tam1236 said: I think it was HarvestGreen22, who proposed, after testing , not to accept field players under 7 work rate because of fatal negative impact. This attributes in italics for these positions (presume the rest are ok too) will be actually nearly impossible to find outside the editor or top stars, I'm afraid. And with such unreal demandings You still didn't get jumping for ST and only 13 pac/acc and 12 for DC? Expand This time I believe I am not mistaken.
If you look at my 1 CA templates, you'll see I use at least 7 work rate. Not because 7 is required, but because mentals/technicals can decrease as training redistributes attributes. I am, as you are, taking the 6 minimum from HarvestGreen's data. In this case I am still using the extra 1 point buffer, as in my ideal test of the meta training work rate was +1-2 after 4 years, and as mentioned I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training results, so 6 filter denotes 7 after training.
The attributes in italics are in italics for the reason that they are difficult to find, but they are not impossible to find. I have taken them from my ~115 CA ideal templates, which in turn are taken from a search of the database in Genie Scout to find attribute values for which there are at least ~50 players available. If I filter for attributes for DC, including the drib 13, there are 9 results, 1 of which is age 28 and valued at $150k pounds. If you remove the drib 13, as I recommended, I find 245 results.
As shown in my 1 CA results, jump reach of 1 scored best for ST. Not because 20 isn't better of course, but because it isn't strictly necessary. The reason jump 15 is included for AML/AMR is because I believe it is strictly necessary if want to get the bulk of performance. Yes I tried 20 jump ST with 1 jump AML/AMR. Yes I tried 20 jump with 20 head, 20 jump + head + strength, and so on. All failures. The poster asked for the minimums for a filter - 12-13 pace/acc results in ~16-17 pace/acc after training, which is the bare minimum I found to be able to do very good in the Premier League.
tom8 said: Thanks for the update and the file, will test it out!
Just have to ask on the topic of certain attributes, do you have like a summary of what you would consider the minimum viable value for certain attributes. For example, you have the example of 12 for professionalism being what you would consider a minimum value for 'good' player.
I guess what I am asking is to combine your ratings file with a filter for certain attributes as well, although file will do a great job by itself and this may be unnecessary. Apologies if I've missed it in another post. Expand
GK - agil 11, pace 4, work 6, aer 15, ref 9, comp 4 DL/DR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, work 6 DC - acc 12, pace 12, jump 16, drib 13 DM - acc 13, pace 13, work 6 AML/AMR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, pos 13, work 6 ST - acc 13, pace 13, work 6
Minimum 0 CA attributes for all positions (these I'm more guesstimating than the above): 6 det, 6 nat, 8 pressure, 8 pro, 14< dirt, 14< injury, 6 loyal, 8 consist, 6 imp match.
Attributes in italics will be difficult to find and you should probably leave out of your filter, even though they are important.
The idea here is that with training, you will reach what I consider the minimums for what accounts for the bulk of max performance. I actually wanted to make 'pre-training' templates, but I found the effects of training to be too variable when comparing idealized isolated tests vs realistic premier league use, and I don't know yet what is actually realistic or typical. But with this filter here, I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training over 4 years, resulting in pace 12 > 16, which is the bare minimum I believe to get tangible victories (for premier league). It may fall short, but it will still serve it's function of separating most of the chaff from the wheat.
In regards to pro 12 being necessary, what I meant was that primarily pro 12< is rare, and we also know the following (source: Orion's FM22 testing):
So actually it's pro ~10 that is necessary, but I would guess that ~8 is not too bad either, based on how work rate matters a great deal up to just 6 then it tails off.
YildizAli said: Where do I paste this? Expand .grf file goes into (FM Genie Scout folder) > Ratings. Then in Genie Scout, press top left button > Rating and load the file.
For the FM26 version I've simply made some changes to a few of the attributes based on HarvestGreen's FM26 testing, so it may be less accurate.
I've also updated WB/MC/AMC so they're reasonably usable now, but they're just copies of FB & DM.
The main changes have been to the hidden attributes. Some very important changes here.
For those interested, here is also some rationale behind the weightings I've chosen:
Let's take long shots as first example, because I've given long shots very low weighting (1 or 2) in spite of both HarvestGreen22's findings (low moderate positive effect, similar to finishing or composure, which I give around ~8) and the fact that long shots have low CA cost in pretty much every position. Well in my 1 CA testing, I found that switching between 20 and 1 long shots made no observable difference in performance. And when I looked where goals were scored from in the in-game analytics, virtually none from long shots, and my DC with 20 long shots scored 1 or 2 at most over the season. And then there is also my own purely speculative theory that the knap tactic isn't designed for throwing the ball away on distant pot shots, and even if it is, it probably requires high levels of 'vision' and whatnot to pull off. Contrast all this info to pace, which it's clear as day even 1 point extra in makes a difference. So I figure my starting point is, I wouldn't trade 1 point of pace on a DC for 20 points of long shots - that makes it's weighting a maximum of '4' when pace is '100'. Now if I look at DL, long shots has a CA weight of just '1' and I gave it weighting of '1' in genie scout, whereas for DC I gave it '2' - and of course, neither of these are '4'. Consider that for DL, dribbling is also '1' CA weight, and it does actually matter. But I also have to weigh up what other attributes take precedence before long shots. Take strength - it's a fairly costly attribute ('4' weight), but it demonstrably has at least has some performance effect. Would I rather 5 strength on my DL, or 20 long shots? I think the 5 strength is going to perform a little better, but I wouldn't even trade 20 strength for 1 pace partly because of performance, partly because of the high CA cost (we can't have everything). So I give pace 100 weight, strength 3, and long shots 1.
