Suppose you do test against teams that have 10 in every attribute. Well then a player of Jumping Reach 11 is going to beat them all, but then in the actual game, Jumping Reach 11 would get your team relegated. You can't take opposition players and tactics out of the equation.
Besides, this has been done. HarvestGreen uses this controlled kind of testing, and so does FM Arena - although I believe FM Arena is a little different where uses a representative set of competitive attributes for its opposition teams (i.e. 13 instead of 10).
Another angle I would tackle it from is that RNG is part of the game, and therefore must also be taken into account. So with teamwork for example, we see the RNG range is 2nd-8th. With real Luton, the top Knap tactic produces ~2nd-9th range.
It's worth pointing out that that RNG range for real Luton is actually easily squashed down a lot by pre-selecting the team so it uses the same players. If pre-selected, the range goes down to ~2nd-4th. So really the RNG is only about -/+1 position difference. People overestimate the impact of the RNG of this game IMO.
With the meta team but with Raheem Sterling replacing AMR, the variance is also very low, getting ~6th almost all the time.
Why does the meta team, having identical outfield players, have a increased variance of 2nd-8th, compared to the meta team with Sterling? Don't know, but keep in mind I'm not using pre-selection for my meta tests either.
Now regardless of whether it's RNG or player fitness or bad luck injuries or whatnot, let's just surmise the reality as this:
You can expect to vary ~2-6 positions each season from expectation. An average save might last say 6 seasons. Are you going to experience the difference between 10 and 15 pace in 6 seasons? Yes, very much so. Are you going to experience the difference between 10 and 15 teamwork in 6 seasons? Probably not really, but when you have 10 of these minor attributes together as part of a weighting system for buying/assessing players, then you will.
This also goes to why I don't think 100 samples is necessary. No one is playing 100 seasons. If I take 9 samples representing 9 seasons, and the end result is an uncertainty of -/+ 1.81 position, then that reflects the reality of normal play and it should be left at that.
Which is the more useful and relevant information?:
The life expectancy of a nation as 82.59 based on measurements of millions of people, or
As a 60 year old with a particular cancer my doctor has guesstimated I most likely have 5-7 years to live based on several similar cases he has seen, or
The doctor telling me 'its all random...we all die sometime anyway' Expand
Well, a good point ngl
Also i feel like that some of counter type tactics which is meta are just designed for high pace physical players Better technical players may act better with posseios type tactic Untested, just a feeling based on my own long save team acting worse on meta ones
Recent findings: CHF works good, putting F9 doesnt affect % of possesion, just redistributes the goals to winger more If you have CHF - playmaykers will do more passes through the opposite def line Idk what exact forward profile needed for best performance (actually score alot) if you hold ball Finally found a system that can provide 140+ goals with 62+% pos (3 seasons with 140+ and one with 120+ but its PSG) Looks like game work better in terms of result and scored goals with wingbacks and midfielders higher on the pitch, when i dropped it all down without changing anything else i lowere xGA but also lowered my own xG and results, pos% also lowered (lol). Changes was MPM + CM(or MPM) to DM + DLP, and WB to WB (on FB slot)
So teamwork does appear to be doing something here. It shouldn't be above 5 after 9 samples otherwise.
There is upside to having it at high values, but not as much downside to lacking it completely (7th at '1', vs 9th for Aggression at '1' for example, and many other key attributes fare far worse at '1' ).
8 > 16 is quite a big jump for a relatively small position gain of ~2 position, but that's only +1.6 per outfield player.
Overall I would now classify teamwork an attribute of minor importance, above Strength but probably below Aggression. Or maybe equal to Aggression, since the test team has 11 Aggression and only manages ~5th-7th on average.
Another thing to note is that because the test team's outfield players are identical, it wouldn't be the case that teamwork is simply handing over the ball to the players with the better attributes.
I'll be testing it at 20 on all players again to see what results that shows.
So versatility doesn't seem to do much. Possibly a very slight benefit. Too hard to tell like crossing.
Dirtiness surprisingly did worse at '1'. Perhaps it just requires more samples, but even so, one would expect '1' dirtiness to do better than 5th-7th given its deduced importance based on real player performance. In comparing the real players, there is a significant difference between 8 and 2 dirtiness, so it's not just about it being under '10' say. Only possibility I can think of, aside from simply requiring more samples, is that perhaps dirtiness interacts with temperament and/or sportsmanship and/or controversy, where high dirtiness can be beneficial (more hard tackles) when machiavellian sociopath but not when prone to losing temper and getting red carded for no gain. Expand
Feels like doing test in a real league like this is absolutely incorrect RNG do more then this changes huh You better make a test league with capped CA, same teams, tactics etc and do 100 samples imo
Dkstick said: “Small” league update — I’m adding a few extra screenshots as well. I’m Belgian, so my game is in French, just a heads-up in advance.
