MeanOnSunday said: The quote you are referring to is really a misunderstanding created by looking at a single team. If you make all the other clubs have terrible reputation then you create a situation where your club’s recruitment gets worse because lots of mediocre players now don’t want to go to those other clubs and clutter up your picks. Your team isn’t picking with perfect knowledge so having a much larger pool that want your club dilutes the quality of your choices. The only team attributes that matter for PA of your intake are your club reputation first, followed by youth recruitment second. The youth rating of the country applies to all players recruited in that country, regardless of their nationality. But the number of higher PA players each year also depends on the players that have left the database of active players since the game tries to maintain stable levels of good players in each country. (This is why there tends to be a noticeable jump in high PA recruits in the first year of a save or when you add playable leagues).
Finally affiliates can have a negative effect if they are from countries with low youth ratings but this is both rare and of limited effect. The affiliates give you additional intake players and aren’t replacing high PA players from your own country. Yes they can lower the median but that is like saying that getting 5 200 PA players and a 150 PA player is worse than getting only 5 200 PA players. The negative impact only comes if you have enough affiliates that you hit the maximum limit of the intake (around 16-20) and if lower PA recruits could push out better players from other affiliates or from your local recruited but foreign nationality players. Expand I suppose you are referring to me only using Man City, but that is for this FM24 test. In FM19, I tested every playable club, and that is what my factor % approximations are derived from (by examining the differences between the clubs).
It is not true that only club rep followed by youth recruitment matter. If you doubt my own claims, you can see EBFM finding the same results (junior coaching is the most important for newgen PA).
The affiliate player does replace one of the 16 of your intake, and high PA newgens do not squeeze out low PA newgens in the intake. Rather there is a fairly predictable median that is the peak probability of a distribution curve, and the shape of the curve (bunched up or large tails) is affected by a few factors, but essentially the peak PAs you'll see are random (i.e. Man City might get 170 PA peak one year, 190 PA peak the next). The peak PAs are only predictable in one regard, that Man City is going to produce a player somewhere in the range of ~160-200 PA every year, but Brackley Town almost never will. The best indicator of both overall quality and chance of high PA newgens is median PA.
If your theory about how recruitment works was correct, then ClubRep1/YF1 would not produce results equal to default, which it did.
EBFM found that youth facilities of affiliate clubs is inversely correlated with intake PA. He also found that club rep of affiliate affects PA, but not for self-intake. I figure this might be a clue.
We can infer that if other clubs have YF20, their release of high PA newgens to other clubs is dampened. If they have YF1, it would be unrestricted. Since YF does not affect newgen PA, the high PA newgen output of all other English clubs is not affected, it is simply that they are handing over the better players to Man City.
We see consistently that ClubRep1 of all other English clubs results in low median PA, but not if *some* other English clubs are normal (whether same division or not).
Some logical deductions:
1. It is not that there are not enough high PA players being generated, as YF1 alleviates it entirely, even when all other clubs are ClubRep1.
2. Club rep has little effect on self-intake, therefore the boost to PA that high club rep of *other* clubs provide isn't coming from their intake quality being raised, but that the standard high PA players are more likely to be poached if the team is high rep. My guess is that this is meant to represent high rep teams being more likely to be scouted, while the reality is that good youths can come from anywhere but many simply go unnoticed.
3. So the low PA of ClubRep1 actually represents a scouting failure, rather than an actual drop in available youth quality.
4. YF1 must negate the scouting failure. Perhaps it is because these players seek out the better club to join, instead of waiting to be scouted.
Another way of thinking about it is that youth facilities represent your defense against poaching, while club rep is what makes you 'visible' to poachers.
In theory, this should mean a YF1 high rep club should have slightly lower median PA intakes.
I suppose that 'youth recruitment' is what the aforementioned scouting would be. An interesting question is if there is a real hidden pool of pre-newgens, where does the new 16th player come from when one get poached, and who is the replaced player and where does he get dropped to.
We know that youth recruitment is also a pecking order rather than absolute, i.e. YR 19 is no good if every other team is YR20. But it doesn't sound right that if one team is YR 2 and everyone is YR 1, then there would be no difference between YR 2 and YR 20 for that club. Having YR 20 overcome high YF and low clubrep barriers makes more sense.
This is all difficult to test, but I have noticed the following suggestive oddity: The Jamaican Premier League starts with 8 teams with 20 youth recruitment. Turkey on the other hand has 16 1st div clubs with 6 or less YR. Without diving into this too deeply, obviously something is going on here beyond just YR 2 beats YR 1, and it seems to me that YR is being adjusted to produce desired results when club rep and expected player quality is set in stone first. Pete Sottrel (SI staff) claimed 'The Youth Recruitment rating tells us how wide the club’s catchment area is' but this has to be a bullshit story because clubs in the microstate of San Marino have mostly YR of 2, while Luxembourg have several YR 14-20, Seattle has 12, and Sugar Boys and two others in the British Virgin Islands have 18.
Antal said: What do they consider important matches, bro? My understanding is any knockout game in a cup. Championship games are generally not important. Expand It's more than you think. Premier league games count as important matches, but to a lesser extent than cup finals. EBFM's video if you want the stats.
tam1236 said: From many cheats I tried I must say it's not true. Unless you meant "probability of an outcome". Expand I was going to say yes and no, but after digging into it again, I have to retract the pre-determination claim. There's people who claim this going two decades back, but I couldn't find anything from say Paul Collyer himself (if anything, he says the opposite).
Possebrew said: I did notice that it's better to sub players out based on their current match-rating than based on condition.
6.2 players seldom recover to get an 8.0 Replacing these bums with a fresh player that starts at 6.7 sometimes ends in a "super-sub" situation.
It's almost as if the the game rolls some dice for each player during the match on whether they will have a good match or a bad match, and then it spends the rest of the game working towards the outcome of the dice. Expand
Yes, this is actually 'consistency' and/or 'important matches' in action I think. Determination and concentration too for specific times or circumstances in the match.
TactocTestor said: Does this also imply that the touchline shout and stuff are not statically significant for the whole season too Expand
I compared AI assistants, but I don't know if human management does better than AI assistant. We have Miles' cryptic assertion that 'touchline shouts weren't influential to morale'. My impression is that touchline shouts were designed primarily to correct particular deficiencies in the mindset of players. We know that the 'pressure' personality attribute has a outsized impact upon performance, so if you say 'no pressure!' to an ST with pressure 6 who just missed a penalty it probably does something.. but let's make a guesstimate:
I count 20 games in a premier league save I have where the game was won or lost by a single goal, or drawn We have been told by SI staff that shouts last ~10 minutes The winning team must typically score at least 2-3 goals over the 90 minutes, so let's say 35 minutes per goal So your shout, if 100% effective but not always employed at the right time, secures wins in 28.5% of 20 matches That's 15% of all the matches HarvestGreen finds recently that pressure 6 > 18 = +8.9% win rate 0.15 x 0.089 = +1.335% to season wins from shouting 'no pressure!' once every match to your striker who is vulnerable to pressure Maybe you say it multiple times during matches, or pick just the right times, but this would be balanced by the fact that sometimes it simply doesn't work or the player gets fed up of the overuse of it
Possebrew said: Say, I wanted to cheese this to the max. Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?) - Motivation - Shouts (?) - Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?) - Determination - Just because it makes everything better? Expand From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players, but that the outcome will be recalculated when you make substitutions. This still won't sway the outcome much, because each substitution is at best a ~10% difference of 9% of what's on the field. If you're going in with the right tactic already set, the rest doesn't seem to matter.