Now if you read all that, you will realize that what I'm doing is quite subjective and prone to imprecision. I prefer precision, and this is largely possible with attribute testing, but unfortunately filtering methods don't work that way - the more precise you are, the less results you get, or conversely you start trawling through a few hundred laxly bounded results but only get as far as the 7th player you pick out and unwittingly choose a 17 long 16 pace 15 acc player over a 8 long 18 pace 18 acc player that was further down the list because it was too tedious to go through them all. Filter weightings alleviate this somewhat by creating a kind of hierarchy of attributes, so those 18 pace/acc players will be near top of your list no matter what. But if you assign too much high (or even moderate) weights to too many attributes, you muddy the hierarchy and end up with at the top of your list a complete dog's breakfast of a player that is 18 long 16 tack 17 str 12 pac 14 acc 20 ant and apparently a 78.41% rating.
And sometimes the attributes are almost purely subjective or circumstantial in ways you cannot pin down to a precise number. For instance, natural fitness technically doesn't affect performance much, so long as you manage it right - but managing a squad's match fitness I find requires you to have say ~30% of your players with high natural fitness so they can skip games to allow for a sizable squad without ill consequence. Loyalty.. I'm not aware it has any impact on performance at all, yet we all know the value of a loyal player - personally I figure I'd be willing to trade 1 each of pace & acc for it. For someone else it might be more or less, but I have to put some figure there.
One more I will make an example of is professionalism. I've reduced it to '16' in this update, which is relatively low now. Professionalism is actually very important for both performance and training, and it's 0 CA cost. But it turns out professionalism under 12 is quite rare, and the benefits of 12 -> 20 are much less than 1 -> 12. I do calculations based on all of this info to get a true relative figure. Although again a bit wishy washy, this type is actually quite solidly grounded in the performance stats.
Didico said: What is the average rating of the players that you bought? Expand Taking one from the middle and applying latest genie scout ratings I haven't uploaded yet (position is AMR):
mohamed salah 77.28% messi 71.13% jack grealish 66.83% my player 66.30%
rank 102nd
Highest valued player (ST) was:
mbappe 77.59% haaland 77.25% raheem sterling 69.09% my player 68.08%
tam1236 said: Check how many do you have newgens/players with det<5 and then how many with prof<5 - then we can talk - btw 9/10 are medium values - of course if tests are not only editor generated theory. And not only PA>140 because this filter information is nothing. Especially if applied to newgens. Expand Interesting.. I had assumed that after they got rid of national personality templates, they replaced it with a purely random assignment of them.
SI said at the time:
Rather than using a template based on the averages of existing players of a certain nationality, all personality attributes of newgen players are now generated randomly for every nationality
The new system Sports Interactive moved to abandoned the nation-based averages and replaced them with a system that gives newgens a random set of attributes based on their role and position
If I search for pro 5< there seems to be an equal representation of positions, but I do notice that 80% of them also have det 5<. I also notice that for both 5< pro and >18 pro, there are often repeating clubs (i.e. 3-5 players from the same club in the list).
One club I looked at (San Francisco City FC) that had 2 x 19 pro newgens, they had no staff, not even a manager. They have terrible facilities. I couldn't work out any possible correlates.
You are quite right in the points you make and there are indeed a lot more low 5< det newgens than 5< pro newgens. They seem to converge at ~12, and going by Orion's FM22 test of hidden attributes, pro actually matters less than det at this point (20 vs 10 pro = +5.6%, 20 vs 10 det = +12.7%, whereas 10 vs 1 pro = +46.3%, 10 vs 1 det = +10.2%). It holds true for existing players too, not just newgens. Then again, from memory pro does better for training than det.
Putting it all together, I guess det should be weighted in genie scout say 1.5x pro.
Bogdan said: yeah, been scheduling some friendlies here and there in international breaks. i manage a second league team and all the players are available in these international breaks. what i did find is that i need to choose carefully the opposing team in a friendly to not be such an easy match. i found that in matches against team that i demolish match sharpness doesn't improve. thank you and keep up the good work! P.S. i'm hoping to soon find a guide you create based on your findings to essentially assemble and manage a great team Expand I may be wrong, but I believe that opposing team quality/play doesn't affect match sharpness gain. I suspect what you are observing is the fact that friendlies only increase match sharpness by 60% of competitive matches (if I remember correctly). As match sharpness gain slows the higher it is, friendlies become less useful but still usable at match sharpness >90%. I've actually noticed that playing against minnows is best because it boosts morale, which is beneficial to future performance.
That's a 32% drop in performance. It is important to note though that Orion found the difference between 10 pressure and 20 pressure to only be 10%, but even that is significant.
This doesn't effect my templates, as they have 20 pressure, but I will have to update my Genie Scout ratings file.
The other one I'm particularly interested in is important matches. Orion said important matches makes ~6% difference. My results:
115 CA templates important matches 1 - 107, +168 | 108, +175
I forgot to mention that I did a quick test of my Genie Scout ratings before posting, as I'm really not sure if it works as intended.
I took Luton (relegation candidate in premier league), removed their players, and added 15 players who cost 3mil pounds or less who were high in the Genie Scout ratings. Average value *after* transferring to Luton was 3.1mil pounds. Value of top 15 default players was ~10mil pounds average. Using the knap tactic and blue set piece routines, results were:
Unlike the attribute template results, this isn't clear cut enough to be certain it's working as intended. Seems like it's doing alright though.
Samet2772 said: **Hello, if I use this file in FM 26 Genie Scout, will it work?** Expand I assume the ratings files are compatible between versions
My data is for FM24, but I don't think much changed for FM26. I heard long shots got a boost in particular, so maybe make long shots '3' instead of '1' say.