In my last post, I actually got the date wrong. We were at the beginning of October, not mid-November, but I wrote the post from memory while I was at work.
So here’s a little recap of the matches from our latest session:
We started with an important away win against Legia, followed by a 10-0 Conference League win against Sheriff lmao.
The rest of the session was basically just two slightly annoying draws in terms of the title race, but apart from that, a lot of wins. An important thing to mention is that my friend lost three matches during this session, which means we currently have an 8-point gap in my favour, which is really nice.
The slightly worrying part is that we play each other immediately after the break at his stadium when we start our next session, so the gap could potentially be reduced to 5 points. Nothing too dramatic though.
I’m very happy with how the season has started, and with the last match we’ve now officially played half of the league season.
In the cup, I got knocked out in the very first round, but I fielded my U20 team because we were constantly playing European and league matches. The prize money is something like €20k if you win the whole thing — I’m exaggerating a bit, but it’s basically negligible — so I preferred to focus on Europe and the domestic league.
Thanks again for all your feedback between my updates! I’ll keep you posted tomorrow or by the end of the weekend if we manage to play another session! Expand
Do you and your friend both play with meta tactics?
ZaZ said: There are some people with posts about how to optimize the performance of players based on attributes. One thing to watch is the scout reports for hidden attributes. I usually value a lot players with high professionalism, consistency, low injury proneness and dirtiness. You usually see in the scout reports if those hidden attributes are low or high, and I personally find players with low professionalism to be the most problematic (speaking about ratings). Expand
Also is pretty much diff maker is pressure, which can be investigated by presstalk style tho Low pressure cool player will be below average
fmheritage said: English is coming soon. The diagrams, position map and instruction tables already read fine without it — attribute names are in English. It's the manager-style descriptions that still need translating. Expand
fmheritage said: I built a page that converts real managers' seasons into FM26 grammar — shapes, team instructions, and the attributes each role needs. Free, no login, no ads.
- In-possession and out-of-possession shapes, as two diagrams - A position map showing where the same player moves when the phase changes - All 27 team instructions (18 in possession, 9 out), with the ones that actually come from the manager's style marked - Required and preferred attributes for all 11 slots, with a weighting on which ones matter most
WHERE THE NUMBERS COME FROM
FBref / Sports Reference, per manager-club-season. Each side is compared against its own league average for that season, and the deltas set the style axes — pressing intensity, defensive line, tempo, directness, width. Where a manager shows no clear signal on an instruction, the card uses the game's neutral value instead of inventing one.
BEFORE ANYONE ASKS: THIS IS NOT TESTED FOR WIN RATE
I know what this forum is for, and I'm making no performance claim. The match engine is its own system and I can't promise a real-world style translates into results. This is a starting point with a stated reason behind every setting, not a meta tactic. For win rates, the testing tables here are the right tool.
TWO THINGS YOU'D FIND OUT ANYWAY
143 cards, but around 105 unique managers. Pep, Tuchel, Emery, Gasperini and others appear for more than one season on purpose. Pep's City 23-24 next to 24-25 is the one I'd open first — the 23-24 card flags Rodri as the slot with no replacement, and that injury is what triggered the 24-25 change.
38 of the cards are relegation-survival sides sharing a common template. They're badged as such. They weren't researched individually and they will look alike, because those tactics are alike.
INTERFACE IS KOREAN RIGHT NOW
English is coming. The diagrams, the position map and the instruction tables read fine without it — attribute names are already in English.
Selection: top-5-league winners and runners-up, relegation survivors, and UCL/UEL semi-finalists from 2015-16 on. Current season isn't in yet.
If something looks wrong, or you want a manager added, say so here and I'll fix it. Expand
with F9 i got like 64-63 avg pos, so possesion is not the issue the issue that if i use something like CHF he actually does nothning and dont receive passes, so have 0 or 0.1 xg per game but its same with almost any other role only wingers, wingbacks or amc got the opportunities to score mostly
ZaZ said: Depends on your definition of "best". If you mean the forward role that maximizes possession, then DLP is probably your best bet, because they are playmaker (set to receive ball on their feet instead of on space). Players that run into space are more likely to decrease possession, because they encourage longer passes. Expand
agreed i meant best in terms of how much goals/passes it can provide
Playing 4231, in attack all 4 attacking players staying in flat line almost and all goals goes to wingers or amc, but mostly not forward, how this can be fixed? Tried F9 to kinda maximise engagement but anyways its low Got like 200+ goals thru the season where forward scored only 22 in 47(10)
So here I am trying to take into account outfield + GK + CA efficiency + intensity.
