ZaZ said: It would cause players to be unhappy for being demoted, and it would also be too much extra work for too little benefit. The staff of those teams is also different and possibly of inferior quality. Expand
Yes, this is a problem. Actually I have a question about the quality of training: in the game, we can assign each coach with different focusing training fields, there is an overall rating under each field, for example, we can assign a coach to focus on attacking-tech, or defending-tech, and we can see the rating for it, but is this rating for the whole team (squad-A,B,U20,U18)? or only for squad-A? Did you test this?
ZaZ said: For the first question, unfortunately you cannot set different training schedules for each group of training. In the case you describe, your best bet is to use a different individual focus, instead of quickness.
About goalkeeper, it has the same problem. You cannot set up different training for a single position, so it is a situation hard to solve. Expand
Can I do the following:
Squad-A training schedule: only attacking and mental Squad-B training schedule: only defending and mental Under-20 training schedule: only Goalkeeper training Under-18 training schedule: only physical training
So for a newly signed young player, first sent him to Under-18, after his physical reach maxima
if he is a AM,AMR,AML,ST, then sent to Squad-A if he is a DM,DC,DL,DR, then sent to Squad-B if he is a goalkeeper, then sent to Under-20
ZaZ said: Yes, it can. It depends on how much CA it has left, but you can use some special training schedules with focus on pace and acceleration, that do not increase much other attributes. Expand
Hi, @ZaZ , I use your train schedules, and I find most of sections are to train the "physical" and "attacking", what if the player has reach his maxima of physical attributes and how can I train his mental attributes or defending attributes?
Another issue is currently I have a young PA-180 goalkeeper, what schedule should I use for training the goalkeeper? Can I use your schedule (1match,2match,rebalance-1match, rebalance-2match) to train goalkeeper? But I couldn't find goalkeeper sections in your train schedule.
jayarl said: The only I would say is that consistency for Udogie is not great. That's the only real draw back to him. Lukeba with him being a good CB as well as LB and having very good consistency probably shades it for me, but I'd get him on some individual training to bolster his physicals as much as you can.
No real wrong answer I don't think. Expand
For Lukeba , the GS tool says his highest potential acceleration is 15, if I set individual training on quickness for him, can his acceleration surpass 15 and become 16,or 17?
Yarema said: Make a list of which attributes one and the other have better and by how much and then decide what you prefer. I think it's close but the winner is obvious, but you may have other preferences. Expand
Do you mean the mental attributes are not that important comparing with physical attributes?
Yarema said: It's quite tough to find where Lukeba is better (on paper), it's close but Udogie seems better almost everywhere where there is a tiny difference. Also whether it's DL or WBL is pretty much the same Expand
Lukeba is better on aggression，brave, anticipation，marking, heading, jump, consistency
Udogie (age22) is better on physical attributes, Lukeba (age22) is better on mental attributes and hidden attribute. The price is Udogie 90M, Ludeba 70M.
I think Udogie is better as a WBL, but I am wondering who is better as a DL?
Falbravv said: Thanks for this work. This doesn't really matter in my games because i only use CA/PA / Prof / and some others tools.
The game only have 6-7 key attributes, it's easy to compare them directly in game.
But we all know this tool is edit every year by the same guy, who claim the same money, for something which doesn't evolve a centimeter in 10 years. Expand
@Rain There is a big issue with GS, due to those hidden curving coefficients. If you have a programing background then you know what I am saying about their source-code.
This actually can explain why sometimes we feel "ridiculous" for the setting values in the rating file. For example,
If I claim in the rating file, I set dribbling = 50 for both center-back and winger, you must think I am stupid and ridiculous. It makes sense dribbling=50 for winger, but why set dribbling=50 for center-back?
This issue is due to those "Extra Curving Coefficients (ECC)", for example, the ECC on "dribbling" for winger is 0.9, for center-back is 0.1, then the actual buffed values are
50*0.9 = 45 for winger 50*0.1 = 5 for center-back
This makes more sense, doesn't it? It explains why we need to set such a crazy value (dribbling=50) for center-back, because the ECC for center-back is too low in their source-code!!!
Finally, go back to my title, there is a BIG BIG problem for the current GS app. The problem is: what if I want to buff some attribute (say, attribute-X) significantly? For example, I want to buff X by 30, here 30 is a true 30. But what if the ECC was fixed as 0.1 for X in their original code?