I think what is most beneficial is non-rotation tendency. You'll have noticed that AI managers rarely, if ever, rotate their players. They keep running them even if they're exhausted, and it is perhaps for the two following reasons. First, low match fitness is significantly more detrimental than low condition, and almost impossible to keep atop of if a player is not playing almost every game of the season. Second, the high morale produced by a run of good form seems to moderately increase the chance of winning the next game, but this also snowballs over the season. Morale appears to return to a neutral baseline fairly quickly, so rotation interrupts and prevents good form from occurring.
Additionally, it's been deduced that giving young players a handful of matches each season or subbing them on in the dying minutes does little to nothing for their development. They need at least ~15 full matches per season at a minimum for development, otherwise they're better off playing friendlies in the reserves.
I realized that at this point, no assistant manager attribute is essential, and so I put this theory to the test. FM24, Manchester City, with a top preset tactic and set routines. Assistant manager was assigned all relevant roles, including setting training.
To reduce the effect of the player variability through the season, and also see if a different effect was seen in an inferior/underdog team, I tested using my 1 CA players Man City team. I created a perfect 200 PA assistant manager with 20 in almost all attributes, and a 1 PA one with the opposite (I even gave them 1/10 English proficiency). Same tactics were used. Simmed only to midseason, since I was running into problems with sacking after that point.
The difference between a perfect assistant manager and an abysmal one is statistically insignificant as to be indistinguishable from random chance variation of results. It may not be just a coincidence that the superior assistant manager does slightly better in both tests, but even if so, the difference between two realistic assistant manager options (stats of 12 vs 16 instead of 1 vs 20) would be minuscule.
Seems to me that one should choose an assistant manager who is a good coach or cheap.
TactocTestor said: Hi i'm using your r5xm3t file for FM26. While are you assigning such high coefficients to long shot for striker? i thought it is a non significant attribute? Expand The ratings for 'target striker' are if you want a good set piece taker (penalties, free kicks) specifically
Use 'fast striker' for pure performance
Panneton0 said: Another thing about the r5xm3t rating file. Anyone here using a strikeless tactic seen any difference in using the Attacking midfields ratings vs the fast strikers ratings for their top line?
I'm using the AMC/Wingers ratings even if there are no strikers up front. It's working well, but wondering if anyone tries to use other ratings?
I tried to put my best "target striker" as my AMC in my strikerless tactic and THAT went poorly. Expand Something I've noticed, albeit in FM24 testing, is that if I make the striker a complete technical dud (i.e. 1 finishing) other players will pick up the goalscoring slack without any overall performance decrease. And in fact it turned out that this was the most efficient - my best results with a team of 1 CA players came from having strikers who were 1 finishing, 1 long shots, 1 technique, 5 composure. So I think it's probably not necessary to have a striker-like player in a strikerless tactic if the tactic works.
BaZuKa said: The 331 training method, in my experience, causes a lot of player injuries.
In the first season, without the 331 training method, I had few injuries. In the second season, once I started using the 331 method, I had almost triple the injuries. And the third season isn’t starting any better.
Expand
From memory, when I was doing 4-year tests using the EBFM test league file, there would usually be no injuries in the first year, and gradually more until maximum in the 4th year.
In hindsight, this is peculiar.
Looking at your injury list, I'd say it's worse than average. I see a lot are from matches rather than training, which suggests to me it could be that your players have too low match fitness
bigloser said: I don’t see how attributes can change first when RCA often lags behind CA when players are getting better. RCA is the actual value of your attributes not CA. A young player growing can get a RCA higher than CA and recalibrate down. People use these values interchangeably, but they aren’t the same. CA is more like your temporary PA that your RCA chases. It’s also the way the game behaves when people use the editor to make players better than their CA. The theory that training allocates the attributes that develop when RCA increases to meet CA in the only one that makes sense.
Two things can be true . Minutes give CA and young players get free CA so the cpu doesn’t completely ruin generations of regens. The U.S. has zero youth games in FM24 so you can look at their CA to PA and compare them to England. Ie 130 pa 18 y/o in the U.S. will have significantly lower CAs than their English equivalents.
Not in your post, but the premium (expensive) ACC/PAC values are more valuable than their CA cost. If you don’t have the room the game will tell you and change the individual training to something less. ACC/PAC is just that busted. This has been proven a million different ways.
There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it. Expand The first paragraph is stretching my mental capacity, but I think I have a response. I know that attributes don't have linear CA weighting, so there has to be RCA before it becomes CA. EBFM tried to deduce the exact formula on CA calculations and gave up on it. I tried myself and also failed to work it out.
But what this would mean is that it can't simply be +1 pace > +10 CA, nor +10 CA > +1 pace.
It must be, as you say, something like attribute increase > RCA increase > CA changes to match RCA. If RCA exceeds the PA cap, then attributes are dropped equally across the board to fit the PA cap. We see this if you make a 200 PA all '20' attribute player, where attributes end up at ~17 in-game, and also when players hit their PA through training where +1 pace happens but then many other attributes have a slight down arrow (0.2 decline) so that CA fits within PA.
If instead it was +1 CA first (i.e. through playing match), then +1 pace couldn't occur if CA was at PA, since CA wouldn't be able to increase in the first place. I suppose you could have +1 RCA happen, but since +1 RCA can't be +0 attributes, +1 pace must necessarily happen first.
As I mentioned, but didn't explain, young players also improve with zero matches. And if you look at the data, it turns out that a function of 'professionalism' is that it permits significant growth for players in lieu of playing matches. From a narrative perspective this kind of makes sense too - a 'professional' individual improves regardless of what he's given to work with; if he's not playing, he's likely doing extra drills in his free time instead.
I think you can't use US vs England youth as an example for several reasons. More generally I want to make the point that you shouldn't assume no domestic matches = poor growth. Obviously club facilities make a difference to CA and CA-PA gap to begin with, but supposing you identify two clubs that are the same, there is actually a hidden factor that makes at least newgen PA significantly different between nations (even when all visible factors are identical). Furthermore, matches only become a significant factor in development once they reach 18-21, and as mentioned professionalism can actually make up for having few matches. Coincidentally and anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of high professionalism newgens come from the US in the game. I previously believed personality allocation was now entirely random after nation attribute templates got scrapped a few years ago, but it turns out this is not the case.
HarvestGreen22 is inclined to 331 or 334. I already did some calcs on 331 and didn't find it good enough to match the best, but 334 is a contender for the best due to its very high efficiency (performance per CA cost). I would still personally just go with the best performance (243) though.
In my view these are all strong results for GK, so these schedules don't come at the expense of GK.
I see low CA gain as somewhat important for GK unlike other positions, as I noticed GK has the highest CA cost of any position for an 'ideal' template, plus I think high PA GKs are in general difficult to get. But I didn't include this in my calculation.
9.09% weighting to the 3 main goalkeeping attributes 1.818% weighting to the 4 lesser GK attributes 20% weighting to jumping reach
My reasoning for these weightings is that a GK represents 9.09% of a team on the field and the 3 main attributes function basically as pace/acc do for outfield players. I gave the minor attributes a flat 20% weighting of the main ones (1.818% each), as we're talking fairly minuscule overall figures here anyway.
Jumping reach is more of a lowball guesstimate. In certain cases, jumping reach can be about as impactful as pace/acc, but I think more typically its value is that of a strong secondary attribute.
Although I have shown 'decisions' values here, it does not form part of my calculations. I figured it's going to be more accurate to simply divide the key attributes by the total CA cost, which will take decisions into account. So if you add in 'decisions' to below, it will double-count it and be invalid.
I've also added 92:[Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][Quickness focus] to give an idea about a considerable but inferior schedule would compare. Although 92 doesn't do much worse than 243, it would result in a lot more tiredness and injuries.
keithb said: What a load of shit😂. Do you think we're five years old?! Exposing the truths about football manager has nothing to do with your username.