HarvestGreen didn't include the GK stats for 331 as far as I can see, so I've just inserted a high value of 1000. Even with this high value for GK, it doesn't seem as quite as good overall as 214 or 211, though it does have the highest absolute gain in its favor.
There is one more thing to add into the assessment, which is the effect on other various in-game factors:
331 has a slight edge over 214 due to the better balancing of match sharpness.
211 is much better for match sharpness, but is probably going to wear down condition too much during the competitive season, especially if you have weeks with 2 matches. The main problem with 211 is that it would be so finicky to implement that in all likelihood you're not going to implement it properly every week, and the careful handling of condition would add to this. 211 is nonetheless very good for GK and absolute gain, both of which 214 falls a bit short on.
One more thing to say about 214 is that its what I found to be best using a different method previously. So where things are roughly equal, I'm inclined to lean towards it anyway. And in HarvestGreen's assessment, 214 also scores higher on his 'quality' index than these other 2.
So overall I will still be recommending 214. I just realized that 331 was actually my 2nd recommendation before, I didn't realize until now that that was HarvestGreen's recommendation.
It might be worth setting up 211 for your u21s/u18s, especially if they have no competitive league or cup and you can set and forget it with weekly friendlies for the whole season. Reason is, u21s/u18s easily end up in match sharpness ruts they never get out of, and low match sharpness is a big influence on injury rate, and more injuries = less development.
It's splitting hairs between 214 and 331, so if you feel more comfortable going with 331, that's perfectly fine.
One thing left unaddressed is GK focus. HarvestGreen's data used 'Agility and Balance' as GK focus, so we can't be sure of the effect of any others. But it seems to be the case that Agility isn't as critical as a few others: Determination, Reflexes, Concentration. Personally I've started favoring 'GK reactions' because it focuses on two of those (Reflexes, Concentration). But there's no data on this. Expand
archieboytom said: This is the best tactic I ever downloaded for Chelsea. It still has the issues and my winger passing back to midfielders and shoot but it still created the best result! Do you have an away tactic against strong team? Expand
Passing back to midfielders are cause of work ball into box Remove it, but it will lower the overall xG probably
A4 said: I read this thread and it got me wondering: are reflexes and agility basically everything you need to make a good GK? Also, what's the best way to achieve a high match rating? Is there any way to influence it other than saving lots of shots and keeping clean sheets?
What's the best role or team instructions for farming GK ratings? How much do traits affect a goalkeeper's performance? Is height really that important?
Is there a way to build tactics around the goalkeeper being more involved in play and actually doing things? For example, something similar to the long-throw abuse in the old El Diablo tactics.
Height is often linked to Jumping Reach so they both matters GK perfromance is also kind of tactic thing, some of them make them weaker, if you play with high def line every shot will be probably from counter with more xG for example In my "not a test" experience its good for GK to have also Handling, One on ones which increases their save rate Also in a few holiday seasons while searching for a strat for default PSG roster Safonov individualy performed better then Chevalier (more saves and better overall rating) with almost same result for a team If we talk about long term result will be anywasy the same, tactic and weights will do its things on a distance
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: The weights for GK in that thread are completely wrong. For instance, Aerial Reach is 1.8 while Reflexes is 20. In fact Aerial Reach is the most important attribute while reflexes is the least important of the big three, and less important than has always been believed. I didn't comment on this in that thread, because the OP does denote 'For goalkeepers, read the top two or three only.'
HarvestGreen's GK data is also wrong. The problem both these people are having is low sample size leading to invalid results.
Here are the ideal minimum weights I derived from brute force testing:
Of those, Aerial Reach is the least flexible in terms how low you can go and get away with it.
Traits do not seem to effect performance at all for any player.
I can't remember if height itself plays any role, but jumping reach in indeed important, so not just Aerial Reach, and jumping reach is semi-determined by height I think (for starting database players it is, and I reckon they probably coded it for newgens too).