Because the maximum input for rating file for attribute X is 100, then actual maximum buff is
100*0.1=10
THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN BUFF attribute-X BY A VALUE OF 30! NEVER!!! This is the biggest problem in GS.
This means even though we re-adjust those attributes in the rating files, it is not very effective, because the source-code already sets some strong coefficients there, for example, in their source code they fix it as 0.1, so even though we re-adjust the attributes to 100, it only improves by 100*0.1=10
Take Center-back as an example:
The coefficients for the extra curving is acceleration is 0.4, jump is 0.8
It also includes the strong foot and weak foot into their extra curving. But I remember someone had already tested that strong/weak foot doesn't affect anything in FM26. So the FM Genie Scout is completely out of date.
To my surprise, in their source-code
"Height" is a KEY attribute!!! See the green-circled part,
If the height is greater than 190 cm, it adds 100 attributes
If the height is below 190 cm and above 180cm, it adds 50 attributes
It is completely chaotic!
We need to re-write a completely new Genie Scout code for FM26 and for the future.
OK, I found the source code from Github, although this source code is for GS2011, it confirms my idea in OP, which is they applied extra curving in their source code, here are screenshots, you can also go to Github to see it:
I find a bug from "Genie Scout 26 (GS26)", it can't correctly calculate the ratings. For example, I set the rating as
then I compare two players, Riad vs Leoni, their attributes are
A simple hand-calculation shows, (only need to compute the difference for each key-attribute, the first parenthesis is the difference for physical attributes, the second parenthesis is the difference for mental attributes, Riad is +, Leoni is -)
(1*60 -2*40 +60 -15 -35) + (3*44 -52 +44 +52 -2*56 +44) is GREATER than 0,
so Riad is better as a Center-Back, but GS26 says Leoni is better
The only way to explain this bug is GS26 using some hidden "Extra Curving", and it is fixed in their code, NOT editable. But we don't know how is it written in their code.
For example,
player-A has acceleration 15, pace 15, player-B has acceleration 14, pace 16.
All other attributes are the same. And if we set both acceleration and pace with 100 in the rating file of GS26. Overall, the two players should have the same ratings, namely, (15-14)*100+(15-16)*100=0.
But if GS26 uses some "Extra Curving" in its code, for example, it sets
acceleration with "Extra Curving" weight of 1.1, pace with "Extra Curving" weight of 0.9,
then we get
(15-14)*100*1.1+(15-16)*100*0.9 = 20
Then overall player-A is better. But we don't know how is this "Extra Curving" written in their code!!
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yes, pressure is important. I first saw this when I came across Orion's FM22 test on it, and I think HarvestGreen has recently posted data for this for FM24 too. It's not as critical as pace/acc, because it seems that 10 or a bit even lower can be sufficient. I would speculate that it's going to be like work rate where 6 is the point beyond which returns start to tail off. But as we can see from the chart, pressure 10 > 20 is a 10% boost which is still highly significant (equivalent to 1 > 10 consistency or determination).
The weights are simply their values x 4 right now. So pressure 52/4 = 13. I'm actually yet to test pressure less than 13 yet, I suspect it could drop a point or two. You haven't asked about how weightings should be derived from attribute levels that work, but it touches on the matter. I don't want to get into this anyway, but let's just say there's no one way of approaching it. At the moment, I'm going for a transparent, simple approach, and I will be giving this more thought later. To give you a straightforward example of what I mean, consider pace/acc. 14-15 is necessary to finish ~5th, but a team of 13 will get you relegated. So perhaps one would say let's make that 56 weighting 100 instead, just to ensure you get at least 14 pace/acc. And for pressure, it's 52 weighting, but you only *really* need say ~6-10, with little benefit for 14+, so maybe let's make that 45 instead of 52. In a way that produces better results, but the formula is more opaque and perhaps more whimsical, and yet there are also other downsides/trade-offs too when you start thinking about this deeply.
I think I have accidentally used 4xDC 17 with 2xST (out of 4) 17 and the result wasn't noticeably different (hence I didn't realize until a bit later).
