Nozdormu said: 1. I play FM26 so I use this file "r5xm3t.grf", in this file, GK setting is reflex=57, acc=1, could you check it please?
2. I also find in this file "r5xm3t.grf", DR(L) and WBR(L) have exactly same settings, why?
3. Is there a latest version of rating file for FM26?
4. I use 4 defenders tactics, and both my two DC are jumping reach =18, and both their pace are 15, Is this ideal? or should I choose one DC's jumping=18 pace=15, the other DC is jumping=15 but pace=20?
So "two high jumping DC" (pace relatively slow, pace=15), or "one high jump DC+ one fast pace DC", which case gives the best defending? Expand You should use the new zhf2yl.grf file, it's the best for both FM24 and FM26. It hasn't been adjusted for FM26, but it wouldn't be much different.
In the old r5xm3t.grf file, DR is same as WBR because I didn't care about WBR, MC, AMC position as I used 424 Knap tactic and those extra positions would be double the work. This is still the case, however it turns out that all outfield positions share almost identical attribute requirements anyway.
I don't know if 2 jump would be better than 1 jump + 1 pace, but I would assume the former because if you have one jump player what happens when he gets substituted, injured, rested or whatnot. In fact, it's probably best to have 3-4 to be on the safe side.. but of course you're not going to have 4x 17 jump. A realistic outcome may end up like this: 16, 15, 15, 14.
For the Premier League, the pace/acc cutoff is ~14, and if you really need to, you can utilize the game's allowance for one player lacking this. So specifically your DC roster might look like this:
16 jump, 14 pace/acc (key player) - 29/38 league apps, 4/8 cup 15 jump, 15 pace/acc (first team) - 25/38 league, 4/8 cup 15 jump, 11 pace/14 acc (rotation) - 14/38 league, 4/8 cup 14 jump, 12 pace/acc (backup) - 6/38 league, 2/8 cup 12 jump, 10 pace/acc (youth hot prospect) - 2/38 league, 2/8 cup
Nozdormu said: Hi, George, thank you for your great work! I have a question about Jumping reach, I read your post and you said it is a 1 or 0 thing, so if I understand correctly, Jumping needs to be greater or equal to 17, otherwise it is equivalent to zero, for example 16=0, is that right?
Another issue is about GK, I download your rating file from your OP, is that the latest one? (I assume you didn't put the latest one in those replies...), for GK, the file is to set reflex=57, acc=1, is that true?
I remember you said for GK, the most important attributes are reflex and agility, followed by acceleration, but why the reflex=57 rather than 99? why acceleration =1 for GK? Thank you! Expand Jumping reach isn't quite all or nothing, but there will be a steep drop off if you don't have what I suppose is the tallest player on the field. I'm not sure if it's one or two players you need, since I almost always use 2x 17 in my tests. They don't have to be both DC, but I think probably having 1 being DC is best (I think I vaguely remember testing 2x DC 17 vs 2x ST 17..). You can only get the best you can get, so if you can't get 17 unless it's some 36-year-old with 7 pace/acc, then go for 16.. 15.. etc.
I don't think you have loaded the correct file. I double checked, and the file in the OP (zhf2yl.grf) has 44 reflexes, 52 acceleration.
That info for GK is outdated. What I found is that reflexes hit diminishing returns after ~10-11. And there were some other surprises too. HarvestGreen found that reflexes is the most important attribute, but if you look at his test conditions, he is setting all attributes to 20 then reducing reflexes to 1. My inference is that this means reflexes requires a certain minimum to function properly, but it doesn't mean his data contradicts mine.
Kriek said: Yes that was wat I meant, thank you. So we should use your latest ratings no matter what Expand Yes
First go at National League South. I'm guessing 11-12 pace/acc would get promotion, but wanted to see what all grey players (including jumping reach and hiddens) can do.
So it doesn't seem like leagues have their own unique set of requirements (i.e. maybe EPL requires speed, but Bundesliga requires technical ability). It seems like a certain set of attributes work, and some leagues are simply weaker, and that's it.
I guess it's also a decent measure of the quality of the league. Based on the positions, the rankings so far for league strength are:
Spain Div 1 England Div 1 power gap Germany Div 1 France Div 1 England Div 2
It could help in assessing players based on their average rating in a league, and making loan decisions - it's probably best to loan to France Div 1 rather than either Spain Div 1 or England Div 2.
Kriek said: And with a small club, best to first use FM26 ratings, then after a few season switch to the other method, so filtering and then apply ratings? Expand I suppose what you mean is that filtering for '8' hiddens as a small club would be asking too much. I wouldn't change the filter, 8 is already low, and unlike say pace/acc, hiddens such as consistency and natural fitness will be more evenly distributed.
