Chris is better on jump (189 cm height) and strength, Mora is better on tech-attributes, I want to buy an AML (winger), who is better? Mora's jump (168 cm height) and strength are too low...
Question:
Currently Chris is not good as AML, the position rating is only 14 (out of 20), can he improve and reach 20(out of 20) on the position of AML (winger)? But his "versatility" is only 6, too low...
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!!
Question:
Currently Chris is not good as AML, the position rating is only 14 (out of 20), can he improve and reach 20(out of 20) on the position of AML (winger)? But his "versatility" is only 6, too low...
If you need a centre back look at Akomeah.
I search but couldn't find "Akomeah".
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!!