GK to be reasonably well-rounded.
Behold, the ultimate goalkeeper:
With this GK, the team finished 3rd, 5th, 4th, 1st.
BTW, I don't keep track of this, but I know that I've simulated at least over 10,000 real Premier Leagues matches in full detail now with these 15 pace/acc templates and coming ~4th-5th ~80-90%+ of the time.
Now I know some genuinely care about the accuracy question rather than just looking for any god-of-the-gaps excuse for SI's lies and imbecility. For these people, I have two things to say:
1) Yes, the points total even for a full season varies greatly, but the final position is much more stable. So my 15 pace/acc team might get 57 points or 81 points, but its position ~8 times out of 10 will be 3th-6th. Occasionally it will be 2nd or 8th or 10th. Rarely it will be 1st or 12th say.
2) Think about it deductively. If the RNG was so powerful that you couldn't tell reliably whether a team would come 1st or 10th in one season of samples, then you would have a fair chance every season of Liverpool coming 10th and not even qualifying for a cup spot. Ok, sometimes this does happen in the game, but let's be real, it's pretty rare.
I have a hypothesis as to why position is more stable than points. Rather than RNG causing the difference between the two, I would suspect it could be weather. Or some factor(s) other than just RNG, because the strange thing is that it must effect most or all teams equally, since the positions remain pretty stable, and I highly doubt that the game is looking at one team's 1-0 result and determining that the other game must end 2-0 to line the positions up at the end of the season.
I tested dribbling '15' in advance of the following, to see how I should weight it for training gains, since I know it's going to be above everything else bar pace/acc.
Results:
Dribbling '13' > '15' - 5th, 1st, 2nd, 4th
That makes it less significant than pace/acc (15 > 17 = 1st) but more significant than stamina (8 > 20 = 3rd). High dribbling is also difficult to find.
I have assessed the training schedules according to what matters in my 15 pace/acc template. I have given 1.15x weighting to dribbling and 1.3x weighting to pace/acc.
Highlighted in yellow are my recommendations. I recommend the first one for either low CA-PA gap or if you need to focus on physicals. For high CA-PA gap and/or mental focus, I recommend the 3rd one. Purple is the old meta I favored. I started with a shortlist of 43 training schedules from the HarvestGreen spreadsheets.
keithb said: I've heard that stamina isnt important at all. Not sure where though. Expand
Note that this has nothing to do with your claim that stamina is the most important attribute for fullbacks. You remind me of those insufferable 3rd worlders living in slums under despots who look at the George Floyd debacle and reiterate with a mischievous grin 'See, I told you America is collapsing!'.
Kma said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed agility for outfield the required value is 10?no need to go more? Expand Agility '8' - 7th Agility '13' - 6th
Note that other attributes changed after the above, so that agility '10' now achieves 5th, but it demonstrates that above ~10 results in minimal gains.
For comparison, at the same time agility '8' + stamina '13' > '8' resulted in dropping to 11th. Later I tested Stamina '8' > '20', which resulted in 3rd.
The approach I'm taking is that so long as position doesn't drop much, I'll favor minimizing the attribute. I'm looking for the least you can get away with if the players have 15 pace/acc. If that happened to be a 10th place finish, I would have accepted that, but it turns out ~5th is what's realistically achievable.
And for GK only : Agility, Reflexes, Aerial reach no other attributes ? Expand
For outfield, pretty much. You do also need finishing, strength and vision, but the required values for these are 8 or less. And you need good consistency, important matches, pressure, professionalism.
I'm currently doing tests on GK, it's becoming clear to me that agil+ref+aer alone is not sufficient. You will drop a few positions with just that. Still finding out what is necessary exactly to come 5th (or better).
I've found that ST 17 jump, DC 13 jump, gets 4th. So you can switch the 17 jump requirement to the ST. I'm going to do another test to see if you can put the 17 jump instead on DM, AML, etc.
I also did a test inverting my template:
Got sacked by 25th November, but here's the results up to then:
I upped the pace/acc to 16 for maximum ridiculousness:
8th. Remember, this does ~4th-5th:
Rain said: Worth adding these hidden weights (along with pressure and professionalism) to your GK ratings from blended you said to just use on 26? You had slightly lower on those in that file for GK's. Thanks Expand I would guess they would be the same for GK
7th (sacked with 2 games to go):
GK
DC
ST
I've made a new Genie Scout ratings file with the latest weightings:
https://files.catbox.moe/zhf2yl.grf
I'll call it Premier League 1.0, since that's what it's designed to thrive in and I'll probably have a Championship/lower league one later.