I've answered the balance & dribbling for DC question, it's because the key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions. Expand
Besdies pressure, what about other attributes, which need to do the manually filter? "important match"=10? 15?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Marking, tackling, heading, positioning have zero or close to zero effect for all positions
Pressure is important (52), but is not included in the Genie Scout weightings because it really stuffs up Genie Scout's calculations if you put it in. I recommend instead using a filter of 8 and then manually assessing.
The key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions. There may be some positional differences, but so far I haven't found any. And as you can see from my old files, I was strongly inclined to believe in positional differences, so this isn't my laziness or what I want to believe, I'm just going by the results I see.
I will say that of all the positions, based on testing I've done in the past, the position most likely to have differences is DM (and probably by extension, MC and AMC).
Results I had regarding jumping reach differences:
DC 16 - 5th, 8th DC 15 - 8th, 10th 2xST 17, DC 13 - 4th Normal at the time (DC 17) was ~4th-5th
Can't find the 15< results, but from the above you can see that 17 > 16 is drop of ~2 positions, 17 > 15 is drop of ~5 positions. If you extrapolate, 14 would be bottom table, and 13 would be relegated. Maybe 13 survives, I can't remember, but I know it's bad in any case. Expand
1. If pressure has a weight 52, then it is super important, it is as important as acceleration and pace, isn't it? how much pressure is good? probably at least 15?
2. Are there any other attributes (just as pressure) which are important but you are not putting them into Genie Scout's calculations? I mean what else attributes (besides pressure) we need to manually filter them?
3. You use two ST with jump 17 to do the test, not DC, Did you ever use two DC with jumping 17 or 18 to test it?
4. Why give so much weight to balance and dribbling for DC?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You should use the new zhf2yl.grf file, it's the best for both FM24 and FM26. It hasn't been adjusted for FM26, but it wouldn't be much different.
In the old r5xm3t.grf file, DR is same as WBR because I didn't care about WBR, MC, AMC position as I used 424 Knap tactic and those extra positions would be double the work. This is still the case, however it turns out that all outfield positions share almost identical attribute requirements anyway.
I don't know if 2 jump would be better than 1 jump + 1 pace, but I would assume the former because if you have one jump player what happens when he gets substituted, injured, rested or whatnot. In fact, it's probably best to have 3-4 to be on the safe side.. but of course you're not going to have 4x 17 jump. A realistic outcome may end up like this: 16, 15, 15, 14.
For the Premier League, the pace/acc cutoff is ~14, and if you really need to, you can utilize the game's allowance for one player lacking this. So specifically your DC roster might look like this:
16 jump, 14 pace/acc (key player) - 29/38 league apps, 4/8 cup 15 jump, 15 pace/acc (first team) - 25/38 league, 4/8 cup 15 jump, 11 pace/14 acc (rotation) - 14/38 league, 4/8 cup 14 jump, 12 pace/acc (backup) - 6/38 league, 2/8 cup 12 jump, 10 pace/acc (youth hot prospect) - 2/38 league, 2/8 cup Expand
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Jumping reach isn't quite all or nothing, but there will be a steep drop off if you don't have what I suppose is the tallest player on the field. I'm not sure if it's one or two players you need, since I almost always use 2x 17 in my tests. They don't have to be both DC, but I think probably having 1 being DC is best (I think I vaguely remember testing 2x DC 17 vs 2x ST 17..). You can only get the best you can get, so if you can't get 17 unless it's some 36-year-old with 7 pace/acc, then go for 16.. 15.. etc.
I don't think you have loaded the correct file. I double checked, and the file in the OP (zhf2yl.grf) has 44 reflexes, 52 acceleration.
That info for GK is outdated. What I found is that reflexes hit diminishing returns after ~10-11. And there were some other surprises too. HarvestGreen found that reflexes is the most important attribute, but if you look at his test conditions, he is setting all attributes to 20 then reducing reflexes to 1. My inference is that this means reflexes requires a certain minimum to function properly, but it doesn't mean his data contradicts mine.
Yes Expand
1. I play FM26 so I use this file "r5xm3t.grf", in this file, GK setting is reflex=57, acc=1, could you check it please?
2. I also find in this file "r5xm3t.grf", DR(L) and WBR(L) have exactly same settings, why?
3. Is there a latest version of rating file for FM26?
4. I use 4 defenders tactics, and both my two DC are jumping reach =18, and both their pace are 15, Is this ideal? or should I choose one DC's jumping=18 pace=15, the other DC is jumping=15 but pace=20?