Bogdan said: I've been using your training schedule and got some nice results for half a season but I'm losing a lot of match sharpness between matches. is there any way around this? Expand I've managed it manually myself in testing successfully. It can be a bit tricky, but it's definitely doable, although I played with Man City which have a lot of fixtures. I had to schedule some friendlies during the times when there were 2 week gaps, and I suggest you do the same to maintain match sharpness (you could do it as reserve matches as well).
I would caution against simply adding more training sessions in, as I found it worsens training results in most cases, I would guess because you're replacing a rest session (high distribution to pace/acc) with a training session (distributes more to technicals/mentals) rather than simply 'adding' the training session on top.
Tested the old templates to compare, and also tested the new templates without attribute availability limits (i.e. 20 agil for GK instead of 17; 1 decisions instead of 6):
119.6 CA average (new templates) no limits - 114, +223 | 114, +204 Old templates 139.2 CA average - 110, +221 | 112, +172 | 114, +177 | 114, +167 | 114, +206
To make it fair I made all 0 CA attributes for the old templates the same, except flair and aggression. The results were a bit all over the place, not sure why.
+182.2 for new templates, +188.6 for old templates, but +17% CA cost for old templates, so overall the new templates are about ~14% better.
My 1 CA testing was run with the same conditions, so you can also add this to compare:
Didico said: Im using George's ratings and filtering the best U22 CB's that are south american, under value 15M. I have to go to best DC Rating, am i doing right? Expand Correct
A few extra things I left out of my post:
Genie Scout ratings will be ~70% max. This is necessary, don't try and change this, I put the weight as high as I can but Genie Scout limits it to 120 so I can't make it nicer.
The height values I give on the positions mean something. They are the minimum height you need to have a chance of getting 20 jumping reach off the bat, but more importantly what you need if you intend to train to 20, as the meta training only increases jump reach by ~2 over 4 years. Kudos to ClaudeJ for pointing out this interesting find that comes from an Italian official FM researcher guide page. They tell the low-level researchers to assign jump reach according to this table:
And Aerial Reach for GK:
I put pace/acc as 20 in my templates, but I'll re-emphasize that the rest of the attributes represent high/low attribute values in existing players. I think it's kinda useful, because while we know now that 1 decisions and 20 dribbling is ideal, what we really need to know is whether or not a player with 6 decisions or 14 dribbling is the best we're going to be able to realistically find. With these templates, you can look at a DC with 13 dribbling and realize, this is actually a valuable find.
Kma said: Please, can you explain that altering knap tactic (i.e. 'very attacking'/'defensive', 'work into box', etc.) was worse than default ? Expand I would change the Knap tactic slightly in those ways, i.e. just put 'work ball into box' on, to see if it would boost my results. None of my changes did, the tactic was best as-is.
max 737 said: How do you get to this screen? I am getting this option of IP and OOP roles? Expand I wouldn't know, I'm not using FM26
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing 2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes 3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138 115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183 Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251 200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167 DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175 GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195 outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173 outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170 no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170 outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135 GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173 outfield 1 agil - 109, +144 flair 20 - 112, +173 teamwork 20 - 114, +158 first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223 first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187 AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176 DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182 str 20 - 111, +216 DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190 AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207 DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results. Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now.
flob said: I am a bit late to the party, but I have decided to play FM24 again and wait with FM26. Anyway, I was wondering if I also should team train my U21 and U19 teams + if I should individual train those players. If so, do I use the same team train schedule or a different one? Expand Same training should be applied to all teams and players
However I see now the reason why HarvestGreen suggested full rest for young players before switching to a more balanced regime once they reach near 20 pace/acc. They need the pace/acc first to play good, but also the balanced regimes can be simply too slow to build pace/acc.
Even in a perfect test environment with 5 star coaching, pace/acc with the more balanced training is +6 after 4 years. In a more realistic test I did, it was only +1 acc and +2 pace after 3 years.
Part of what is going on here is that growth is highly influenced by CA-PA difference, so you really don't want to pump all that technical/mental CA into your player until the low CA pace/acc growth is largely done.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but I imagine the best way to go about it would be this:
First team - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack; full rest for congested weeks U21s - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack U18s - Full rest
Age 15 -> 17 (U18s) = +5 pace/acc Age 18 -> 20 (U21s) = +2 pace/acc
The thing is, certain key technicals such as dribbling are very hard to gain, so I think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you choose to start by losing drib points with full rest. But pace/acc is more important than drib. So it's debatable.
Bogdan said: thank you very much! and now for the total noob follow up question - how would you arrange it for a 2 match week? Expand Just fit it in best you can
If your players are too tired, I would just do all rest sessions for that week
Usually I would make it an attacking session + rest, but after testing training a bit, I see that that might have unintended negative consequences. The results of session combinations aren't exactly intuitive, you need to test it to know. At least with full rest, one knows what one is going to get - the best pace/acceleration gains, but losses in mental/technical areas.
Bogdan said: can you please explain what do you mean when you say "Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack"? i think they might be parts of a training schedule and if so can share a screenshot about how to use them in game? i'm a bit of a noob when it comes to training Expand
Sure
You can move them around, but don't add extra training or change rest to recovery, otherwise it will change and give different (inferior) training results. There is a delicate balance between rest sessions and training sessions going on.
This seems best, but you can change it if you want to, it seems to be mainly injury vs training tradeoff. This favors low injury rate.