Hiddens are not included, as weighting them seems to just mess things up badly. Use filter: 8 min for consistency, important matches, pressure, professionalism, natural fitness. Dirtiness 14<, Injury Proneness 13<.
Vision, Strength, Finishing are required, but not included because your players will most likely have 7-8+ in these attributes anyway and weighting them would just do more harm than good (i.e. 18 fin/12 pace player gets higher rating than 6 fin/14 pace player).
GK is included. SW is a basic tutor rating.
DC and Target Man have jumping reach valued at 17, but you should really put a filter for this, as 15 can be worthless compared to 17.
I've done a glance comparison with FM26 scoring system vs. these weightings in Genie Scout, it seems to work as intended.. but Genie Scout does have issues with how it calculates things, so if you want to be sure I recommend you use FM26 scoring system to double check the player before signing.
Are the ratings on page 8 for all positions, or are they only focused on strikers?
All positions
You need some players to have high jumping reach though
-Acceleration 15
-Agility 10
-Balance 10
-Jumping Reach 13
-Natural fitness 10
-Pace 15
-Stamina 10
-Anticipation 10
-Concentration 10
-Determination 10
-Work rate 10
-Dribbling 10
other attributes 1
And for GK Agility 13 Reflexes 10 Aerial reach 13 other attributes 1
I would test that for you, except that I already know that would fail, not because of other attributes 1 (except for certain hiddens) but because of stamina 10 concentration 10. Wouldn't survive relegation.
Survived for 25 Premier League games, 13th when sacked. Won the Super Cup & Club World Championship (both full detail).
This filter you made—'FM24 Age 26+/Pure performance: https://files.catbox.moe/8wskjk.grf'—is this the latest version?
FM Genie Scout is messed up, but that file will still give you decent results.
But for the latest weightings, you need to download 'FM 26 player scoring system' and use weights I posted on page 8. I'll be posting an updated list of the weights soon. Maybe I can just upload my own edited file that you can just drag-and-drop into the folder.
keithb said: Jumping reach for keepers is basically irrelevant. It's tied to headers, whereas aerial reach is for catching the ball. Reflexes is the strongest attribute for a keeper.
GK jump 14 > 10 results in 4th/5th > 7th/8th
GK aer 14 > 13 results in 4th/5th > 9th-11th
GK ref 14 > 10 results in 4th/5th > 5th/6th
BTW is this guy you?
So aer 14 > 13 has a greater effect than ref 14 > 10 + all outfield bal 13 > 10, nat 14 > 10.
Results (after fixing aer; bal nat is outfield):
10 ref 10 bal 10 nat - 7th, 9th
13 ref 10 bal 10 nat - 9th, 7th, 7th, 6th, 8th
10 ref 13 bal 14 nat - 5th, 5th, 10th, 5th, 6th, 11th, 4th
11 ref 11 bal 12 nat - 7th, 7th, 7th, 8th
Pros and cons:
Reflexes - High weight cost. Harder to get great goalkeepers. Minimal performance loss from 13 > 10.
Balance - Low weight cost. No benefit at very high values. ~2 position drop from 13 > 11.
Natural fitness - Zero weight cost. Easy to find. Crucial for player-managed team fitness in spite of lack of position drop observed.
Overall, I think I'll probably settle on 11 ref 12 bal 12 nat for the weightings.
I also did some other kinds of tests:
No friendlies, team bonding + community outreach only training = No team cohesion improvement by season start
7 friendlies + meta training = Medium team cohesion improvement by season start
17 friendlies + meta training = Large team cohesion improvement by season start. 5th, 5th finishes.
Low altitude match (Tiberias, Israel, -656) = No match fitness/condition difference compared to normal friendlies at 0 altitude. Seems the altitude penalty doesn't invert at negative altitudes.
Low altitude match edited in database to minimum possible (Tiberias, Israel, -1000) = No match fitness/condition difference compared to normal friendlies at 0 altitude.
High altitude match (Cerro de Pasco, Peru, 14189) = Huge condition difference, no match fitness difference. Already knew the first part, but interesting that playing higher altitude friendlies only has big downsides as no match fitness benefit.
Crappy first team opposition vs. their u18 team = No significant difference, but their u18 team should be easier, which may mean better morale for your team.