If you mean pace/acc filter, then yes, I would reduce the filter for that in line with what you can get (no lower than 10 I would think).
keithb said: Confused? Comprehension?? I put your ratings file in and Mbappe is ranked lower than Kane!! Always funny that you come back with something and its either mad or in this case just what? Mbappe's rating is LOW using your ratings file. Have you even looked????? I think you might even have Giroud higher lol. Its not possible.
You realise a lot of people do things on youtube and its just for views? Expand I said to use FM26 scoring system. As I have said repeatedly before, FM Genie Scout is bugged and therefore I recommend FM26 scoring system if you want the most accurate result.
In FM26 scoring system, Mbappe is 10th (15.0) and Kane is 12th (14.8).
That said, these are two very apples & oranges players. Kane has very high mentals/technicals/jumping reach, but 12 acc/14 pace, whereas Mbappe is 20 acc/pace and low jumping reach.
But at the end of the day, that is quibbling about whether Kane is 10th or 12th or 17th. A 1% difference.
The youtube video shows the form statistics for each player as screenshots from the game. Why would they doctor the screenshots? You're grasping at straws.
keithb said: Oh well if a youtuber said so!! You have Kane above Mbappe, who isn't in the top10 players?? He is the BEST fast striker in the game and probably best lw with Vini. Ronaldo and Messi aren't that good in FM24!! Kane is better than them. Nor is Lewandowski, the gap between him and Haaland is immense.
Other people with a decent understanding of the game will also say your ratings are dreadful. I always thought you didn't really know what you were doing, you just rehashed a lot of other people’s work, but this is worse than I ever imagined.
Its also hilarious pointing out the difference between Haaland and Mbappe. You reckon?? Expand You are very confused, I suggest you reread slowly. I wrote clearly that Mbappe is above Kane, and that Kane is better than Ronaldo and Messi. Mbappe is ranked 10th ST.
That's three basic comprehension errors, but your other claims are false too. Here is the video that shows Lewandowski comes a close 2nd to Haaland, and Mbappe doing pretty crap in the Premier League.
keithb said: These are probably the worst set of numbers I've ever seen for genie scout. Again you don't understand the game, your testing is dreadful and I don't even understand how anyone can produce numbers like this. And it's for every player? Recently you ridiculed me for saying stamina is important and now you have it eight behind acceleration and pace. How is speed only set to 60??? Reflexes is the lowest attribute for keepers. Lower than metals, jumping reach and technique. This has to be a troll.
Nobody would be using these. Wingers and full backs don't need jumping reach. Mbappe and Salah will produce incredible numbers and they are both low. Expand Anyone who doubts the results can spend 20 minutes plugging in the numbers from my templates to an existing Premier League team in the editor and then holiday a season with Knap tactic (any good one) + 'Blue' set piece routines.
None of the attribute values are theory; they have been repeatedly tested in the English Premier League on full detail with an otherwise default database.
But I'll entertain your little supposed counter-example.
A youtuber put some of the best strikers in the Premier League to compare them. His results were:
If you look at Mbappe's stats he has 20 acc/pace while Haaland only has 17 acc/19 pace. Mbappe even has better dribbling (18 vs 14). If you compare the two, Haaland's main advantages over Mbappe are jumping reach, heading, aggression, strength.
If you plug my weights into FM26 scoring system, the order of STs is:
Haaland 16.7 Lewandowski 15.4 Mbappe 15.0 Messi 14.1 Ronaldo 13.0 Kane 14.8
The only one out of order there is Kane, until you realize that Kane scored more goals than Messi and Ronaldo. From another Youtuber's test, we know that rating doesn't reflect actual performance properly (it boosts technical players over physical players, even when the physicals actually win the games). Salah is ranked 7th overall, slightly above Mbappe. In one of my saves I just checked, Salah got 7.50 rating in his first season, which is about right.
Kriek said: So if I understand correctly, I should first filter the players based on hidden attribute, then use the ratings to order the remaining players and find the best players? Expand Yes
Serial42 said: Jumping reach is important for fullbacks and wingers in FM26 ? Expand I haven't tested FM26, but it should be the same as for FM24, which is that jumping reach is important for every position. It's essential that you have at least 1 or 2 players that have very high jumping reach (i.e. 17), but having good jumping reach on other players is also of strong benefit - even if it's just 13 instead of 10.