Quickness focus for outfield Agility & Balance focus for GK
Leave position as default (i.e. AMR) instead of specific role, as it (can) negatively impact attribute allocation if you set specific role
Bar2 said: Thanks for the reply. Based on what you’re saying, do you think focusing our match preparation more on physical training would be more beneficial for overall performance? Expand Yes, the meta is Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack + Quickness focus
I played around with training a fair bit, it's very hard to beat, and it seems to do very well for match performance too not just attribute increases
Pace and acceleration are the two key attributes, not the other physicals
I was wondering about the hidden attributes though. Since they can influence things like consistency, pressure handling, important matches, professionalism, natural fitness, etc., do you plan to test how much impact these hidden attributes have in a 1 CA/PA environment?
It would be really interesting to see whether hidden attributes change the results as much as physical attributes do. Expand I keep them all at optimal since they cost 0 CA
Consistency theoretically should have zero impact because 1 CA - (any) CA = 1 CA, and I tested 1 CA a few times. There didn't seem to be any difference, but I can't say conclusively.
Professionalism, natural fitness, important matches, I know would all impact results significantly without needing to test. Others theoretically have some minor effects.
If you want to know what these attributes are relative to pace/acc, here is my conclusion I've arrived at previously:
Important matches I forgot to take notes properly on, but my general impression was that it's significantly more important than what I initially thought. Because from vague memory it affects all high rep league matches (i.e. premier league), not just the FA cup final say. Maybe like a 5% performance difference for every match say. Compare that to consistency, where consistency is only say ~10 non-physical CA less for the match, which could make 0 difference.
The original test was done on young players with enough PA to develop. I was wondering, if a player is already fully developed, can I mould him into a faster player by quickness training and resting? Or in other words, does a fully developed player loose technical and mental attributes to free up CA points which then are redistributed into physical attributes by this type of training?
Thanks in advance for any answers. And if this was answered earlier and I overread it, then I apologize for it. Expand I don't know if you can boost or even maintain the acc/pace on older players, but I do know that attribute growth slows down a lot as CA approaches PA. These older players would in most cases be at PA limit, so I would assume that even if you could convert mental/technical stats into physical, it would do so at a very slow rate that is also then being eroded by the player's aging.
clox said: Yo, I registered just because I keep wondering if you somehow adjusted your GS values in accordance with your recent findings about player stats and match engine.
When FM26 came out, and you posted your ratings in this thread, I based mine on yours but made some changes, mostly trying to 'highlight' acc and pace more.
Now that you said in a different thread that acc and pace are basically a huge game changer only if a player reaches 20 in both, I wanted to ask if you adjusted your GS values as well. Much appreciated. Expand I'll probably update the GS filter in the next 2 weeks. It's a bit outdated now.
I'm thinking I will make the updated GS filter use pre-training values. For instance, I now know that in an optimal scenario, the best overall training schedule does +6-7 acc and +1-2 drib on DC after 4 years. If you put on 'ball control' focus it's +4 drib, but that comes at expense of acc/pace. For 2 years, and presumably less optimal conditions, it's +3 acc and +1 drib. So for DC filter I'd want to configure it to favor players that are ~17 acc and ~19 drib. Maybe I'll have to make 2 filters though, as GS can be used to choose players to play too, in which case you'll want the % to be based on their current stats.
I'm also thinking about player availability, i.e. max values you will typically find are far lower at ~15 acc and ~13 drib, but if I'm thinking about this correctly, I don't think that has to be taken into account in the GS filter numbers themselves (it's the scoring system we're talking about, not the filter).
Acc/pace are highly valuable in any amount. A team of low acc/pace players will never be competitive, regardless of what other stats they have. What I meant was that in order for them to get away with acc/pace/jump/drib alone, the acc/pace needs to be ~17+ at least (for premier league). So the implication here isn't favor 13 acc 18 ant over 15 acc 10 ant, it's more like favor 17 acc 4 ant over 13 acc 18 con. The 15 acc 10 ant would still beat the 13 acc 18 ant.
This time I believe I am not mistaken.
If you look at my 1 CA templates, you'll see I use at least 7 work rate. Not because 7 is required, but because mentals/technicals can decrease as training redistributes attributes. I am, as you are, taking the 6 minimum from HarvestGreen's data. In this case I am still using the extra 1 point buffer, as in my ideal test of the meta training work rate was +1-2 after 4 years, and as mentioned I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training results, so 6 filter denotes 7 after training.
The attributes in italics are in italics for the reason that they are difficult to find, but they are not impossible to find. I have taken them from my ~115 CA ideal templates, which in turn are taken from a search of the database in Genie Scout to find attribute values for which there are at least ~50 players available. If I filter for attributes for DC, including the drib 13, there are 9 results, 1 of which is age 28 and valued at $150k pounds. If you remove the drib 13, as I recommended, I find 245 results.
As shown in my 1 CA results, jump reach of 1 scored best for ST. Not because 20 isn't better of course, but because it isn't strictly necessary. The reason jump 15 is included for AML/AMR is because I believe it is strictly necessary if want to get the bulk of performance. Yes I tried 20 jump ST with 1 jump AML/AMR. Yes I tried 20 jump with 20 head, 20 jump + head + strength, and so on. All failures. The poster asked for the minimums for a filter - 12-13 pace/acc results in ~16-17 pace/acc after training, which is the bare minimum I found to be able to do very good in the Premier League.
Just have to ask on the topic of certain attributes, do you have like a summary of what you would consider the minimum viable value for certain attributes. For example, you have the example of 12 for professionalism being what you would consider a minimum value for 'good' player.
I guess what I am asking is to combine your ratings file with a filter for certain attributes as well, although file will do a great job by itself and this may be unnecessary. Apologies if I've missed it in another post.