Custom 'park the bus' style tactic vs. Knap tactic = 4% higher condition for park the bus, while match fitness is identical. The weaker result impairs the morale gain though, so maybe a good idea would be to use Knap tactic 1st half, then a very slow tactic 2nd half. Reason why 1st half is it's when fatigue and anxiety/complacency hasn't set in yet. Probably only worthwhile for mid-season friendly matches, when you already have full Knap tactic familiarity.
So overall I would schedule ~7 pre-season friendlies (whatever manages your team fitness best) against the weakest teams at low altitude stadiums (preferably your own) or weak high rep teams if you need money, and for any appropriate mid-season friendlies use Knap tactic for 1st half then a very slow tactic for 2nd half.
Since DM has the most CA headroom and stamina is easier to find for DM, I'm probably going to change DM to 14 pace/14 acc/14 sta instead of 15/15/13.
Balance and natural fitness have been lowered to 10 for outfield.
For GK, reflexes has been lowered to 10. 6th, 4th, 4th with just 10 reflexes. So far it's looking like jumping reach and agility will stay at 14.
Edit: Having some issues, retesting these attributes..
I think I've mentioned it before, but it's worth saying again, that I tested player traits and found that they have no positive performance effect as far as I could tell
I was going to add, but decided in the end not to, that you seem to to believe that GK only contributes to goals prevented rather than goals scored. The reason I decided not to is because I had a brief look at the past results to find evidence to disprove this, but realized it would just take too much time to collate all the necessary information to present it neatly. But my impression just from having running the tests and seeing the results, is that GK doesn't just prevent goals, better GK results in more team goals scored. This is more clearly demonstrated/known with better defenders resulting in more goals/wins.
keithb said: You are someone who didn't even have Haaland as the best striker at one point? How can your testing be taken seriously.
Weeks ago you said stamina didn't matter, or words to that affect, and then more recently you said it did. Which is it? It's also obvious why stamina is useful, what happens if your team has low stamina and why certain positions need it more than others.
Most of your work is just other people's you've redone. Bravo.
So you're saying I should make your confirmation bias a prerequisite of my testing?
My testing can be taken seriously because I'm running them in the real league on full detail with players that have realistically attainable attributes, with cumulatively thousands of samples not on every attribute precisely but the basic picture. So I can say with certainty that a team of 1 CA players can win the Premier League, and that a team of 15 pace/acc players can also win the Premier League (4th/5th most typically though), but when I found in my 1 CA testing that concentration only mattered for DC/DL/DR that turned out to be wrong - or perhaps it only applied to that 1 CA limitation. Stamina also did not matter for those 1 CA players, and according to HarvestGreen stamina is one of the least important physical attributes - less important than agility he finds.
It is telling that you think changing your mind is a sign of weakness. What the data is showing is actually that there perhaps aren't any outfield positional differences. I think what is going on with stamina is that it affects the decay rate of pace/acc over a match. So in my 1 CA tests where players have 17-20 pace/acc, low stamina is insignificant because pace/acc is from a high starting point to begin with. This would also therefore be true once you have your 18+ pace/acc players in game. For this 15 pace/acc where we are hitting the lower threshold of the pace/acc requirement, stamina is necessary to make up for its shortfall towards the end of the match. I have done another test earlier where 14 pace/acc/sta comes 8th, so it does appear to work this way. What this means is that in any case, stamina is less important than pace/acc in any position including fullbacks, and one would guess that 20 stamina = 4 pace or acc, so 20% of pace/acc. This happens to align neatly with HarvestGreen's finding of 21.7%.
As far as I'm aware, no one else is doing the kind of testing I'm doing, which is using the real league in situ. Everybody else seems to be doing carefully controlled custom leagues where every player has 10 attributes or whatnot, and even making morale and such identical. I've been influenced to take my approach from previous experience, where I couldn't work out the newgen factors based on isolation tests, so I ended up simply testing the median PA for every single playable club in Football Manager. And from those results it turned out that there is a hidden factor I couldn't have found in my isolation tests and why I could never get my formula to work properly. The great thing about this method is that there's no question of 'yes, but will this work in the Premier League?' - it simply does.
ZaZ said: If I run the same tactic five times with Burnley, sometimes it will end 3rd place, sometimes 12th, and sometimes it will have awful results that make me even check if I loaded the right tactic before the test. What I mean is that a single league test is definitely not enough to prove anything, and even two or three would still not be reliable enough to draw any conclusions.
Other than that, the fact that table position have less variance than points in the table do not mean much. The table goes from 1st to 20th, while points go from 0 to 114. Realistically, the same experiment ran multiple times could variate position between 6 different positions, while points in the table would naturally variate 30 or so. They are simply different ranges, but the position in table depends much more from performance of other teams against each other, while points in the table depends mostly of your performance against each of them.