Clearly you're desperate to be someone in the community, but all you're mainly doing is regurgitating other people's work. Well done. Bravo. You're a nobody. But at least you've got that username, really sticking it to SI!! Expand I enjoy the kudos I receive for my findings, and being referenced in various places outside of this forum, but I know that's the extent of it.
I don't have a youtube, paywall, watermarks, etc. and if I wanted to 'be someone in the community' I wouldn't have chosen to go by a name that people can't mention on other websites without it being censored.
Fame is rarely acquired even when deserved, a burden if you do get it, and fleeting as well. Chasing after the approval and affections of people such as yourself is a mug's game, and it's something I deliberately set out to avoid.
What drives me primarily is that working out the game mechanics is now the game for me, as the game itself has stagnated at best, perhaps dead now with FM26. So I enjoy the work in and of itself, that's the first thing. But of course I could just keep it to myself instead of posting here. I post here for, again, enjoyment. Once I grow tired of it, I'll stop posting and disappear.
I do think SI have it coming to them, and deservedly so, but I don't see the path to that as complaining about them or appealing to normies to 'wake up', particularly as communication is a fickle thing. Showing that the game is actually a dud cloaked in lies I think by contrast has a fair chance of disseminating itself, not necessarily immediately, but over time. And I'm happy with playing just some small, forgotten, part in that.
The top 3 are so close that choosing between them would be more about what you're going for. 243 is high CA gain and balanced. 113 is most efficient and produces fastest players. 150 is in my opinion actually the weakest of the three but then again it is also slightly lighter in workload intensity.
97 isn't actually 4th, I just wanted to see how it did, but it would roughly reflect how about the next best dozen or so would do.
First off, thanks a lot for taking the time to do this analysis and write it up — it’s really helpful for the rest of us trying to make sense of the spreadsheets.
Would you mind explaining how you arrived at the individual numbers in your totals (e.g., the 3.17675, 3.1, 0.27 etc.)? I can see the weightings you list (Acceleration 0.97, Pace 1.0, etc.), but I’m not fully following how you convert the spreadsheet values into those weighted components and then into the final score.
If you have a document / sheet you made to do the calculations (even just a template with the formulas), would you be willing to share it? That would make it much easier for others to reproduce and sanity-check the results.
Also, if you have the time, could you run the same calculation with AMC and DM included as well? Many of us play a 4-2-3-1, so having the numbers for AMC + (both) DM roles included would make it much easier to apply your work directly.
Thanks again for the effort — genuinely useful stuff. Expand Thankyou for your compliment
So as HarvestGreen22 has said, we can know now with fair accuracy how much the attributes change, but weighting the attributes remains a bit of a conundrum.
HarvestGreen22's approach to this seems to be to weight according to attribute 6 > 18 win difference % and also add a flat 25% bonus to certain attributes such as dribbling. Dribbling in particular because it is difficult to train up.
I saw that tam1236 took an approach of using HarvestGreen22's attribute 1 > 20 goal difference(?) data, and scored taking into account every attribute.
For my own approach, I use roughly the values in my FM Genie Scout ratings file for just a few key attributes, as well as an arbitrary -0.3x weighting for 'decisions'. Additionally I use only the positions for a particular top knap tactic (i.e. no AMC), and for certain attributes (concentration, dribbling) only get them in positions where they actually count (based on my own extensive testing).
My FM Genie Scout ratings file values are the amalgamation of my own testing, HarvestGreen22's data, Orion's data, relative actual availability of attributes, and a few other things such as taking into account the implications of match sharpness. So I think my approach is superior.
Example of key problem I have identified with those 2 sources I mention:
HarvestGreen22 - Values are for entire team, not per position. Orion - Values are per position, and also actually more accurately predict results but not perfectly and it appears this is because Orion is assessing using 'match rating' which has been shown to favor technicals/mentals over physicals even when physicals actually win the games.
I've given the weights I used, so if you want to change them up you can just take the numbers I wrote down and redo them like this:
acc 0.97 new weight = 1.00 my weighted acc value = 3.17675
(3.17675/97)x100 = 3.275
Or, you could conduct my actual method, which is to go through HarvestGreen22's spreadsheet tables of results where there's a breakdown of each position, then highlight only the relevant positions for each relevant attribute, take the average and then apply your own weight to it.
I believe that explains my method, but I would like to elucidate on this whole matter a little bit more.
Although I personally believe my method is going to be the most predicatively accurate so far, it's still largely guesswork and I wouldn't begrudge others for favoring different weightings. I'm not sure myself about including 'decisions'. On the one hand, it has ~0 impact, so it should be weighted ~0, but on the other hand it hogs a lot of CA for itself, so you could theoretically say 1 dec (10 CA weight) = 1 pace (10 CA weight) = 1.00 weighting.. in the end I settled on -0.3x weighting, but I had considered 0.5x or 0.1x, so it's really quite arbitrary and this degree of inaccuracy is going to mess up the results quite badly:
So suddenly all those low intensity schedules don't look so great anymore, and the old tried and true meta is king again.
But if you did go with 113, you wouldn't be any worse off. And I included a lesser training schedule to show that although the hierarchy is disrupted, the wheat is still separated from the chaff.
With 97 you can see a reflection of my own track record. Before HarvestGreen22's latest data, I was doing my own experiments with less precision and believed that my 97 beat the 243 meta. In the end this turned out to be a bit erroneous, but I think it's scored high enough to show I haven't just been pulling stuff out of my ass. I know a lot of people just tend to make stuff up (just out of naivety and enthusiasm for narrative), when people assume they've actually done the hard research. I do ride with some assumptions myself sometimes, but mostly I use brute-force methods similar to HarvestGreen22 to find out and verify.
Another reason I included 188 there is because that's what HarvestGreen22 recommends for 'moderate growth, high quality' (albeit a slight variation, 317, where all members are in attack group). I agree with his recommendation of 85[match review] (or 100 - 2xmatch review) for 'least growth but highest quality', but I'm left scratching my head at this one. If you look at 317 the pace/acc gain is +5.84, which is decent but meh basically. Perhaps he is taking into account jumping reach which is +1.48, which is ~0.5 higher than typical. I personally left jumping reach out entirely, because I see it as an attribute a player either already has or he doesn't have - your DC with 12 jump reach isn't going to get to where he needs to be whether he's getting +1 or +1.5 each season. But this could explain the difference between my recommendation and HarvestGreen22's recommendation. No doubt he is also favoring lower CA, while I am in favor of more CA so long as it's good attributes.
If we remove decisions, which is the least reliable part of my formula, it's 7.664 for 113 and 7.689 for 243. But the physical gains are also more balanced in 113 and there would be lower injury risk, so I think it's fair to say 113 is slightly better no matter how you slice it.
Might give it a realistic test later to see how 113 goes
When I was making 1 CA players to win the premier league, a bunch of my tests gave the players each half a dozen traits or so that were complimentary to my tactic. It seemed to make zero difference to no traits.
I think that if anything, traits may actually be a negative, where the player won't follow your tactic as well because it contradicts his trait.
A thought I just had is that maybe they make traits have zero performance impact in and of themselves because otherwise you could end up with unfortunate results such as Haaland supposed to be slightly better than Mbappe as Striker, but then a researcher adds 'Shoots with Power' trait to Mbappe and unwittingly messes the hierarchy up.