So "two high jumping DC" (pace relatively slow, pace=15), or "one high jump DC+ one fast pace DC", which case gives the best defending?
Hi, George, thank you for your great work! I have a question about Jumping reach, I read your post and you said it is a 1 or 0 thing, so if I understand correctly, Jumping needs to be greater or equal to 17, otherwise it is equivalent to zero, for example 16=0, is that right?
Another issue is about GK, I download your rating file from your OP, is that the latest one? (I assume you didn't put the latest one in those replies...), for GK, the file is to set reflex=57, acc=1, is that true?
I remember you said for GK, the most important attributes are reflex and agility, followed by acceleration, but why the reflex=57 rather than 99? why acceleration =1 for GK? Thank you!
Yes, this is a problem. Actually I have a question about the quality of training: in the game, we can assign each coach with different focusing training fields, there is an overall rating under each field, for example, we can assign a coach to focus on attacking-tech, or defending-tech, and we can see the rating for it, but is this rating for the whole team (squad-A,B,U20,U18)? or only for squad-A? Did you test this?
About goalkeeper, it has the same problem. You cannot set up different training for a single position, so it is a situation hard to solve.
Can I do the following:
Squad-A training schedule: only attacking and mental
Squad-B training schedule: only defending and mental
Under-20 training schedule: only Goalkeeper training
Under-18 training schedule: only physical training
So for a newly signed young player, first sent him to Under-18, after his physical reach maxima
if he is a AM,AMR,AML,ST, then sent to Squad-A
if he is a DM,DC,DL,DR, then sent to Squad-B
if he is a goalkeeper, then sent to Under-20
Hi, @ZaZ , I use your train schedules, and I find most of sections are to train the "physical" and "attacking", what if the player has reach his maxima of physical attributes and how can I train his mental attributes or defending attributes?
Another issue is currently I have a young PA-180 goalkeeper, what schedule should I use for training the goalkeeper? Can I use your schedule (1match,2match,rebalance-1match, rebalance-2match) to train goalkeeper? But I couldn't find goalkeeper sections in your train schedule.
What about those mental attributes? aggression is only 10 for Odogie, and his temper-control is only 8 , is temper control important in match?
No real wrong answer I don't think.
For Lukeba , the GS tool says his highest potential acceleration is 15, if I set individual training on quickness for him, can his acceleration surpass 15 and become 16,or 17?
I don't have money to sign both
Do you mean the mental attributes are not that important comparing with physical attributes?
Lukeba is better on aggression，brave, anticipation，marking, heading, jump, consistency
I think Udogie is better as a WBL, but I am wondering who is better as a DL?
This doesn't really matter in my games because i only use CA/PA / Prof / and some others tools.
The game only have 6-7 key attributes, it's easy to compare them directly in game.
But we all know this tool is edit every year by the same guy, who claim the same money, for something which doesn't evolve a centimeter in 10 years.
Yes, exactly!
This actually can explain why sometimes we feel "ridiculous" for the setting values in the rating file. For example,
If I claim in the rating file, I set dribbling = 50 for both center-back and winger, you must think I am stupid and ridiculous. It makes sense dribbling=50 for winger, but why set dribbling=50 for center-back?
This issue is due to those "Extra Curving Coefficients (ECC)", for example, the ECC on "dribbling" for winger is 0.9, for center-back is 0.1, then the actual buffed values are
50*0.9 = 45 for winger
50*0.1 = 5 for center-back
This makes more sense, doesn't it? It explains why we need to set such a crazy value (dribbling=50) for center-back, because the ECC for center-back is too low in their source-code!!!
Finally, go back to my title, there is a BIG BIG problem for the current GS app. The problem is:
what if I want to buff some attribute (say, attribute-X) significantly? For example, I want to buff X by 30, here 30 is a true 30. But what if the ECC was fixed as 0.1 for X in their original code?
Because the maximum input for rating file for attribute X is 100, then actual maximum buff is
100*0.1=10
THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN BUFF attribute-X BY A VALUE OF 30! NEVER!!!