dancamp said: i don't have genie scout cause i play on a mac but i'm using fmdatalabs for similar attribute rating with exports -- safe to say anything not listed here gets a 0 weight? also, do you have gk weights somewhere and i missed it? Expand OpticFawn said: What weights would you give for the hiddens if I were to use on genie or fmrte Expand Outfield:
Dribbling 52 Aggression 44 Anticipation 52 Composure 44 Concentration 52 Determination 56 Work Rate 44 Acceleration 60 Agility 40 Balance 48 Jumping Reach 52 (68 for DC & Target Man) Pace 60 Stamina 52
GK:
Concentration 52 Determination 52 Acceleration 52 Agility 56 Jumping Reach 56 Pace 52 First Touch 52 Technique 52 Aerial Ability 56 Command of Area 48 Reflexes 44
I strongly caution against attempting to use those 5 last ones in Genie Scout, it's bugged. I tried and it had the opposite effect (bad personality = higher %, when other stats equal). Natural fitness is a visible attribute, but it functions different to the other visible ones in Genie Scout. Don't adjust other hiddens like injury proneness either, and you *may* have fairly accurate results in Genie Scout.
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.
2. I also find in this file "r5xm3t.grf", DR(L) and WBR(L) have exactly same settings, why?
3. Is there a latest version of rating file for FM26?
4. I use 4 defenders tactics, and both my two DC are jumping reach =18, and both their pace are 15, Is this ideal? or should I choose one DC's jumping=18 pace=15, the other DC is jumping=15 but pace=20?
So "two high jumping DC" (pace relatively slow, pace=15), or "one high jump DC+ one fast pace DC", which case gives the best defending?
You should use the new zhf2yl.grf file, it's the best for both FM24 and FM26. It hasn't been adjusted for FM26, but it wouldn't be much different.
In the old r5xm3t.grf file, DR is same as WBR because I didn't care about WBR, MC, AMC position as I used 424 Knap tactic and those extra positions would be double the work. This is still the case, however it turns out that all outfield positions share almost identical attribute requirements anyway.
I don't know if 2 jump would be better than 1 jump + 1 pace, but I would assume the former because if you have one jump player what happens when he gets substituted, injured, rested or whatnot. In fact, it's probably best to have 3-4 to be on the safe side.. but of course you're not going to have 4x 17 jump. A realistic outcome may end up like this: 16, 15, 15, 14.
For the Premier League, the pace/acc cutoff is ~14, and if you really need to, you can utilize the game's allowance for one player lacking this. So specifically your DC roster might look like this:
16 jump, 14 pace/acc (key player) - 29/38 league apps, 4/8 cup
15 jump, 15 pace/acc (first team) - 25/38 league, 4/8 cup
15 jump, 11 pace/14 acc (rotation) - 14/38 league, 4/8 cup
14 jump, 12 pace/acc (backup) - 6/38 league, 2/8 cup
12 jump, 10 pace/acc (youth hot prospect) - 2/38 league, 2/8 cup
Another issue is about GK, I download your rating file from your OP, is that the latest one? (I assume you didn't put the latest one in those replies...), for GK, the file is to set reflex=57, acc=1, is that true?
I remember you said for GK, the most important attributes are reflex and agility, followed by acceleration, but why the reflex=57 rather than 99? why acceleration =1 for GK? Thank you!
Jumping reach isn't quite all or nothing, but there will be a steep drop off if you don't have what I suppose is the tallest player on the field. I'm not sure if it's one or two players you need, since I almost always use 2x 17 in my tests. They don't have to be both DC, but I think probably having 1 being DC is best (I think I vaguely remember testing 2x DC 17 vs 2x ST 17..). You can only get the best you can get, so if you can't get 17 unless it's some 36-year-old with 7 pace/acc, then go for 16.. 15.. etc.
I don't think you have loaded the correct file. I double checked, and the file in the OP (zhf2yl.grf) has 44 reflexes, 52 acceleration.
That info for GK is outdated. What I found is that reflexes hit diminishing returns after ~10-11. And there were some other surprises too. HarvestGreen found that reflexes is the most important attribute, but if you look at his test conditions, he is setting all attributes to 20 then reducing reflexes to 1. My inference is that this means reflexes requires a certain minimum to function properly, but it doesn't mean his data contradicts mine.
Kriek said: Yes that was wat I meant, thank you.
So we should use your latest ratings no matter what
Yes
Germany Div 1:
France Div 1:
Spain Div 1:
England Div 2:
So it doesn't seem like leagues have their own unique set of requirements (i.e. maybe EPL requires speed, but Bundesliga requires technical ability). It seems like a certain set of attributes work, and some leagues are simply weaker, and that's it.
I guess it's also a decent measure of the quality of the league. Based on the positions, the rankings so far for league strength are:
Spain Div 1
England Div 1
power gap
Germany Div 1
France Div 1
England Div 2
It could help in assessing players based on their average rating in a league, and making loan decisions - it's probably best to loan to France Div 1 rather than either Spain Div 1 or England Div 2.