I wonder if that chart implies that a 15 proficiency striker is 94.7% (126/133) the performance of a 20 proficiency striker
And come to think of it, position proficiency probably doesn't affect pace/acc. Perhaps that would mean you could game it by playing 20/20 pace/acc players completely out of position, and that using such a player as a sub for any position bar GK is more viable than we think
I have some free time again so I was doing my own analysis of the spreadsheets
I remove AMC and one DM from the calculations as I use a certain Knap tactic, and use the following weightings (basically from my Genie Scout Ratings file):
I've selected the promising ones to examine, though I couldn't find the corresponding spreadsheet for some and I haven't looked through it all exhaustively.
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019 | 90-90-100 | 34.4 CA 284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874 | 5-15-5 | 23.52 CA 306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839 | 5-5-15 | 23.66 CA 276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79 | 20-15-15 | 29.17 CA
It's a very close contest after those, but it would be a moot point to work out, because in the above 113 is a clear winner for high PA or low match load scenarios, 284 or 306 for low PA or giving players rest, and 276 for something closer to in-between.
@harvestgreen22 Could you post or direct me to the detailed data for 243 - [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2? I was unable to find it
Pun said: Thanks George for this amazing post! I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious. Expand Astute observations, but yes these are deliberate rather than mistakes
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
Bombardiro said: Hi, i downloaded your ratings for FM26, but i see a huge difference among "best current position", "best pa position" and the single role like "Ball playing Goalkeeper", as in the first 2 one of the best keepers is rated 67/68 and in the role is like 78 now and 85 potential, other keepers that are like 64/65 in the position are like 89/92 in the role, which should i priorityze? Expand If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency.
1 - You mention two training methods: a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed? Expand
The difference is minor, there's a bunch of training combos now that are all roughly similar that are really just a few % better at most. I recommend going with (a) because that is proven to work and it's still up there with the best.
I don't know how well pace/acc can be maintained after age 24, but I do know and have seen that young age is very important for gains in pace/acc. If training up a player, I would be looking towards 18 year olds and below, and while players ~19-21 are still viable, I think you'd have to temper your expectations about how high you could grow their pace/acc.
The data in this table is presented more intuitively. I conducted this test under different conditions (There are notes in excel). If necessary, I can also upload the test save. The test data is included in the Excel file. I haven't finished this test completely yet, but I think it's okay to have a general look at it.
among them, “97” is "[Chance Creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the Front][Quickness]" (As you mentioned)
among them, “99” is the "3 Def + 2 Att + 3 Phy + 2 MP + 1 GD" from "Evidence Based Football Manager"
The table is divided into "non-goalkeeper" and "goalkeeper", and they are respectively located on pages 1 and 2 (I had ignored the goalkeeper in the previous tests). Expand
Very nice
To start with, it's pleasing to me to see a verification of my own schedule idea, and with more precision
Compared to Quickness + Attacking + Match Practice + Recoveryx7 + Quickness focus, mine is:
+40% Agility (+0.8) (I assume this was without agility focus) -8.3% Reflexes (-0.2) +25% Aerial Reach (+0.2)
Attackingx3 + Quickness focus is interesting. Although it has higher decisions & technique, and set pieces will decline, it does seem like it would be both more higher performing and more efficient overall. And it implies a Quickness module isn't necessary.
I tested Attackingx3 + Quickness focus and compared it to my own schedule, and found my own to be significantly superior, though we are talking the difference between A and A+ here.
Based on my genie scout ratings file, I've assumed that 1 ant = 0.58 con = 0.45 drib = 0.12 pace/acc, and looking at the positional results in detail for concentration and dribbling, I figure the following:
Dribbling only:
match practice 6.3 play from the back 6.23 attacking 6.16 aerial defense 6.15 one on ones 6.09 chance creation 6.04 transition press 5.95
Dribbling + Anticipation:
match practice 6.576 play from the back 6.475 attacking 6.407 aerial defense 6.31 one on ones 6.243 chance creation 6.24 transition press 6.2
Dribbling + Anticipation + Concentration:
match practice 7.009 aerial defense 6.675 (haven't calculated precisely yet for the others, but generally those others would still feature)
Best for GK (roughly, and unordered):
aerial defense defending from the front chance creation defending wide ground defense attacking overlap match practice
The numbers represent what's relevant (i.e. pace + acc + drib) expressed as just pace/acc.
You can't take it as the gospel truth, for even just adding quickness focus probably changes things up a bit, but the idea here is to find out what modules are worth considering. Those are 7 that stood out to me, but there's a few more worth considering. For instance Defending Shadow Play is very high in anticipation and vision, high in concentration, but doesn't quite make the cut because of dribbling/pace/acc.
I tried one combo based on this, it was slightly inferior to my existing best, so not worth mentioning.
I think 'defending from the front' needs to go from my schedule, and 'Handling' doesn't seem that great either.
Finally affiliates can have a negative effect if they are from countries with low youth ratings but this is both rare and of limited effect. The affiliates give you additional intake players and aren’t replacing high PA players from your own country. Yes they can lower the median but that is like saying that getting 5 200 PA players and a 150 PA player is worse than getting only 5 200 PA players. The negative impact only comes if you have enough affiliates that you hit the maximum limit of the intake (around 16-20) and if lower PA recruits could push out better players from other affiliates or from your local recruited but foreign nationality players.
I suppose you are referring to me only using Man City, but that is for this FM24 test. In FM19, I tested every playable club, and that is what my factor % approximations are derived from (by examining the differences between the clubs).
It is not true that only club rep followed by youth recruitment matter. If you doubt my own claims, you can see EBFM finding the same results (junior coaching is the most important for newgen PA).
The affiliate player does replace one of the 16 of your intake, and high PA newgens do not squeeze out low PA newgens in the intake. Rather there is a fairly predictable median that is the peak probability of a distribution curve, and the shape of the curve (bunched up or large tails) is affected by a few factors, but essentially the peak PAs you'll see are random (i.e. Man City might get 170 PA peak one year, 190 PA peak the next). The peak PAs are only predictable in one regard, that Man City is going to produce a player somewhere in the range of ~160-200 PA every year, but Brackley Town almost never will. The best indicator of both overall quality and chance of high PA newgens is median PA.
If your theory about how recruitment works was correct, then ClubRep1/YF1 would not produce results equal to default, which it did.
EBFM found that youth facilities of affiliate clubs is inversely correlated with intake PA. He also found that club rep of affiliate affects PA, but not for self-intake. I figure this might be a clue.
We can infer that if other clubs have YF20, their release of high PA newgens to other clubs is dampened. If they have YF1, it would be unrestricted. Since YF does not affect newgen PA, the high PA newgen output of all other English clubs is not affected, it is simply that they are handing over the better players to Man City.
We see consistently that ClubRep1 of all other English clubs results in low median PA, but not if *some* other English clubs are normal (whether same division or not).
Some logical deductions:
1. It is not that there are not enough high PA players being generated, as YF1 alleviates it entirely, even when all other clubs are ClubRep1.
2. Club rep has little effect on self-intake, therefore the boost to PA that high club rep of *other* clubs provide isn't coming from their intake quality being raised, but that the standard high PA players are more likely to be poached if the team is high rep. My guess is that this is meant to represent high rep teams being more likely to be scouted, while the reality is that good youths can come from anywhere but many simply go unnoticed.
3. So the low PA of ClubRep1 actually represents a scouting failure, rather than an actual drop in available youth quality.
4. YF1 must negate the scouting failure. Perhaps it is because these players seek out the better club to join, instead of waiting to be scouted.
Another way of thinking about it is that youth facilities represent your defense against poaching, while club rep is what makes you 'visible' to poachers.
In theory, this should mean a YF1 high rep club should have slightly lower median PA intakes.
I suppose that 'youth recruitment' is what the aforementioned scouting would be. An interesting question is if there is a real hidden pool of pre-newgens, where does the new 16th player come from when one get poached, and who is the replaced player and where does he get dropped to.