This is the biggest problem in GS.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/19725-bug-from-genie-scout-26-gs26-rating-calculation-is-wrong/
Because they applied extra curving in their source code, here are screenshots, you can also go to Github to see it:
https://github.com/kvarcg/ingamefmscout/blob/master/FMScout11/FMScout/Logic/ScoutContext.cs
This means even though we re-adjust those attributes in the rating files, it is not very effective, because the source-code already sets some strong coefficients there, for example, in their source code they fix it as 0.1, so even though we re-adjust the attributes to 100, it only improves by 100*0.1=10
Take Center-back as an example:
The coefficients for the extra curving is acceleration is 0.4, jump is 0.8
It also includes the strong foot and weak foot into their extra curving. But I remember someone had already tested that strong/weak foot doesn't affect anything in FM26. So the FM Genie Scout is completely out of date.
To my surprise, in their source-code
"Height" is a KEY attribute!!! See the green-circled part,
If the height is greater than 190 cm, it adds 100 attributes
If the height is below 190 cm and above 180cm, it adds 50 attributes
It is completely chaotic!
We need to re-write a completely new Genie Scout code for FM26 and for the future.
https://github.com/kvarcg/ingamefmscout/blob/master/FMScout11/FMScout/Logic/ScoutContext.cs
Take Center-back as an example:
The coefficients for the extra curving is acceleration is 0.4, jump is 0.8
It also includes the strong foot and weak foot into their extra curving.
To my surprise, "Height" is a KEY attribute!!!, see the green-circled part,
if the height is greater than 190 cm, it adds 100 attributes
if the height is below 190 cm and above 180cm, it adds 50 attributes
It is completely chaotic! We need to re-write a completely new code for FM26 and the future...
then I compare two players, Riad vs Leoni, their attributes are
A simple hand-calculation shows, (only need to compute the difference for each key-attribute, the first parenthesis is the difference for physical attributes, the second parenthesis is the difference for mental attributes, Riad is +, Leoni is -)
(1*60 -2*40 +60 -15 -35) + (3*44 -52 +44 +52 -2*56 +44) is GREATER than 0,
so Riad is better as a Center-Back, but GS26 says Leoni is better
How is this possible?
========================================================================================
The only way to explain this bug is GS26 using some hidden "Extra Curving", and it is fixed in their code, NOT editable. But we don't know how is it written in their code.
For example,
player-A has acceleration 15, pace 15,
player-B has acceleration 14, pace 16.
All other attributes are the same. And if we set both acceleration and pace with 100 in the rating file of GS26. Overall, the two players should have the same ratings, namely, (15-14)*100+(15-16)*100=0.
But if GS26 uses some "Extra Curving" in its code, for example, it sets
acceleration with "Extra Curving" weight of 1.1,
pace with "Extra Curving" weight of 0.9,
then we get
(15-14)*100*1.1+(15-16)*100*0.9 = 20
Then overall player-A is better. But we don't know how is this "Extra Curving" written in their code!!
The weights are simply their values x 4 right now. So pressure 52/4 = 13. I'm actually yet to test pressure less than 13 yet, I suspect it could drop a point or two. You haven't asked about how weightings should be derived from attribute levels that work, but it touches on the matter. I don't want to get into this anyway, but let's just say there's no one way of approaching it. At the moment, I'm going for a transparent, simple approach, and I will be giving this more thought later. To give you a straightforward example of what I mean, consider pace/acc. 14-15 is necessary to finish ~5th, but a team of 13 will get you relegated. So perhaps one would say let's make that 56 weighting 100 instead, just to ensure you get at least 14 pace/acc. And for pressure, it's 52 weighting, but you only *really* need say ~6-10, with little benefit for 14+, so maybe let's make that 45 instead of 52. In a way that produces better results, but the formula is more opaque and perhaps more whimsical, and yet there are also other downsides/trade-offs too when you start thinking about this deeply.
I think I have accidentally used 4xDC 17 with 2xST (out of 4) 17 and the result wasn't noticeably different (hence I didn't realize until a bit later).
I've answered the balance & dribbling for DC question, it's because the key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions.
Besdies pressure, what about other attributes, which need to do the manually filter? "important match"=10? 15?
I play FM26, is the file "zhf2yl" for FM26?
Pressure is important (52), but is not included in the Genie Scout weightings because it really stuffs up Genie Scout's calculations if you put it in. I recommend instead using a filter of 8 and then manually assessing.