My observations are:
1) Certain attributes seem to have more result variability than others. For instance, important matches 13 > 8 results in say 4th, 12th, 4th, 12th instead of the typical 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 10th.
2) Say my team comes 2nd almost every test. Liverpool gets 68 points, I get 66 points. I get 88 points, Liverpool gets 91 points. Liverpool gets 76 points, I get 71 points. I'm not sure how this gels with your idea of how it works, but if it was just 2 sets of randomness, why would two team's points track each other like this? In any case, I don't know on this one, all I want to assert is that table position is an adequately reliable measure. Even if you're correct in that it's just as random, but the scale is smaller so it doesn't show, then for all intents & purposes it still works - the RNG does not overwhelm the predictability of table position. Not that I mean to be dismissive of your theory, I actually think it's somewhat important to get to why it works like this and I'm open to ideas on it.
2) The typical position variability for me is less than you have observed. Maybe it's the tactic, maybe it's the unevenness of players, and so on. Now unfortunately I don't save my dud results, so I can't really present data on this. But based on my saved successes, and recollections of duds, I reckon it will be in the range ~3rd-8th ~80-90% of the time. But I've done a test of this below to determine the truth.
So I did 10 one-season tests of 14 pace/acc/stamina + new GK template since I want more samples on both of those anyway:
8th
4th
3rd
9th (sacked after 14 games)
8th
2nd
13th (sacked after 15 games)
6th (sacked after 36 games)
10th (sacked after 20 games)
6th
So 7/10 times (I'm going to count 6th sacked after 36 games) the team did 8th or better.
The mode was 6th or 8th.
The median was 7th.
The average was 7th (6.9).
And that's assuming those early sackings wouldn't have led to higher results later if not sacked. If I were summing up these results, I'd say 14 pace/acc/sta does ~6th-8th.
It's one thing for you to have incorrectly assumed that stamina on fullbacks is crucial for success. Since you never did any testing yourself, it was a fair and widely held assumption to bet your dignity on. You couldn't have known my finding in advance that both DL/DR with 1 stamina (along with a bunch of serious shortfalls in other positions) results in coming 8th (instead of 4th-5th).
But this time you're making an assertion after it's shown to be wrong. In a team where both wingers have 1 pace, and fullbacks have 1 stamina, the team finishes 8th. In a team where just the goalkeeper has technique '8' instead of '13', the team goes from 6th to relegated. And although I did not mention this, I actually switched from aerial reach to handling for my reduced team attribute, because aerial reach 13 > 1 resulted in 15th.
I have more data to pull from. When the 15 pace/acc team was normal, and the GK lacked 4 key stats (that weren't the big three of aer/ref/agil), the result was 12th. When just the single attribute of GK acceleration was low ('8' ), the result was 9th - and that was with boosts to many other GK attributes that I later deemed superfluous.
Unfortunately I couldn't quite finish the season before getting sacked, but here you can see I was 8th with 4 games to go (Man City):
The conditions were:
All fullbacks - 1 stamina
All wingers - 1 pace
All strikers - 1 finishing
All defensive midfielders - 1 passing
All centrebacks - 1 tackling
All goalkeepers - 1 handling
All players - No other changes from my 15 pace/acc template
Example player (AML/AMR):
There's something useful in this. For some attributes you only need 1 or 2 guys to do the job (i.e. finishing, jumping reach), whereas others need to be on everyone (i.e. pace, acc). However there also seems to be some built-in leeway for at least 1 missing player, even for pace/acc. My guess is that this is to cope with the red card system. The takeaway here is that the 15 pace/acc template will be brittle, yes, but even if you skirt it fine you can still afford to have one player that has say 13 instead of 15 pace, and another who has 5 stamina instead of 13.
Drastic changes I reckon
You can use chatgpt to calculate the new weights already. Important hiddens are same as outfield: Consistency, Important Matches, Professionalism, Pressure 13.
I haven't done it myself yet because I haven't finished completely yet. I haven't actually tested Agility & Reflexes individually yet for example, but I think there's probably only some minor changes to go.
A fair number of the attributes result in 1-2 places position drop if you go from 13/14 > 8, so I think in general you want the GK to be reasonably well-rounded.
Behold, the ultimate goalkeeper:
With this GK, the team finished 3rd, 5th, 4th, 1st.
BTW, I don't keep track of this, but I know that I've simulated at least over 10,000 real Premier Leagues matches in full detail now with these 15 pace/acc templates and coming ~4th-5th ~80-90%+ of the time.