We know that youth recruitment is also a pecking order rather than absolute, i.e. YR 19 is no good if every other team is YR20. But it doesn't sound right that if one team is YR 2 and everyone is YR 1, then there would be no difference between YR 2 and YR 20 for that club. Having YR 20 overcome high YF and low clubrep barriers makes more sense.
This is all difficult to test, but I have noticed the following suggestive oddity: The Jamaican Premier League starts with 8 teams with 20 youth recruitment. Turkey on the other hand has 16 1st div clubs with 6 or less YR. Without diving into this too deeply, obviously something is going on here beyond just YR 2 beats YR 1, and it seems to me that YR is being adjusted to produce desired results when club rep and expected player quality is set in stone first. Pete Sottrel (SI staff) claimed 'The Youth Recruitment rating tells us how wide the club’s catchment area is' but this has to be a bullshit story because clubs in the microstate of San Marino have mostly YR of 2, while Luxembourg have several YR 14-20, Seattle has 12, and Sugar Boys and two others in the British Virgin Islands have 18.
My understanding is any knockout game in a cup.
Championship games are generally not important.
It's more than you think. Premier league games count as important matches, but to a lesser extent than cup finals. EBFM's video if you want the stats.
I was going to say yes and no, but after digging into it again, I have to retract the pre-determination claim. There's people who claim this going two decades back, but I couldn't find anything from say Paul Collyer himself (if anything, he says the opposite).
Possebrew said: I did notice that it's better to sub players out based on their current match-rating than based on condition.
6.2 players seldom recover to get an 8.0
Replacing these bums with a fresh player that starts at 6.7 sometimes ends in a "super-sub" situation.
It's almost as if the the game rolls some dice for each player during the match on whether they will have a good match or a bad match, and then it spends the rest of the game working towards the outcome of the dice.
Yes, this is actually 'consistency' and/or 'important matches' in action I think. Determination and concentration too for specific times or circumstances in the match.
TactocTestor said: Does this also imply that the touchline shout and stuff are not statically significant for the whole season too
I compared AI assistants, but I don't know if human management does better than AI assistant. We have Miles' cryptic assertion that 'touchline shouts weren't influential to morale'. My impression is that touchline shouts were designed primarily to correct particular deficiencies in the mindset of players. We know that the 'pressure' personality attribute has a outsized impact upon performance, so if you say 'no pressure!' to an ST with pressure 6 who just missed a penalty it probably does something.. but let's make a guesstimate:
I count 20 games in a premier league save I have where the game was won or lost by a single goal, or drawn
We have been told by SI staff that shouts last ~10 minutes
The winning team must typically score at least 2-3 goals over the 90 minutes, so let's say 35 minutes per goal
So your shout, if 100% effective but not always employed at the right time, secures wins in 28.5% of 20 matches
That's 15% of all the matches
HarvestGreen finds recently that pressure 6 > 18 = +8.9% win rate
0.15 x 0.089 = +1.335% to season wins from shouting 'no pressure!' once every match to your striker who is vulnerable to pressure
Maybe you say it multiple times during matches, or pick just the right times, but this would be balanced by the fact that sometimes it simply doesn't work or the player gets fed up of the overuse of it
Yes
Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?)
- Motivation - Shouts (?)
- Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?)
- Determination - Just because it makes everything better?
From what I've read, the game's outcome is essentially pre-determined the moment you enter the match with your selected players, but that the outcome will be recalculated when you make substitutions. This still won't sway the outcome much, because each substitution is at best a ~10% difference of 9% of what's on the field. If you're going in with the right tactic already set, the rest doesn't seem to matter.
I think what is most beneficial is non-rotation tendency. You'll have noticed that AI managers rarely, if ever, rotate their players. They keep running them even if they're exhausted, and it is perhaps for the two following reasons. First, low match fitness is significantly more detrimental than low condition, and almost impossible to keep atop of if a player is not playing almost every game of the season. Second, the high morale produced by a run of good form seems to moderately increase the chance of winning the next game, but this also snowballs over the season. Morale appears to return to a neutral baseline fairly quickly, so rotation interrupts and prevents good form from occurring.
Additionally, it's been deduced that giving young players a handful of matches each season or subbing them on in the dying minutes does little to nothing for their development. They need at least ~15 full matches per season at a minimum for development, otherwise they're better off playing friendlies in the reserves.
I realized that at this point, no assistant manager attribute is essential, and so I put this theory to the test. FM24, Manchester City, with a top preset tactic and set routines. Assistant manager was assigned all relevant roles, including setting training.
Default:
+122 105pts
+89 95pts
+82 92pts
+87 90pts
95.5 pts average
1 PA:
+106 100pts
+81 97pts
+95 96pts
+79 92pts
+83 88pts
94.6 pts average
To reduce the effect of the player variability through the season, and also see if a different effect was seen in an inferior/underdog team, I tested using my 1 CA players Man City team. I created a perfect 200 PA assistant manager with 20 in almost all attributes, and a 1 PA one with the opposite (I even gave them 1/10 English proficiency). Same tactics were used. Simmed only to midseason, since I was running into problems with sacking after that point.
200 PA:
+42 66pts 2nd
+13 48pts 5th
+1 48pts 8th
+10 40pts 8th
50.5 pts average
1 PA:
+27 57pts 2nd
+15 46pts 5th
+19 45pts 7th
+13 43pts 6th
47.75 pts average
The difference between a perfect assistant manager and an abysmal one is statistically insignificant as to be indistinguishable from random chance variation of results. It may not be just a coincidence that the superior assistant manager does slightly better in both tests, but even if so, the difference between two realistic assistant manager options (stats of 12 vs 16 instead of 1 vs 20) would be minuscule.
Seems to me that one should choose an assistant manager who is a good coach or cheap.
The ratings for 'target striker' are if you want a good set piece taker (penalties, free kicks) specifically
Use 'fast striker' for pure performance
Panneton0 said: Another thing about the r5xm3t rating file.
Anyone here using a strikeless tactic seen any difference in using the Attacking midfields ratings vs the fast strikers ratings for their top line?
I'm using the AMC/Wingers ratings even if there are no strikers up front. It's working well, but wondering if anyone tries to use other ratings?
I tried to put my best "target striker" as my AMC in my strikerless tactic and THAT went poorly.
Something I've noticed, albeit in FM24 testing, is that if I make the striker a complete technical dud (i.e. 1 finishing) other players will pick up the goalscoring slack without any overall performance decrease. And in fact it turned out that this was the most efficient - my best results with a team of 1 CA players came from having strikers who were 1 finishing, 1 long shots, 1 technique, 5 composure. So I think it's probably not necessary to have a striker-like player in a strikerless tactic if the tactic works.
In the first season, without the 331 training method, I had few injuries. In the second season, once I started using the 331 method, I had almost triple the injuries. And the third season isn’t starting any better.
From memory, when I was doing 4-year tests using the EBFM test league file, there would usually be no injuries in the first year, and gradually more until maximum in the 4th year.
In hindsight, this is peculiar.
Looking at your injury list, I'd say it's worse than average. I see a lot are from matches rather than training, which suggests to me it could be that your players have too low match fitness
Two things can be true . Minutes give CA and young players get free CA so the cpu doesn’t completely ruin generations of regens. The U.S. has zero youth games in FM24 so you can look at their CA to PA and compare them to England. Ie 130 pa 18 y/o in the U.S. will have significantly lower CAs than their English equivalents.
Not in your post, but the premium (expensive) ACC/PAC values are more valuable than their CA cost. If you don’t have the room the game will tell you and change the individual training to something less. ACC/PAC is just that busted. This has been proven a million different ways.
There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it.