The key attributes turn out to be equally essential for all outfield positions. There may be some positional differences, but so far I haven't found any. And as you can see from my old files, I was strongly inclined to believe in positional differences, so this isn't my laziness or what I want to believe, I'm just going by the results I see.
I will say that of all the positions, based on testing I've done in the past, the position most likely to have differences is DM (and probably by extension, MC and AMC).
Results I had regarding jumping reach differences:
DC 16 - 5th, 8th
DC 15 - 8th, 10th
2xST 17, DC 13 - 4th
Normal at the time (DC 17) was ~4th-5th
Can't find the 15< results, but from the above you can see that 17 > 16 is drop of ~2 positions, 17 > 15 is drop of ~5 positions. If you extrapolate, 14 would be bottom table, and 13 would be relegated. Maybe 13 survives, I can't remember, but I know it's bad in any case.
1. If pressure has a weight 52, then it is super important, it is as important as acceleration and pace, isn't it? how much pressure is good? probably at least 15?
2. Are there any other attributes (just as pressure) which are important but you are not putting them into Genie Scout's calculations? I mean what else attributes (besides pressure) we need to manually filter them?
3. You use two ST with jump 17 to do the test, not DC, Did you ever use two DC with jumping 17 or 18 to test it?
4. Why give so much weight to balance and dribbling for DC?
In the old r5xm3t.grf file, DR is same as WBR because I didn't care about WBR, MC, AMC position as I used 424 Knap tactic and those extra positions would be double the work. This is still the case, however it turns out that all outfield positions share almost identical attribute requirements anyway.
I don't know if 2 jump would be better than 1 jump + 1 pace, but I would assume the former because if you have one jump player what happens when he gets substituted, injured, rested or whatnot. In fact, it's probably best to have 3-4 to be on the safe side.. but of course you're not going to have 4x 17 jump. A realistic outcome may end up like this: 16, 15, 15, 14.
For the Premier League, the pace/acc cutoff is ~14, and if you really need to, you can utilize the game's allowance for one player lacking this. So specifically your DC roster might look like this:
16 jump, 14 pace/acc (key player) - 29/38 league apps, 4/8 cup
15 jump, 15 pace/acc (first team) - 25/38 league, 4/8 cup
15 jump, 11 pace/14 acc (rotation) - 14/38 league, 4/8 cup
14 jump, 12 pace/acc (backup) - 6/38 league, 2/8 cup
12 jump, 10 pace/acc (youth hot prospect) - 2/38 league, 2/8 cup
Hi, George, In your file zhf2yl.grf , for DC,
marking = 0
tackling = 0
heading = 0
position = 0
pressure = 0
balance = 48
dribbling = 52
Do I download the correct file?
why give so much weight to balance and dribbling for DC?
Why the "pressure = 0", you said pressure is an important attribute in your previous post I remember...
In your opinion, how much difference between jump 18 and jump 16 for DC? How important for "high jump" to help DC to have more goals in corner kicks?
I don't think you have loaded the correct file. I double checked, and the file in the OP (zhf2yl.grf) has 44 reflexes, 52 acceleration.
That info for GK is outdated. What I found is that reflexes hit diminishing returns after ~10-11. And there were some other surprises too. HarvestGreen found that reflexes is the most important attribute, but if you look at his test conditions, he is setting all attributes to 20 then reducing reflexes to 1. My inference is that this means reflexes requires a certain minimum to function properly, but it doesn't mean his data contradicts mine.
Yes
1. I play FM26 so I use this file "r5xm3t.grf", in this file, GK setting is reflex=57, acc=1, could you check it please?
2. I also find in this file "r5xm3t.grf", DR(L) and WBR(L) have exactly same settings, why?
3. Is there a latest version of rating file for FM26?
4. I use 4 defenders tactics, and both my two DC are jumping reach =18, and both their pace are 15, Is this ideal? or should I choose one DC's jumping=18 pace=15, the other DC is jumping=15 but pace=20?
So "two high jumping DC" (pace relatively slow, pace=15), or "one high jump DC+ one fast pace DC", which case gives the best defending?
Another issue is about GK, I download your rating file from your OP, is that the latest one? (I assume you didn't put the latest one in those replies...), for GK, the file is to set reflex=57, acc=1, is that true?
I remember you said for GK, the most important attributes are reflex and agility, followed by acceleration, but why the reflex=57 rather than 99? why acceleration =1 for GK? Thank you!