Now I know some genuinely care about the accuracy question rather than just looking for any god-of-the-gaps excuse for SI's lies and imbecility. For these people, I have two things to say:
1) Yes, the points total even for a full season varies greatly, but the final position is much more stable. So my 15 pace/acc team might get 57 points or 81 points, but its position ~8 times out of 10 will be 3th-6th. Occasionally it will be 2nd or 8th or 10th. Rarely it will be 1st or 12th say.
2) Think about it deductively. If the RNG was so powerful that you couldn't tell reliably whether a team would come 1st or 10th in one season of samples, then you would have a fair chance every season of Liverpool coming 10th and not even qualifying for a cup spot. Ok, sometimes this does happen in the game, but let's be real, it's pretty rare.
I have a hypothesis as to why position is more stable than points. Rather than RNG causing the difference between the two, I would suspect it could be weather. Or some factor(s) other than just RNG, because the strange thing is that it must effect most or all teams equally, since the positions remain pretty stable, and I highly doubt that the game is looking at one team's 1-0 result and determining that the other game must end 2-0 to line the positions up at the end of the season.
Results:
Dribbling '13' > '15' - 5th, 1st, 2nd, 4th
That makes it less significant than pace/acc (15 > 17 = 1st) but more significant than stamina (8 > 20 = 3rd). High dribbling is also difficult to find.
I have assessed the training schedules according to what matters in my 15 pace/acc template. I have given 1.15x weighting to dribbling and 1.3x weighting to pace/acc.
Highlighted in yellow are my recommendations. I recommend the first one for either low CA-PA gap or if you need to focus on physicals. For high CA-PA gap and/or mental focus, I recommend the 3rd one. Purple is the old meta I favored. I started with a shortlist of 43 training schedules from the HarvestGreen spreadsheets.
Sorted (overall):
92.45 - [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2
91.49 - [Physical]x2[Resistance][Attacking]x2
91.01 - [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
90.68 - [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3
90.17 - Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
89.65 - [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice]
88.87 - [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2
87.42 - Game preset training 1 'Preset-Training Style-Balance' [Overall][Defending][Attacking][Set Piece Routines][Outfield][Recovery]x2
87.17 - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2
Here's some additional info to take into consideration (the load I've guesstimated, can't be bothered working it out properly):
1. Balance 8/10, Load 100%, 2.5 agil 0.333 ref 1.5 aer
2. Balance 7/10, Load 140%
3. Balance 8/10, Load 105%, 3.9 agil 1.1 ref 1.5 aer
4. Balance 6/10, Load 130%
5. Balance 2/10, Load 120%
6. Balance 3/10, Load 105%
7. Balance 9/10, Load 120%
8. Balance 7/10, Load 85%
9. Balance 3/10, Load 120%
-----------------------------------------------------
Extended info:
25.86 | 1.42 drib | 5.88 pac/acc | 39.62 CA — [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] - 18.68 + 7.18 (pac+acc+jump)
24.58 | 1.40 drib | 5.90 pac/acc | 37.75 CA — Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution - 17.33 + 7.25
24.53 | 1.53 drib | 5.90 pac/acc | 38.98 CA — [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2 - 17.38 + 7.15
24.13 | 1.47 drib | 5.80 pac/acc | 36.43 CA — [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3 - 17.00 + 7.13
23.41 | 1.33 drib | 5.95 pac/acc | 33.83 CA — [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2 - 16.03 + 7.38
22.98 | 1.63 drib | 6.03 pac/acc | 37.93 CA — [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2 - 15.88 + 7.10
23.68 | 1.22 drib | 5.62 pac/acc | 36.50 CA — Game preset training 1 'Preset-Training Style-Balance' [Overall][Defending][Attacking][Set Piece Routines][Outfield][Recovery]x2 - 16.36 + 7.16
21.75 | 1.35 drib | 5.80 pac/acc | 30.90 CA — [Physical]x2[Resistance][Attacking]x2 - 14.35 + 7.40
22.87 | 1.30 drib | 6.28 pac/acc | 35.72 CA — [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice] - 15.6 + 7.27
Sorted (best performance):
86.15 - [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
83.61 - [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2
83.24 - Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