The first paragraph is stretching my mental capacity, but I think I have a response. I know that attributes don't have linear CA weighting, so there has to be RCA before it becomes CA. EBFM tried to deduce the exact formula on CA calculations and gave up on it. I tried myself and also failed to work it out.
But what this would mean is that it can't simply be +1 pace > +10 CA, nor +10 CA > +1 pace.
It must be, as you say, something like attribute increase > RCA increase > CA changes to match RCA. If RCA exceeds the PA cap, then attributes are dropped equally across the board to fit the PA cap. We see this if you make a 200 PA all '20' attribute player, where attributes end up at ~17 in-game, and also when players hit their PA through training where +1 pace happens but then many other attributes have a slight down arrow (0.2 decline) so that CA fits within PA.
If instead it was +1 CA first (i.e. through playing match), then +1 pace couldn't occur if CA was at PA, since CA wouldn't be able to increase in the first place. I suppose you could have +1 RCA happen, but since +1 RCA can't be +0 attributes, +1 pace must necessarily happen first.
As I mentioned, but didn't explain, young players also improve with zero matches. And if you look at the data, it turns out that a function of 'professionalism' is that it permits significant growth for players in lieu of playing matches. From a narrative perspective this kind of makes sense too - a 'professional' individual improves regardless of what he's given to work with; if he's not playing, he's likely doing extra drills in his free time instead.
I think you can't use US vs England youth as an example for several reasons. More generally I want to make the point that you shouldn't assume no domestic matches = poor growth. Obviously club facilities make a difference to CA and CA-PA gap to begin with, but supposing you identify two clubs that are the same, there is actually a hidden factor that makes at least newgen PA significantly different between nations (even when all visible factors are identical). Furthermore, matches only become a significant factor in development once they reach 18-21, and as mentioned professionalism can actually make up for having few matches. Coincidentally and anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of high professionalism newgens come from the US in the game. I previously believed personality allocation was now entirely random after nation attribute templates got scrapped a few years ago, but it turns out this is not the case.
For GK (sorted best to worst):
334 - 40.3 CA | 4.5 agil, 1.4 aer, 0.6 ref (6.5 major) | 1 pac, 2.4 vis, 2.7 con, 2.9 ant (9 minor)
243 - 41.83 CA | 4.333 agil, 1 aer, 0.666 ref (6.0 major) | 1.33 pac, 3.16 vis, 2.83 con, 3.33 ant (10.65 minor)
150 - 44.5 CA | 3.5 agil, 1.5 aer, 1 ref (6.0 major) | 0 pac, 2.0 vis, 4.0 con, 3.5 ant (9.5 minor)
113 - 31.8 CA | 3.4 agil, 1.4 aer, 0.8 ref (5.6 major) | 1 pac, 2.8 vis, 3.4 con, 1.8 ant (9 minor)
97 - 37.2 CA | 2.8 agil, 1 aer, 1.2 ref (5.0 major) | 0.6 pac, 2.4 vis, 2.6 con, 3.4 ant (9 minor)
In my view these are all strong results for GK, so these schedules don't come at the expense of GK.
I see low CA gain as somewhat important for GK unlike other positions, as I noticed GK has the highest CA cost of any position for an 'ideal' template, plus I think high PA GKs are in general difficult to get. But I didn't include this in my calculation.
Jumping Reach:
334 - 1.4 jump
243 - 1.1666 jump
150 - 1.0625 jump
113 - 1.025 jump
97 - 0.925 jump
Decisions (low = good):
334 - 1.05 dec
113 - 2.15 dec
97 - 2.375 dec
243 - 2.625 dec
150 - 3 dec
Pace/Acc:
243: 6.08333
150: 6.0625
113: 6.375
97: 6.025
334: 6.0125
Dribbling:
243: 1.6666 drib
150: 1.58333 drib
97: 1.3333 drib
334: 1.0875 drib
113: 0.9666 drib
9.09% weighting to the 3 main goalkeeping attributes
1.818% weighting to the 4 lesser GK attributes
20% weighting to jumping reach
My reasoning for these weightings is that a GK represents 9.09% of a team on the field and the 3 main attributes function basically as pace/acc do for outfield players. I gave the minor attributes a flat 20% weighting of the main ones (1.818% each), as we're talking fairly minuscule overall figures here anyway.
Jumping reach is more of a lowball guesstimate. In certain cases, jumping reach can be about as impactful as pace/acc, but I think more typically its value is that of a strong secondary attribute.
Although I have shown 'decisions' values here, it does not form part of my calculations. I figured it's going to be more accurate to simply divide the key attributes by the total CA cost, which will take decisions into account. So if you add in 'decisions' to below, it will double-count it and be invalid.
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] - 7.689 + 0.5454 + 0.193617 + 0.23332 = 8.661337 / 38.9583 = 0.222323
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 7.6855 + 0.5454 + 0.17271 + 0.2125 = 8.61611 / 36.875 = 0.233657
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.664 + 0.50904 + 0.16362 + 0.205 = 8.54166 / 35.575 = 0.240103
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 7.4395 + 0.4545 + 0.16362 + 0.185 = 8.24262 / 37.3 = 0.2209818
334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking]: 7.3637 + 0.59085 + 0.16362 + 0.28 = 8.39817 / 31.21 = 0.2690859
To help clarify the true value of 'efficiency', I've added [Match Reviewx2][Quickness] to these, since it's the most efficient for just pure pace/acc.
100: [Match Reviewx2][Quickness] - 7.329584 + 0.34542 + 0.039996 + 0.2 = 7.915 / 18.05 = 0.4385
I've also added 92:[Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][Quickness focus] to give an idea about a considerable but inferior schedule would compare. Although 92 doesn't do much worse than 243, it would result in a lot more tiredness and injuries.
This can be simplified to:
Efficiency
100 - 100%
334 - 61.4%
113 - 54.8%
150 - 53.3%
243 - 50.7%
97 - 50.4%
92 - 49.7%
Performance
243 - 100%
150 - 99.5%
113 - 98.6%
92 - 98.3%
334 - 97.0%
97 - 95.2%
100 - 91.4%
Combined
100 - 95.7%
334 - 79.2%
113 - 76.7%
150 - 76.4%
243 - 75.3%
92 - 74.0%
97 - 72.8%
Clearly you're desperate to be someone in the community, but all you're mainly doing is regurgitating other people's work. Well done. Bravo. You're a nobody. But at least you've got that username, really sticking it to SI!!
I enjoy the kudos I receive for my findings, and being referenced in various places outside of this forum, but I know that's the extent of it.
I don't have a youtube, paywall, watermarks, etc. and if I wanted to 'be someone in the community' I wouldn't have chosen to go by a name that people can't mention on other websites without it being censored.
Fame is rarely acquired even when deserved, a burden if you do get it, and fleeting as well. Chasing after the approval and affections of people such as yourself is a mug's game, and it's something I deliberately set out to avoid.
What drives me primarily is that working out the game mechanics is now the game for me, as the game itself has stagnated at best, perhaps dead now with FM26. So I enjoy the work in and of itself, that's the first thing. But of course I could just keep it to myself instead of posting here. I post here for, again, enjoyment. Once I grow tired of it, I'll stop posting and disappear.
I do think SI have it coming to them, and deservedly so, but I don't see the path to that as complaining about them or appealing to normies to 'wake up', particularly as communication is a fickle thing. Showing that the game is actually a dud cloaked in lies I think by contrast has a fair chance of disseminating itself, not necessarily immediately, but over time. And I'm happy with playing just some small, forgotten, part in that.