I suppose what you mean is that filtering for '8' hiddens as a small club would be asking too much. I wouldn't change the filter, 8 is already low, and unlike say pace/acc, hiddens such as consistency and natural fitness will be more evenly distributed.
If you mean pace/acc filter, then yes, I would reduce the filter for that in line with what you can get (no lower than 10 I would think).
You realise a lot of people do things on youtube and its just for views?
I said to use FM26 scoring system. As I have said repeatedly before, FM Genie Scout is bugged and therefore I recommend FM26 scoring system if you want the most accurate result.
In FM26 scoring system, Mbappe is 10th (15.0) and Kane is 12th (14.8).
That said, these are two very apples & oranges players. Kane has very high mentals/technicals/jumping reach, but 12 acc/14 pace, whereas Mbappe is 20 acc/pace and low jumping reach.
But at the end of the day, that is quibbling about whether Kane is 10th or 12th or 17th. A 1% difference.
The youtube video shows the form statistics for each player as screenshots from the game. Why would they doctor the screenshots? You're grasping at straws.
Other people with a decent understanding of the game will also say your ratings are dreadful. I always thought you didn't really know what you were doing, you just rehashed a lot of other people’s work, but this is worse than I ever imagined.
Its also hilarious pointing out the difference between Haaland and Mbappe. You reckon??
You are very confused, I suggest you reread slowly. I wrote clearly that Mbappe is above Kane, and that Kane is better than Ronaldo and Messi. Mbappe is ranked 10th ST.
That's three basic comprehension errors, but your other claims are false too. Here is the video that shows Lewandowski comes a close 2nd to Haaland, and Mbappe doing pretty crap in the Premier League.
Nobody would be using these. Wingers and full backs don't need jumping reach. Mbappe and Salah will produce incredible numbers and they are both low.
Anyone who doubts the results can spend 20 minutes plugging in the numbers from my templates to an existing Premier League team in the editor and then holiday a season with Knap tactic (any good one) + 'Blue' set piece routines.
None of the attribute values are theory; they have been repeatedly tested in the English Premier League on full detail with an otherwise default database.
But I'll entertain your little supposed counter-example.
A youtuber put some of the best strikers in the Premier League to compare them. His results were:
haaland 40 goals/38 appearances 7.57 rating
lewandowski 38/38 7.52
mbappe 35/36 7.30
messi 26/38 7.26
ronaldo 23/33 7.19
kane 28/38 7.12
If you look at Mbappe's stats he has 20 acc/pace while Haaland only has 17 acc/19 pace. Mbappe even has better dribbling (18 vs 14). If you compare the two, Haaland's main advantages over Mbappe are jumping reach, heading, aggression, strength.
If you plug my weights into FM26 scoring system, the order of STs is:
Haaland 16.7
Lewandowski 15.4
Mbappe 15.0
Messi 14.1
Ronaldo 13.0
Kane 14.8
The only one out of order there is Kane, until you realize that Kane scored more goals than Messi and Ronaldo. From another Youtuber's test, we know that rating doesn't reflect actual performance properly (it boosts technical players over physical players, even when the physicals actually win the games). Salah is ranked 7th overall, slightly above Mbappe. In one of my saves I just checked, Salah got 7.50 rating in his first season, which is about right.
Yes
Serial42 said: Jumping reach is important for fullbacks and wingers in FM26 ?
I haven't tested FM26, but it should be the same as for FM24, which is that jumping reach is important for every position. It's essential that you have at least 1 or 2 players that have very high jumping reach (i.e. 17), but having good jumping reach on other players is also of strong benefit - even if it's just 13 instead of 10.
OpticFawn said: What weights would you give for the hiddens if I were to use on genie or fmrte
Outfield:
Dribbling 52
Aggression 44
Anticipation 52
Composure 44
Concentration 52
Determination 56
Work Rate 44
Acceleration 60
Agility 40
Balance 48
Jumping Reach 52 (68 for DC & Target Man)
Pace 60
Stamina 52
GK:
Concentration 52
Determination 52
Acceleration 52
Agility 56
Jumping Reach 56
Pace 52
First Touch 52
Technique 52
Aerial Ability 56
Command of Area 48
Reflexes 44
For both:
Important Matches 52
Natural Fitness 48
Consistency 52
Pressure 52
Professionalism 52
I strongly caution against attempting to use those 5 last ones in Genie Scout, it's bugged. I tried and it had the opposite effect (bad personality = higher %, when other stats equal). Natural fitness is a visible attribute, but it functions different to the other visible ones in Genie Scout. Don't adjust other hiddens like injury proneness either, and you *may* have fairly accurate results in Genie Scout.
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.