82.10 - [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3
80.95 - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2
80.50 - [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2
80.40 - [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice]
79.47 - Game preset training 1 'Preset-Training Style-Balance' [Overall][Defending][Attacking][Set Piece Routines][Outfield][Recovery]x2
76.24 - [Physical]x2[Resistance][Attacking]x2
Calculations:
(((25.86/11) + (1.42x0.15) + (5.88x0.3/2)))x 25 = 86.147727
(((24.58/11) + (1.40x0.15) + (5.90x0.3/2)))x 25 = 83.238636
(((24.53/11) + (1.53x0.15) + (5.90x0.3/2)))x 25 = 83.612500
(((24.13/11) + (1.47x0.15) + (5.80x0.3/2)))x 25 = 82.103409
(((23.41/11) + (1.33x0.15) + (5.95x0.3/2)))x 25 = 80.504545
(((22.98/11) + (1.63x0.15) + (6.03x0.3/2)))x 25 = 80.952272
(((23.68/11) + (1.22x0.15) + (5.62x0.3/2)))x 25 = 79.468181
(((21.75/11) + (1.35x0.15) + (5.80x0.3/2)))x 25 = 76.244318
(((22.87/11) + (1.30x0.15) + (6.28x0.3/2)))x 25 = 80.402272
Sorted (most efficient):
98.70 - [Physical]x2[Resistance][Attacking]x2
95.19 - [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2
90.15 - [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3
90.04 - [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice]
88.20 - Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
87.09 - Game preset training 1 'Preset-Training Style-Balance' [Overall][Defending][Attacking][Set Piece Routines][Outfield][Recovery]x2
86.97 - [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
85.80 - [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2
85.37 - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2
Calculations:
(((25.86/11) + (1.42x0.15) + (5.88x0.3/2))/39.62)x 1000 = 86.97398
(((24.58/11) + (1.40x0.15) + (5.90x0.3/2))/37.75)x 1000 = 88.199879
(((24.53/11) + (1.53x0.15) + (5.90x0.3/2))/38.98)x 1000 = 85.80041
(((24.13/11) + (1.47x0.15) + (5.80x0.3/2))/36.43)x 1000 = 90.149227
(((23.41/11) + (1.33x0.15) + (5.95x0.3/2))/33.83)x 1000 = 95.187165
(((22.98/11) + (1.63x0.15) + (6.03x0.3/2))/37.93)x 1000 = 85.370179
(((23.68/11) + (1.22x0.15) + (5.62x0.3/2))/36.50)x 1000 = 87.088418
(((21.75/11) + (1.35x0.15) + (5.80x0.3/2))/30.90)x 1000 = 98.698146
(((22.87/11) + (1.30x0.15) + (6.28x0.3/2))/35.72)x 1000 = 90.036139
Note that this has nothing to do with your claim that stamina is the most important attribute for fullbacks. You remind me of those insufferable 3rd worlders living in slums under despots who look at the George Floyd debacle and reiterate with a mischievous grin 'See, I told you America is collapsing!'.
Agility '8' - 7th
Agility '13' - 6th
Note that other attributes changed after the above, so that agility '10' now achieves 5th, but it demonstrates that above ~10 results in minimal gains.
For comparison, at the same time agility '8' + stamina '13' > '8' resulted in dropping to 11th. Later I tested Stamina '8' > '20', which resulted in 3rd.
The approach I'm taking is that so long as position doesn't drop much, I'll favor minimizing the attribute. I'm looking for the least you can get away with if the players have 15 pace/acc. If that happened to be a 10th place finish, I would have accepted that, but it turns out ~5th is what's realistically achievable.
-Acceleration
-Agility
-Balance
-Jumping Reach
-Natural fitness
-Pace
-Stamina
-Aggression
-Anticipation
-Composure
-Concentration
-Determination
-Work rate
-Dribbling
And for GK only : Agility, Reflexes, Aerial reach no other attributes ?
For outfield, pretty much. You do also need finishing, strength and vision, but the required values for these are 8 or less. And you need good consistency, important matches, pressure, professionalism.
I'm currently doing tests on GK, it's becoming clear to me that agil+ref+aer alone is not sufficient. You will drop a few positions with just that. Still finding out what is necessary exactly to come 5th (or better).
I also did a test inverting my template:
Got sacked by 25th November, but here's the results up to then:
I upped the pace/acc to 16 for maximum ridiculousness:
8th. Remember, this does ~4th-5th:
Rain said: Worth adding these hidden weights (along with pressure and professionalism) to your GK ratings from blended you said to just use on 26? You had slightly lower on those in that file for GK's. Thanks
I would guess they would be the same for GK
The rest of the outfield are the same as the last one
Note that GK is not ideal, I just wanted to create something typical (I think I copied the stats from another GK in the game)