I'll post the calculations later, but here's a simplified summary:
Efficiency
113 - 100%
150 - 97.3%
243 - 92.6%
97 - 92.0%
Performance
243 - 100%
150 - 99.5%
113 - 98.6%
97 - 95.2%
Combined
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 99.3%
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 98.4%
243: [Quickness][Match Practice][Attackingx2][Quickness focus] - 96.3%
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 93.6%
The top 3 are so close that choosing between them would be more about what you're going for. 243 is high CA gain and balanced. 113 is most efficient and produces fastest players. 150 is in my opinion actually the weakest of the three but then again it is also slightly lighter in workload intensity.
97 isn't actually 4th, I just wanted to see how it did, but it would roughly reflect how about the next best dozen or so would do.
First off, thanks a lot for taking the time to do this analysis and write it up — it’s really helpful for the rest of us trying to make sense of the spreadsheets.
Would you mind explaining how you arrived at the individual numbers in your totals (e.g., the 3.17675, 3.1, 0.27 etc.)? I can see the weightings you list (Acceleration 0.97, Pace 1.0, etc.), but I’m not fully following how you convert the spreadsheet values into those weighted components and then into the final score.
If you have a document / sheet you made to do the calculations (even just a template with the formulas), would you be willing to share it? That would make it much easier for others to reproduce and sanity-check the results.
Also, if you have the time, could you run the same calculation with AMC and DM included as well? Many of us play a 4-2-3-1, so having the numbers for AMC + (both) DM roles included would make it much easier to apply your work directly.
Thanks again for the effort — genuinely useful stuff.
Thankyou for your compliment
So as HarvestGreen22 has said, we can know now with fair accuracy how much the attributes change, but weighting the attributes remains a bit of a conundrum.
HarvestGreen22's approach to this seems to be to weight according to attribute 6 > 18 win difference % and also add a flat 25% bonus to certain attributes such as dribbling. Dribbling in particular because it is difficult to train up.
I saw that tam1236 took an approach of using HarvestGreen22's attribute 1 > 20 goal difference(?) data, and scored taking into account every attribute.
For my own approach, I use roughly the values in my FM Genie Scout ratings file for just a few key attributes, as well as an arbitrary -0.3x weighting for 'decisions'. Additionally I use only the positions for a particular top knap tactic (i.e. no AMC), and for certain attributes (concentration, dribbling) only get them in positions where they actually count (based on my own extensive testing).
My FM Genie Scout ratings file values are the amalgamation of my own testing, HarvestGreen22's data, Orion's data, relative actual availability of attributes, and a few other things such as taking into account the implications of match sharpness. So I think my approach is superior.
Example of key problem I have identified with those 2 sources I mention:
HarvestGreen22 - Values are for entire team, not per position.
Orion - Values are per position, and also actually more accurately predict results but not perfectly and it appears this is because Orion is assessing using 'match rating' which has been shown to favor technicals/mentals over physicals even when physicals actually win the games.
I've given the weights I used, so if you want to change them up you can just take the numbers I wrote down and redo them like this:
acc 0.97
new weight = 1.00
my weighted acc value = 3.17675
(3.17675/97)x100 = 3.275
Or, you could conduct my actual method, which is to go through HarvestGreen22's spreadsheet tables of results where there's a breakdown of each position, then highlight only the relevant positions for each relevant attribute, take the average and then apply your own weight to it.
I believe that explains my method, but I would like to elucidate on this whole matter a little bit more.
Although I personally believe my method is going to be the most predicatively accurate so far, it's still largely guesswork and I wouldn't begrudge others for favoring different weightings. I'm not sure myself about including 'decisions'. On the one hand, it has ~0 impact, so it should be weighted ~0, but on the other hand it hogs a lot of CA for itself, so you could theoretically say 1 dec (10 CA weight) = 1 pace (10 CA weight) = 1.00 weighting.. in the end I settled on -0.3x weighting, but I had considered 0.5x or 0.1x, so it's really quite arbitrary and this degree of inaccuracy is going to mess up the results quite badly:
With decisions -0.3x:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quick focus] - 6.9016
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874
282: [Defending Wide][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.867
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 6.7855
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 6.727
188: [Physical x 2][Chance Conversion][Attacking] - 6.206
Without decisions:
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] - 7.689
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 7.6855
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.664
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 7.4395
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 7.264
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 7.240
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 7.199
282: [Defending Wide][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.987
188: [Physical x 2][Chance Conversion][Attacking] - 6.74625
So suddenly all those low intensity schedules don't look so great anymore, and the old tried and true meta is king again.
But if you did go with 113, you wouldn't be any worse off. And I included a lesser training schedule to show that although the hierarchy is disrupted, the wheat is still separated from the chaff.
With 97 you can see a reflection of my own track record. Before HarvestGreen22's latest data, I was doing my own experiments with less precision and believed that my 97 beat the 243 meta. In the end this turned out to be a bit erroneous, but I think it's scored high enough to show I haven't just been pulling stuff out of my ass. I know a lot of people just tend to make stuff up (just out of naivety and enthusiasm for narrative), when people assume they've actually done the hard research. I do ride with some assumptions myself sometimes, but mostly I use brute-force methods similar to HarvestGreen22 to find out and verify.
Another reason I included 188 there is because that's what HarvestGreen22 recommends for 'moderate growth, high quality' (albeit a slight variation, 317, where all members are in attack group). I agree with his recommendation of 85[match review] (or 100 - 2xmatch review) for 'least growth but highest quality', but I'm left scratching my head at this one. If you look at 317 the pace/acc gain is +5.84, which is decent but meh basically. Perhaps he is taking into account jumping reach which is +1.48, which is ~0.5 higher than typical. I personally left jumping reach out entirely, because I see it as an attribute a player either already has or he doesn't have - your DC with 12 jump reach isn't going to get to where he needs to be whether he's getting +1 or +1.5 each season. But this could explain the difference between my recommendation and HarvestGreen22's recommendation. No doubt he is also favoring lower CA, while I am in favor of more CA so long as it's good attributes.
https://mega.nz/file/dENF1KSK#gY0GO3Od_fALZ51UW_2dxLnAMnmlt0hkt01FVh9ZP50
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ihxzDL9p
There is a sub-page 243 .
243 [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus]: 2.86958 + 3.125 + 0.4666 + 0.66 + 0.330416 + 0.2375 - 0.7875 = 6.9016 | 115-115-115
That places it 2nd according to my formula
113 [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus]: 3.17675 + 3.1 + 0.27 + 0.627 + 0.28275 + 0.2075 - 0.645 = 7.019 | 90-90-100
If we remove decisions, which is the least reliable part of my formula, it's 7.664 for 113 and 7.689 for 243. But the physical gains are also more balanced in 113 and there would be lower injury risk, so I think it's fair to say 113 is slightly better no matter how you slice it.
Might give it a realistic test later to see how 113 goes
I think that if anything, traits may actually be a negative, where the player won't follow your tactic as well because it contradicts his trait.
A thought I just had is that maybe they make traits have zero performance impact in and of themselves because otherwise you could end up with unfortunate results such as Haaland supposed to be slightly better than Mbappe as Striker, but then a researcher adds 'Shoots with Power' trait to Mbappe and unwittingly messes the hierarchy up.
And come to think of it, position proficiency probably doesn't affect pace/acc. Perhaps that would mean you could game it by playing 20/20 pace/acc players completely out of position, and that using such a player as a sub for any position bar GK is more viable than we think
Also, necro thread
>2021
It is on row 280 of the table.
I mean the positional breakdown of 243
I remove AMC and one DM from the calculations as I use a certain Knap tactic, and use the following weightings (basically from my Genie Scout Ratings file):
Acceleration 0.97
Pace 1.0
Dribbling (DC/DL/DR/AML/AMR) 0.28
Concentration (DC/DL/DR) 0.22
Anticipation 0.13
Composure 0.1
Decisions -0.3
I've selected the promising ones to examine, though I couldn't find the corresponding spreadsheet for some and I haven't looked through it all exhaustively.