One attribute that matters for GK that I think pretty much everybody would be unaware of, and isn't shown on that image, is technique. Technique actually matters quite a lot for GK. It's useless for outfield players, but important for GK. Expand
I have no idea how it works on clean test but in my long save it seams like GK's with Jumping Reach, Height, Reflexes, Handling and One on ones perform better
The main iis chf wf wb
Also adding f9 older version
Suppose you do test against teams that have 10 in every attribute. Well then a player of Jumping Reach 11 is going to beat them all, but then in the actual game, Jumping Reach 11 would get your team relegated. You can't take opposition players and tactics out of the equation.
Besides, this has been done. HarvestGreen uses this controlled kind of testing, and so does FM Arena - although I believe FM Arena is a little different where uses a representative set of competitive attributes for its opposition teams (i.e. 13 instead of 10).
Another angle I would tackle it from is that RNG is part of the game, and therefore must also be taken into account. So with teamwork for example, we see the RNG range is 2nd-8th. With real Luton, the top Knap tactic produces ~2nd-9th range.
It's worth pointing out that that RNG range for real Luton is actually easily squashed down a lot by pre-selecting the team so it uses the same players. If pre-selected, the range goes down to ~2nd-4th. So really the RNG is only about -/+1 position difference. People overestimate the impact of the RNG of this game IMO.
With the meta team but with Raheem Sterling replacing AMR, the variance is also very low, getting ~6th almost all the time.
Why does the meta team, having identical outfield players, have a increased variance of 2nd-8th, compared to the meta team with Sterling? Don't know, but keep in mind I'm not using pre-selection for my meta tests either.
Now regardless of whether it's RNG or player fitness or bad luck injuries or whatnot, let's just surmise the reality as this:
You can expect to vary ~2-6 positions each season from expectation.
An average save might last say 6 seasons.
Are you going to experience the difference between 10 and 15 pace in 6 seasons? Yes, very much so.
Are you going to experience the difference between 10 and 15 teamwork in 6 seasons? Probably not really, but when you have 10 of these minor attributes together as part of a weighting system for buying/assessing players, then you will.
This also goes to why I don't think 100 samples is necessary. No one is playing 100 seasons. If I take 9 samples representing 9 seasons, and the end result is an uncertainty of -/+ 1.81 position, then that reflects the reality of normal play and it should be left at that.
Which is the more useful and relevant information?:
The life expectancy of a nation as 82.59 based on measurements of millions of people, or
As a 60 year old with a particular cancer my doctor has guesstimated I most likely have 5-7 years to live based on several similar cases he has seen, or
The doctor telling me 'its all random...we all die sometime anyway'
Well, a good point ngl
Also i feel like that some of counter type tactics which is meta are just designed for high pace physical players
Better technical players may act better with posseios type tactic
Untested, just a feeling based on my own long save team acting worse on meta ones
Recent findings: CHF works good, putting F9 doesnt affect % of possesion, just redistributes the goals to winger more
If you have CHF - playmaykers will do more passes through the opposite def line
Idk what exact forward profile needed for best performance (actually score alot) if you hold ball
Finally found a system that can provide 140+ goals with 62+% pos (3 seasons with 140+ and one with 120+ but its PSG)
Looks like game work better in terms of result and scored goals with wingbacks and midfielders higher on the pitch, when i dropped it all down without changing anything else i lowere xGA but also lowered my own xG and results, pos% also lowered (lol). Changes was MPM + CM(or MPM) to DM + DLP, and WB to WB (on FB slot)
So teamwork does appear to be doing something here. It shouldn't be above 5 after 9 samples otherwise.
There is upside to having it at high values, but not as much downside to lacking it completely (7th at '1', vs 9th for Aggression at '1' for example, and many other key attributes fare far worse at '1' ).
8 > 16 is quite a big jump for a relatively small position gain of ~2 position, but that's only +1.6 per outfield player.
Overall I would now classify teamwork an attribute of minor importance, above Strength but probably below Aggression. Or maybe equal to Aggression, since the test team has 11 Aggression and only manages ~5th-7th on average.
Another thing to note is that because the test team's outfield players are identical, it wouldn't be the case that teamwork is simply handing over the ball to the players with the better attributes.
I'll be testing it at 20 on all players again to see what results that shows.
I also tested two other attributes:
Dirtiness 8 > 1 = 4th, 10th (sacked), 9th (sacked), 9th (sacked) = 8 position
Versatility 8 > 20 = 5th, 10th (sacked), 3rd, 3rd, 8th (sacked), 5th = 5.666 position
So versatility doesn't seem to do much. Possibly a very slight benefit. Too hard to tell like crossing.