GK - agil 11, pace 4, work 6, aer 15, ref 9, comp 4
DL/DR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, work 6
DC - acc 12, pace 12, jump 16, drib 13
DM - acc 13, pace 13, work 6
AML/AMR - acc 13, pace 13, jump 15, pos 13, work 6
ST - acc 13, pace 13, work 6
Minimum 0 CA attributes for all positions (these I'm more guesstimating than the above): 6 det, 6 nat, 8 pressure, 8 pro, 14< dirt, 14< injury, 6 loyal, 8 consist, 6 imp match.
Attributes in italics will be difficult to find and you should probably leave out of your filter, even though they are important.
The idea here is that with training, you will reach what I consider the minimums for what accounts for the bulk of max performance. I actually wanted to make 'pre-training' templates, but I found the effects of training to be too variable when comparing idealized isolated tests vs realistic premier league use, and I don't know yet what is actually realistic or typical. But with this filter here, I'm assuming you will get ~2/3rds of ideal training over 4 years, resulting in pace 12 > 16, which is the bare minimum I believe to get tangible victories (for premier league). It may fall short, but it will still serve it's function of separating most of the chaff from the wheat.
In regards to pro 12 being necessary, what I meant was that primarily pro 12< is rare, and we also know the following (source: Orion's FM22 testing):
So actually it's pro ~10 that is necessary, but I would guess that ~8 is not too bad either, based on how work rate matters a great deal up to just 6 then it tails off.
YildizAli said: Where do I paste this?
.grf file goes into (FM Genie Scout folder) > Ratings. Then in Genie Scout, press top left button > Rating and load the file.
https://files.catbox.moe/hrvdl8.grf
New file for FM26 users:
https://files.catbox.moe/r5xm3t.grf
For the FM26 version I've simply made some changes to a few of the attributes based on HarvestGreen's FM26 testing, so it may be less accurate.
I've also updated WB/MC/AMC so they're reasonably usable now, but they're just copies of FB & DM.
The main changes have been to the hidden attributes. Some very important changes here.
For those interested, here is also some rationale behind the weightings I've chosen:
Let's take long shots as first example, because I've given long shots very low weighting (1 or 2) in spite of both HarvestGreen22's findings (low moderate positive effect, similar to finishing or composure, which I give around ~8) and the fact that long shots have low CA cost in pretty much every position. Well in my 1 CA testing, I found that switching between 20 and 1 long shots made no observable difference in performance. And when I looked where goals were scored from in the in-game analytics, virtually none from long shots, and my DC with 20 long shots scored 1 or 2 at most over the season. And then there is also my own purely speculative theory that the knap tactic isn't designed for throwing the ball away on distant pot shots, and even if it is, it probably requires high levels of 'vision' and whatnot to pull off. Contrast all this info to pace, which it's clear as day even 1 point extra in makes a difference. So I figure my starting point is, I wouldn't trade 1 point of pace on a DC for 20 points of long shots - that makes it's weighting a maximum of '4' when pace is '100'. Now if I look at DL, long shots has a CA weight of just '1' and I gave it weighting of '1' in genie scout, whereas for DC I gave it '2' - and of course, neither of these are '4'. Consider that for DL, dribbling is also '1' CA weight, and it does actually matter. But I also have to weigh up what other attributes take precedence before long shots. Take strength - it's a fairly costly attribute ('4' weight), but it demonstrably has at least has some performance effect. Would I rather 5 strength on my DL, or 20 long shots? I think the 5 strength is going to perform a little better, but I wouldn't even trade 20 strength for 1 pace partly because of performance, partly because of the high CA cost (we can't have everything). So I give pace 100 weight, strength 3, and long shots 1.
Now if you read all that, you will realize that what I'm doing is quite subjective and prone to imprecision. I prefer precision, and this is largely possible with attribute testing, but unfortunately filtering methods don't work that way - the more precise you are, the less results you get, or conversely you start trawling through a few hundred laxly bounded results but only get as far as the 7th player you pick out and unwittingly choose a 17 long 16 pace 15 acc player over a 8 long 18 pace 18 acc player that was further down the list because it was too tedious to go through them all. Filter weightings alleviate this somewhat by creating a kind of hierarchy of attributes, so those 18 pace/acc players will be near top of your list no matter what. But if you assign too much high (or even moderate) weights to too many attributes, you muddy the hierarchy and end up with at the top of your list a complete dog's breakfast of a player that is 18 long 16 tack 17 str 12 pac 14 acc 20 ant and apparently a 78.41% rating.
And sometimes the attributes are almost purely subjective or circumstantial in ways you cannot pin down to a precise number. For instance, natural fitness technically doesn't affect performance much, so long as you manage it right - but managing a squad's match fitness I find requires you to have say ~30% of your players with high natural fitness so they can skip games to allow for a sizable squad without ill consequence. Loyalty.. I'm not aware it has any impact on performance at all, yet we all know the value of a loyal player - personally I figure I'd be willing to trade 1 each of pace & acc for it. For someone else it might be more or less, but I have to put some figure there.
One more I will make an example of is professionalism. I've reduced it to '16' in this update, which is relatively low now. Professionalism is actually very important for both performance and training, and it's 0 CA cost. But it turns out professionalism under 12 is quite rare, and the benefits of 12 -> 20 are much less than 1 -> 12. I do calculations based on all of this info to get a true relative figure. Although again a bit wishy washy, this type is actually quite solidly grounded in the performance stats.