Results:
113: 3.17675 + 3.1 + 0.27 + 0.627 + 0.28275 + 0.2075 - 0.645 = 7.019 | 90-90-100
284: 3.17675 + 3.375 + 0.056 + 0.385 + 0.156 + 0.115 - 0.39 = 6.874 | 5-15-5
282: 3.32225 + 3.325 + 0.056 + 0.22 + 0.04875 + 0.015 - 0.12 = 6.867 | 15-15-15
306: 3.0555 + 3.425 + 0.048 + 0.396 + 0.1495 + 0.125 - 0.36 = 6.839 | 5-5-15
276: 3.019125 + 3.175 + 0.238 + 0.473 + 0.17225 + 0.1625 - 0.45 = 6.79 | 20-15-15
150: 2.91 + 3.0625 + 0.443 + 0.605 + 0.39 + 0.275 - 0.9 = 6.7855 | 90-90-90
260: 3.0009 + 2.875 + 0.42 + 0.605 + 0.365625 + 0.23125 - 0.759375 = 6.7384 | 105-105-105
90: 2.829 + 3.0625 + 0.466 + 0.568 + 0.349 + 0.266 - 0.81 = 6.7305 | 45-45-45
97: 2.813 + 3.125 + 0.373 + 0.583 + 0.3055 + 0.24 - 0.7125 = 6.727 | 105-100-100 (what I previously suggested)
129: 2.78875 + 2.925 + 0.52266 + 0.682 + 0.39975 + 0.245 - 0.87 = 6.693 | 100-80-80
331: 2.8009 + 3.025 + 0.39666 + 0.704 + 0.391625 + 0.23 - 0.855 = 6.693 | 105-105-105
123: 2.86958 + 3.1 + 0.24266 + 0.561 + 0.289 + 0.20333 - 0.64125 = 6.624 | 65-75-75
121: 2.93425 + 3.125 + 0.084 + 0.5005 + 0.099 + 0.07375 - 0.25125 = 6.565 | 85-95-85
99: 2.9827 + 3.1 + 0.12 + 0.418 + 0.1495 + 0.105 - 0.3675 = 6.5077 | 10-10-20
328: 2.7645 + 3.05 + 0.20533 + 0.396 + 0.221 + 0.1675 - 0.465 = 6.33933
188: 2.776625 + 2.925 + 0.252 + 0.396 + 0.212875 + 0.18375 - 0.54 = 6.206 | 90-90-100
The last figure is the total % intensity for GK-Defending-Attacking groups.
Raw performance Top 5:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874
282: [Defending Wide][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.867
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79
High Dribbling:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019, 0.27 dribbling
150: [Attackingx6][Quickness focus] - 6.7855, 0.443 dribbling
90: [Attackingx3][Quickness focus] - 6.7305, 0.466 dribbling
129: [Handling][Shot Stopping][Attacking][Defending][Aerial Defence][Ground Defence][Chance Creation][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 6.693, 0.523 dribbling
Best overall (subjective):
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019 | 90-90-100 | 34.4 CA
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874 | 5-15-5 | 23.52 CA
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839 | 5-5-15 | 23.66 CA
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79 | 20-15-15 | 29.17 CA
It's a very close contest after those, but it would be a moot point to work out, because in the above 113 is a clear winner for high PA or low match load scenarios, 284 or 306 for low PA or giving players rest, and 276 for something closer to in-between.
@harvestgreen22 Could you post or direct me to the detailed data for 243 - [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2? I was unable to find it
I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious.
Astute observations, but yes these are deliberate rather than mistakes
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
Bombardiro said: Hi, i downloaded your ratings for FM26, but i see a huge difference among "best current position", "best pa position" and the single role like "Ball playing Goalkeeper", as in the first 2 one of the best keepers is rated 67/68 and in the role is like 78 now and 85 potential, other keepers that are like 64/65 in the position are like 89/92 in the role, which should i priorityze?
If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency.
Luckily I've finished and tied up everything I've set out to achieve, and so it's the right time for me to sit back for a while anyway.
Eddie said: I have two questions.
1 - You mention two training methods:
a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed?
The difference is minor, there's a bunch of training combos now that are all roughly similar that are really just a few % better at most. I recommend going with (a) because that is proven to work and it's still up there with the best.
I don't know how well pace/acc can be maintained after age 24, but I do know and have seen that young age is very important for gains in pace/acc. If training up a player, I would be looking towards 18 year olds and below, and while players ~19-21 are still viable, I think you'd have to temper your expectations about how high you could grow their pace/acc.
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
This new Excel file might be helpful to you.
The data in this table is presented more intuitively. I conducted this test under different conditions (There are notes in excel). If necessary, I can also upload the test save.
The test data is included in the Excel file. I haven't finished this test completely yet, but I think it's okay to have a general look at it.
among them,
“97” is "[Chance Creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the Front][Quickness]" (As you mentioned)
among them,
“99” is the "3 Def + 2 Att + 3 Phy + 2 MP + 1 GD" from "Evidence Based Football Manager"
The table is divided into "non-goalkeeper" and "goalkeeper", and they are respectively located on pages 1 and 2 (I had ignored the goalkeeper in the previous tests).
Very nice
To start with, it's pleasing to me to see a verification of my own schedule idea, and with more precision
Compared to Quickness + Attacking + Match Practice + Recoveryx7 + Quickness focus, mine is:
+9.14% CA (+3.16)
+4.5% Anticipation (+0.1)
+20.7% Concentration (+0.46)
+26.8% Dribbling (+0.3)
+1.7% Decisions (+0.04)
+0.7% Acceleration (+0.02)
+0.7% Pace (+0.02)
And for GK:
+40% Agility (+0.8) (I assume this was without agility focus)
-8.3% Reflexes (-0.2)
+25% Aerial Reach (+0.2)
Attackingx3 + Quickness focus is interesting. Although it has higher decisions & technique, and set pieces will decline, it does seem like it would be both more higher performing and more efficient overall. And it implies a Quickness module isn't necessary.
I tested Attackingx3 + Quickness focus and compared it to my own schedule, and found my own to be significantly superior, though we are talking the difference between A and A+ here.
Based on my genie scout ratings file, I've assumed that 1 ant = 0.58 con = 0.45 drib = 0.12 pace/acc, and looking at the positional results in detail for concentration and dribbling, I figure the following:
Dribbling only:
match practice 6.3
play from the back 6.23
attacking 6.16
aerial defense 6.15
one on ones 6.09
chance creation 6.04
transition press 5.95
Dribbling + Anticipation:
match practice 6.576
play from the back 6.475
attacking 6.407
aerial defense 6.31
one on ones 6.243
chance creation 6.24
transition press 6.2
Dribbling + Anticipation + Concentration:
match practice 7.009
aerial defense 6.675
(haven't calculated precisely yet for the others, but generally those others would still feature)
Best for GK (roughly, and unordered):
aerial defense
defending from the front
chance creation
defending wide
ground defense
attacking overlap
match practice
The numbers represent what's relevant (i.e. pace + acc + drib) expressed as just pace/acc.
You can't take it as the gospel truth, for even just adding quickness focus probably changes things up a bit, but the idea here is to find out what modules are worth considering. Those are 7 that stood out to me, but there's a few more worth considering. For instance Defending Shadow Play is very high in anticipation and vision, high in concentration, but doesn't quite make the cut because of dribbling/pace/acc.
I tried one combo based on this, it was slightly inferior to my existing best, so not worth mentioning.
I think 'defending from the front' needs to go from my schedule, and 'Handling' doesn't seem that great either.