Dirtiness surprisingly did worse at '1'. Perhaps it just requires more samples, but even so, one would expect '1' dirtiness to do better than 5th-7th given its deduced importance based on real player performance. In comparing the real players, there is a significant difference between 8 and 2 dirtiness, so it's not just about it being under '10' say. Only possibility I can think of, aside from simply requiring more samples, is that perhaps dirtiness interacts with temperament and/or sportsmanship and/or controversy, where high dirtiness can be beneficial (more hard tackles) when machiavellian sociopath but not when prone to losing temper and getting red carded for no gain.
Feels like doing test in a real league like this is absolutely incorrect
RNG do more then this changes huh
You better make a test league with capped CA, same teams, tactics etc and do 100 samples imo
In my last post, I actually got the date wrong. We were at the beginning of October, not mid-November, but I wrote the post from memory while I was at work.
So here’s a little recap of the matches from our latest session:
We started with an important away win against Legia, followed by a 10-0 Conference League win against Sheriff lmao.
The rest of the session was basically just two slightly annoying draws in terms of the title race, but apart from that, a lot of wins. An important thing to mention is that my friend lost three matches during this session, which means we currently have an 8-point gap in my favour, which is really nice.
The slightly worrying part is that we play each other immediately after the break at his stadium when we start our next session, so the gap could potentially be reduced to 5 points. Nothing too dramatic though.
I’m very happy with how the season has started, and with the last match we’ve now officially played half of the league season.
In the cup, I got knocked out in the very first round, but I fielded my U20 team because we were constantly playing European and league matches. The prize money is something like €20k if you win the whole thing — I’m exaggerating a bit, but it’s basically negligible — so I preferred to focus on Europe and the domestic league.
Thanks again for all your feedback between my updates! I’ll keep you posted tomorrow or by the end of the weekend if we manage to play another session!
Do you and your friend both play with meta tactics?
Look for evasive and unflappable
Opposite, best personality should be who talk less and calm
It means their pressure bigger
Also is pretty much diff maker is pressure, which can be investigated by presstalk style tho
Low pressure cool player will be below average
looks like this to me
https://www.ffscout.net/fm-tactics/fm26
WHAT'S IN A CARD
- In-possession and out-of-possession shapes, as two diagrams
- A position map showing where the same player moves when the phase changes
- All 27 team instructions (18 in possession, 9 out), with the ones that actually come from the manager's style marked
- Required and preferred attributes for all 11 slots, with a weighting on which ones matter most
WHERE THE NUMBERS COME FROM
FBref / Sports Reference, per manager-club-season. Each side is compared against its own league average for that season, and the deltas set the style axes — pressing intensity, defensive line, tempo, directness, width. Where a manager shows no clear signal on an instruction, the card uses the game's neutral value instead of inventing one.
BEFORE ANYONE ASKS: THIS IS NOT TESTED FOR WIN RATE
I know what this forum is for, and I'm making no performance claim. The match engine is its own system and I can't promise a real-world style translates into results. This is a starting point with a stated reason behind every setting, not a meta tactic. For win rates, the testing tables here are the right tool.
TWO THINGS YOU'D FIND OUT ANYWAY
143 cards, but around 105 unique managers. Pep, Tuchel, Emery, Gasperini and others appear for more than one season on purpose. Pep's City 23-24 next to 24-25 is the one I'd open first — the 23-24 card flags Rodri as the slot with no replacement, and that injury is what triggered the 24-25 change.
38 of the cards are relegation-survival sides sharing a common template. They're badged as such. They weren't researched individually and they will look alike, because those tactics are alike.
INTERFACE IS KOREAN RIGHT NOW
English is coming. The diagrams, the position map and the instruction tables read fine without it — attribute names are already in English.
Selection: top-5-league winners and runners-up, relegation survivors, and UCL/UEL semi-finalists from 2015-16 on. Current season isn't in yet.
If something looks wrong, or you want a manager added, say so here and I'll fix it.