Taking one from the middle and applying latest genie scout ratings I haven't uploaded yet (position is AMR):
mohamed salah 77.28%
messi 71.13%
jack grealish 66.83%
my player 66.30%
rank 102nd
Highest valued player (ST) was:
mbappe 77.59%
haaland 77.25%
raheem sterling 69.09%
my player 68.08%
rank 60th
Interesting.. I had assumed that after they got rid of national personality templates, they replaced it with a purely random assignment of them.
SI said at the time:
Rather than using a template based on the averages of existing players of a certain nationality, all personality attributes of newgen players are now generated randomly for every nationality
The new system Sports Interactive moved to abandoned the nation-based averages and replaced them with a system that gives newgens a random set of attributes based on their role and position
If I search for pro 5< there seems to be an equal representation of positions, but I do notice that 80% of them also have det 5<. I also notice that for both 5< pro and >18 pro, there are often repeating clubs (i.e. 3-5 players from the same club in the list).
One club I looked at (San Francisco City FC) that had 2 x 19 pro newgens, they had no staff, not even a manager. They have terrible facilities. I couldn't work out any possible correlates.
You are quite right in the points you make and there are indeed a lot more low 5< det newgens than 5< pro newgens. They seem to converge at ~12, and going by Orion's FM22 test of hidden attributes, pro actually matters less than det at this point (20 vs 10 pro = +5.6%, 20 vs 10 det = +12.7%, whereas 10 vs 1 pro = +46.3%, 10 vs 1 det = +10.2%). It holds true for existing players too, not just newgens. Then again, from memory pro does better for training than det.
Putting it all together, I guess det should be weighted in genie scout say 1.5x pro.
what i did find is that i need to choose carefully the opposing team in a friendly to not be such an easy match. i found that in matches against team that i demolish match sharpness doesn't improve.
thank you and keep up the good work!
P.S. i'm hoping to soon find a guide you create based on your findings to essentially assemble and manage a great team
I may be wrong, but I believe that opposing team quality/play doesn't affect match sharpness gain. I suspect what you are observing is the fact that friendlies only increase match sharpness by 60% of competitive matches (if I remember correctly). As match sharpness gain slows the higher it is, friendlies become less useful but still usable at match sharpness >90%. I've actually noticed that playing against minnows is best because it boosts morale, which is beneficial to future performance.
So I've tested it, and it really is important:
115 CA templates pressure 1 - 102, +127 | 105, +119
That's a 32% drop in performance. It is important to note though that Orion found the difference between 10 pressure and 20 pressure to only be 10%, but even that is significant.
This doesn't effect my templates, as they have 20 pressure, but I will have to update my Genie Scout ratings file.
The other one I'm particularly interested in is important matches. Orion said important matches makes ~6% difference. My results:
115 CA templates important matches 1 - 107, +168 | 108, +175
So ~6% decrease, which matches Orion's finding.
I took Luton (relegation candidate in premier league), removed their players, and added 15 players who cost 3mil pounds or less who were high in the Genie Scout ratings. Average value *after* transferring to Luton was 3.1mil pounds. Value of top 15 default players was ~10mil pounds average. Using the knap tactic and blue set piece routines, results were:
Luton (3mil< pound players) 7th, 70, +33
Luton default players 5th, 77, +33
Unlike the attribute template results, this isn't clear cut enough to be certain it's working as intended. Seems like it's doing alright though.
Samet2772 said: **Hello, if I use this file in FM 26 Genie Scout, will it work?**
I assume the ratings files are compatible between versions
My data is for FM24, but I don't think much changed for FM26. I heard long shots got a boost in particular, so maybe make long shots '3' instead of '1' say.
is there any way around this?
I've managed it manually myself in testing successfully. It can be a bit tricky, but it's definitely doable, although I played with Man City which have a lot of fixtures. I had to schedule some friendlies during the times when there were 2 week gaps, and I suggest you do the same to maintain match sharpness (you could do it as reserve matches as well).
I would caution against simply adding more training sessions in, as I found it worsens training results in most cases, I would guess because you're replacing a rest session (high distribution to pace/acc) with a training session (distributes more to technicals/mentals) rather than simply 'adding' the training session on top.
119.6 CA average (new templates) no limits - 114, +223 | 114, +204
Old templates 139.2 CA average - 110, +221 | 112, +172 | 114, +177 | 114, +167 | 114, +206
To make it fair I made all 0 CA attributes for the old templates the same, except flair and aggression. The results were a bit all over the place, not sure why.
+182.2 for new templates, +188.6 for old templates, but +17% CA cost for old templates, so overall the new templates are about ~14% better.
My 1 CA testing was run with the same conditions, so you can also add this to compare:
1 CA templates (best single result) - 91, +78
I have to go to best DC Rating, am i doing right?
Correct
A few extra things I left out of my post:
Genie Scout ratings will be ~70% max. This is necessary, don't try and change this, I put the weight as high as I can but Genie Scout limits it to 120 so I can't make it nicer.
The height values I give on the positions mean something. They are the minimum height you need to have a chance of getting 20 jumping reach off the bat, but more importantly what you need if you intend to train to 20, as the meta training only increases jump reach by ~2 over 4 years. Kudos to ClaudeJ for pointing out this interesting find that comes from an Italian official FM researcher guide page. They tell the low-level researchers to assign jump reach according to this table:
And Aerial Reach for GK:
I put pace/acc as 20 in my templates, but I'll re-emphasize that the rest of the attributes represent high/low attribute values in existing players. I think it's kinda useful, because while we know now that 1 decisions and 20 dribbling is ideal, what we really need to know is whether or not a player with 6 decisions or 14 dribbling is the best we're going to be able to realistically find. With these templates, you can look at a DC with 13 dribbling and realize, this is actually a valuable find.