Can u make it on english please
aint at home yet to share but yeah i will
its some kind of 4231 trasforming to 226
the issue that if i use something like CHF he actually does nothning and dont receive passes, so have 0 or 0.1 xg per game
but its same with almost any other role
only wingers, wingbacks or amc got the opportunities to score mostly
agreed
i meant best in terms of how much goals/passes it can provide
Forward set as CFD, in pre-season matches scored alor, as season started again got these 6.2-6.3 in some matches
Tried F9 to kinda maximise engagement but anyways its low
Got like 200+ goals thru the season where forward scored only 22 in 47(10)
211 = (((10x1182.2185) + 1000.59) / ((10x37.75) + 43.25)) / 0.977272 = 31.1847
331 = (((10x1202.567) + 1000) / ((10x39.62) + 43)) / 1.05 = 28.2454
260 = (((10x1156.35) + 965.23) / ((10x38.98) + 43.00)) / 1.05 = 27.5696
142 = (((10x1135.2835) + 1048.42) / ((10x36.43) + 42.33)) / 1.25 = 24.3981
So here I am trying to take into account outfield + GK + CA efficiency + intensity.
HarvestGreen didn't include the GK stats for 331 as far as I can see, so I've just inserted a high value of 1000. Even with this high value for GK, it doesn't seem as quite as good overall as 214 or 211, though it does have the highest absolute gain in its favor.
There is one more thing to add into the assessment, which is the effect on other various in-game factors:
214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus]
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Quickness Focus]
211 [Handling][Shot Stopping][Attacking][Physical][Chance Conversion][Aerial Defence][Ground Defence] [Distribution][Quickness Focus]
331 has a slight edge over 214 due to the better balancing of match sharpness.
211 is much better for match sharpness, but is probably going to wear down condition too much during the competitive season, especially if you have weeks with 2 matches. The main problem with 211 is that it would be so finicky to implement that in all likelihood you're not going to implement it properly every week, and the careful handling of condition would add to this. 211 is nonetheless very good for GK and absolute gain, both of which 214 falls a bit short on.
One more thing to say about 214 is that its what I found to be best using a different method previously. So where things are roughly equal, I'm inclined to lean towards it anyway. And in HarvestGreen's assessment, 214 also scores higher on his 'quality' index than these other 2.
So overall I will still be recommending 214. I just realized that 331 was actually my 2nd recommendation before, I didn't realize until now that that was HarvestGreen's recommendation.
It might be worth setting up 211 for your u21s/u18s, especially if they have no competitive league or cup and you can set and forget it with weekly friendlies for the whole season. Reason is, u21s/u18s easily end up in match sharpness ruts they never get out of, and low match sharpness is a big influence on injury rate, and more injuries = less development.
It's splitting hairs between 214 and 331, so if you feel more comfortable going with 331, that's perfectly fine.
One thing left unaddressed is GK focus. HarvestGreen's data used 'Agility and Balance' as GK focus, so we can't be sure of the effect of any others. But it seems to be the case that Agility isn't as critical as a few others: Determination, Reflexes, Concentration. Personally I've started favoring 'GK reactions' because it focuses on two of those (Reflexes, Concentration). But there's no data on this.
Where i can find those trainings?
Passing back to midfielders are cause of work ball into box
Remove it, but it will lower the overall xG probably
What's the best role or team instructions for farming GK ratings? How much do traits affect a goalkeeper's performance? Is height really that important?
Is there a way to build tactics around the goalkeeper being more involved in play and actually doing things? For example, something similar to the long-throw abuse in the old El Diablo tactics.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/20264-more-attribute-weight-findings-through-data-mining-fm26/page-1/
Height is often linked to Jumping Reach so they both matters
GK perfromance is also kind of tactic thing, some of them make them weaker, if you play with high def line every shot will be probably from counter with more xG for example
In my "not a test" experience its good for GK to have also Handling, One on ones which increases their save rate
Also in a few holiday seasons while searching for a strat for default PSG roster Safonov individualy performed better then Chevalier (more saves and better overall rating) with almost same result for a team
If we talk about long term result will be anywasy the same, tactic and weights will do its things on a distance
HarvestGreen's GK data is also wrong. The problem both these people are having is low sample size leading to invalid results.
Here are the ideal minimum weights I derived from brute force testing:
Of those, Aerial Reach is the least flexible in terms how low you can go and get away with it.
Traits do not seem to effect performance at all for any player.
I can't remember if height itself plays any role, but jumping reach in indeed important, so not just Aerial Reach, and jumping reach is semi-determined by height I think (for starting database players it is, and I reckon they probably coded it for newgens too).
One attribute that matters for GK that I think pretty much everybody would be unaware of, and isn't shown on that image, is technique. Technique actually matters quite a lot for GK. It's useless for outfield players, but important for GK.
I have no idea how it works on clean test but in my long save it seams like GK's with Jumping Reach, Height, Reflexes, Handling and One on ones perform better