I would change the Knap tactic slightly in those ways, i.e. just put 'work ball into box' on, to see if it would boost my results. None of my changes did, the tactic was best as-is.
max 737 said: How do you get to this screen? I am getting this option of IP and OOP roles?
I wouldn't know, I'm not using FM26
115 CA average:
200 CA:
Genie Scout ratings file:
https://files.catbox.moe/f2052w.grf
GK, FB, DC, DM, Winger, Fast ST are valid.
Sweeper is GK with captain emphasis. Target striker is ST with penalties & free kicks emphasis. WB, MC and AMC I've left unchanged from my first genie scout ratings version, so they're outdated, but they're not bad if you want to search those positions.
Two quotes spring to mind:
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
There are several known unknowns in my templates. For instance I know from my 1 CA testing that balance of 17 on my ST is probably unnecessary for performance. But I don't have the time and energy to test and verify every attribute, so I employed the following method:
1. Use and verify the key attributes identified by my 1 CA testing
2. Test and verify a bunch of remaining high CA weight attributes
3. Leave remaining attributes as-is that got best results just before my 1 CA testing
So I know for certain that these ideal templates could be better, but they are nonetheless say ~90% peak performance, where balance 17 may be too excessive and flair 12 may be too low.. or high.. and corners 12 may be just plain stupid - but these attributes will account for just a small handful of CA. Perhaps sometime later I will fix these lesser attributes up.
I also realized that my 1 CA templates distill the key attributes better. So I thought I would instead use these templates to illustrate not just the key attributes, but also what's actually realistic. So with my ~115 CA templates, attribute values are bounded by what players are actually available - there had to be at least ~50 players available with each particular value in the specified position.
That doesn't make my templates worse performing, I haven't compared them to the old ones specifically yet, but they should be significantly better.
I've isolated and optimized things better, so it's not comparable to the old results.
Here's the performance data (English Premier League, as Man City):
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 12 other visible (133 CA outfield average) - 111, +138
115 CA template (118 CA outfield average) - 112, +198 | 109, +178 | 114, +169 | 114, +183 | 110, +183
Outfield 20 acc/pace/jump/drib 14 other visible (169 CA outfield average) - 114, +251
200 CA template - 114, +409
For those interested, here are the results of some attribute changes:
DC pos mark agil tack 1 - 114, +167
DL/DR DC DM mark 1 - 112, +175 | 114, +175
GK hand acc bra con communic command pos 1 - 112, +182 | 112, +195
outfield bal 1 - 110, +163 | 112, +173
outfield ant 20 - 107, +169 | 110, +170
no preferred moves - 114, +170 | 107, +170
outfield ant 1 - 110, +127 | 110, +135
GK str one pass bal 1 - 109, +160 | 111, +173
outfield 1 agil - 109, +144
flair 20 - 112, +173
teamwork 20 - 114, +158
first str 20 - 114, +242 | 114, +223
first 20 - 114, +198 | 110, +187
AML/AMR ST first 20 - 111, +176
DL/DR DC DM first 20 - 110, +182
str 20 - 111, +216
DL/DR DC DM str 20 - 110, +190
AML/AMR ST str 20 - 114, +207
DL/DR DC 7 pos (reduced from high pos) - 110, +198 | 114, +177 | 112, +187
I've highlighted the most surprising results.
Note: These should really be compared against [112, +187] as I made some adjustments (i.e. GK; attribute decreases) after these results.
So preferred moves don't seem to matter; not much at least. Anticipation matters quite significantly. Agility matters moderately, but would be outweighed by its expensive CA cost. High flair doesn't seem to be bad, but perhaps not beneficial either. GK acceleration, and a bunch of other GK specific attributes, seem to hardly matter at all. Strength matters moderately, and only on forwards, but probably outweighed by high CA cost. First touch has minor to moderate effect, but it costs too much like strength. In the end I decided not to boost first touch + strength, the CA cost isn't worth it, especially when you consider that CA-PA difference is crucial to training growth (if your ideal player is 140 CA, that means you actually need say ~170+ PA if you want him to realistically grow into it). As you can see I tested balance even though its only weight is only 2, and lowering it resulted in worse performance, so I decided to just leave it high, even though the real optimum I would guesstimate is ~12.
These are from me testing attributes I wasn't sure on. A lot of attributes I already have a solid idea about from my 1 CA testing.
In regards to the Genie Scout Ratings, it's quite radically changed from my previous version. The way I decided to approach it is this: An attribute is worth as much pace/acc I would intuitively be willing to swap for it. I've been working with the data and reckon I have a good feel for it, so I trust my intuition here. So for instance, if I think about dribbling for AML/AMR, I know dribbling is important and also hard to train, but I also know that under 17 pace/acc is a no-go no matter what the dribbling is. So really what I'm saying is, 20 drib = 6 pace/acc. So drib = 30% (6/20). Then I might apply a very minor adjustment, in this case to 29%, for other factors I feel are relevant.
So in my refreshed genie scout ratings, most attributes are reduced a lot compared to pace/acc. The one that makes me a bit uncomfortable is jumping reach. It can be jumping reach is around about as valuable as pace/acc perhaps, but my thinking is that pace/acc does very good without jump, whereas jump without pace/acc sucks. Also jump only matters a lot if its very high, I would guess. I think the limits are 15 pace/acc + 20 jump for DC (20 jump = 10 pace/acc), 18 pace/acc + 20 jump for AML/AMR (20 jump = 4 pace/acc), and so I weighted it accordingly. There are a few other attributes I want to reassess, such as 'pressure' and 'important matches', but this is where I'm at right now.
Same training should be applied to all teams and players
However I see now the reason why HarvestGreen suggested full rest for young players before switching to a more balanced regime once they reach near 20 pace/acc. They need the pace/acc first to play good, but also the balanced regimes can be simply too slow to build pace/acc.
Even in a perfect test environment with 5 star coaching, pace/acc with the more balanced training is +6 after 4 years. In a more realistic test I did, it was only +1 acc and +2 pace after 3 years.
Part of what is going on here is that growth is highly influenced by CA-PA difference, so you really don't want to pump all that technical/mental CA into your player until the low CA pace/acc growth is largely done.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but I imagine the best way to go about it would be this:
First team - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack; full rest for congested weeks
U21s - Quick + Match Prac + 2xAttack
U18s - Full rest
Age 15 -> 17 (U18s) = +5 pace/acc
Age 18 -> 20 (U21s) = +2 pace/acc
The thing is, certain key technicals such as dribbling are very hard to gain, so I think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you choose to start by losing drib points with full rest. But pace/acc is more important than drib. So it's debatable.
Just fit it in best you can
If your players are too tired, I would just do all rest sessions for that week
Usually I would make it an attacking session + rest, but after testing training a bit, I see that that might have unintended negative consequences. The results of session combinations aren't exactly intuitive, you need to test it to know. At least with full rest, one knows what one is going to get - the best pace/acceleration gains, but losses in mental/technical areas.
i think they might be parts of a training schedule and if so can share a screenshot about how to use them in game?
i'm a bit of a noob when it comes to training
Sure
You can move them around, but don't add extra training or change rest to recovery, otherwise it will change and give different (inferior) training results. There is a delicate balance between rest sessions and training sessions going on.
This seems best, but you can change it if you want to, it seems to be mainly injury vs training tradeoff. This favors low injury rate.
Quickness focus for outfield
Agility & Balance focus for GK
Leave position as default (i.e. AMR) instead of specific role, as it (can) negatively impact attribute allocation if you set specific role
Yes, the meta is Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack + Quickness focus
I played around with training a fair bit, it's very hard to beat, and it seems to do very well for match performance too not just attribute increases
Pace and acceleration are the two key attributes, not the other physicals
I was wondering about the hidden attributes though.
Since they can influence things like consistency, pressure handling, important matches, professionalism, natural fitness, etc., do you plan to test how much impact these hidden attributes have in a 1 CA/PA environment?
It would be really interesting to see whether hidden attributes change the results as much as physical attributes do.
I keep them all at optimal since they cost 0 CA
Consistency theoretically should have zero impact because 1 CA - (any) CA = 1 CA, and I tested 1 CA a few times. There didn't seem to be any difference, but I can't say conclusively.
Professionalism, natural fitness, important matches, I know would all impact results significantly without needing to test. Others theoretically have some minor effects.
If you want to know what these attributes are relative to pace/acc, here is my conclusion I've arrived at previously:
1 pace = 2 professionalism = 5 dirtiness = 17 consistency
Important matches I forgot to take notes properly on, but my general impression was that it's significantly more important than what I initially thought. Because from vague memory it affects all high rep league matches (i.e. premier league), not just the FA cup final say. Maybe like a 5% performance difference for every match say. Compare that to consistency, where consistency is only say ~10 non-physical CA less for the match, which could make 0 difference.
The original test was done on young players with enough PA to develop. I was wondering, if a player is already fully developed, can I mould him into a faster player by quickness training and resting? Or in other words, does a fully developed player loose technical and mental attributes to free up CA points which then are redistributed into physical attributes by this type of training?
Thanks in advance for any answers. And if this was answered earlier and I overread it, then I apologize for it.
I don't know if you can boost or even maintain the acc/pace on older players, but I do know that attribute growth slows down a lot as CA approaches PA. These older players would in most cases be at PA limit, so I would assume that even if you could convert mental/technical stats into physical, it would do so at a very slow rate that is also then being eroded by the player's aging.
When FM26 came out, and you posted your ratings in this thread, I based mine on yours but made some changes, mostly trying to 'highlight' acc and pace more.
Now that you said in a different thread that acc and pace are basically a huge game changer only if a player reaches 20 in both, I wanted to ask if you adjusted your GS values as well. Much appreciated.
I'll probably update the GS filter in the next 2 weeks. It's a bit outdated now.
I'm thinking I will make the updated GS filter use pre-training values. For instance, I now know that in an optimal scenario, the best overall training schedule does +6-7 acc and +1-2 drib on DC after 4 years. If you put on 'ball control' focus it's +4 drib, but that comes at expense of acc/pace. For 2 years, and presumably less optimal conditions, it's +3 acc and +1 drib. So for DC filter I'd want to configure it to favor players that are ~17 acc and ~19 drib. Maybe I'll have to make 2 filters though, as GS can be used to choose players to play too, in which case you'll want the % to be based on their current stats.
I'm also thinking about player availability, i.e. max values you will typically find are far lower at ~15 acc and ~13 drib, but if I'm thinking about this correctly, I don't think that has to be taken into account in the GS filter numbers themselves (it's the scoring system we're talking about, not the filter).
Acc/pace are highly valuable in any amount. A team of low acc/pace players will never be competitive, regardless of what other stats they have. What I meant was that in order for them to get away with acc/pace/jump/drib alone, the acc/pace needs to be ~17+ at least (for premier league). So the implication here isn't favor 13 acc 18 ant over 15 acc 10 ant, it's more like favor 17 acc 4 ant over 13 acc 18 con. The 15 acc 10 ant would still beat the 13 acc 18 ant.