GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: You keep saying this so I assume you must actually believe it to be true. I feel like I have to address it even though it's unsubstantiated, because people aren't going to be digging up my posts to check for themselves and they might just assume you're half correct.
I have never said the work of HarvestGreen or EBFM is wrong, except on some niche aspects. For Instance, I think EBFM is wrong specifically about youth facilities making a minor contribution to PA, probably because he used average instead of median as measurement. And I think he is wrong on his 'draft hypothesis' for youth recruitment (though even he wasn't 100% on this theory). But apart from these two things, I don't think I disagree about anything EBFM presented.
With HarvestGreen I think I've only ever disagreed on certain things open to interpretation. For instance I favor a different training schedule to him, but this is because he weights attributes differently in his thinking, i.e. just how negatively should 'decisions' growth be weighted.
I've pushed back against people on a few things. One was about player fitness. Another was about player personality attributes being random or not.
There are more I've forgotten, but the player personality one is one I ended up conceding on. It turned out player personality attributes are not just random, and that wasn't someone's 'work' it was just a claim made that I subsequently tested and changed my mind on. But I really can't think of anything more substantial than that I've had to retract.
Whatever tactic you use, the ratings will work well.
The values are necessarily quite a bit airy fairy anyway. The main thing it's doing is that it's prioritizing key attributes that are universally good such as pace, acc, dribbling, work rate, pressure, and so forth. But then when it comes to something like 'long shots' say, maybe that deserves a 1% weighting or maybe it's 11%.. but this is only going to move the overall needle a fraction of a percent anyway. But then if you add up all these little errors together, that might end up being an error of ~3%.
A simple change you could do to tailor it more to other tactics I guess is to simply reduce the pace/acc weighting by ~10-20%. I think that was the gist of the main difference I saw in HarvestGreen's findings of tactic differences. Expand
Thanks, appreciate your answers and your work, good man 👍
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you look at your posts page, your last post before the one in this thread was in February saying to me:
And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big. Expand
Ok great 👍, thanks for answer, just wondered if I want to use other style than gegenpress, or just create my own tiki taka tactic is those ratings still helpful? Or they just to support meta gegenpress tactics?
Guys im new to gennie scout so i have a question: I have a guy for DM position with 70 rating in general for DM position and 69 for volante role which im using in my tactic and a guy with 68 general rating for DM position but 71 for Volante role: so which rating is more important general or role?? I hope this make sense
Sleipnirfossa said: Man I don't understand... How can a tactic that won the Premier League with West Ham perform so poorly in the testing league? Expand
There is a lot of 3 at the back tactics that will give you great results even with small teams but those tactics never achieve any good scores on this tests for some reason.
Im not very smart, is it just me or i cant add any formation to this tool? There is button to add formation but the tool doesn't see any of formations that I want to use?
Reached 100 points!!
One thing is for sure this is amazing for finding strikers.
4 straight seasons with the league’s top scorer.
agree with you, strikers from this filters scores a lot, got Isaac Romero for 1.5mil and he is best scorer in LaLiga
No, im playing FM24
I have never said the work of HarvestGreen or EBFM is wrong, except on some niche aspects. For Instance, I think EBFM is wrong specifically about youth facilities making a minor contribution to PA, probably because he used average instead of median as measurement. And I think he is wrong on his 'draft hypothesis' for youth recruitment (though even he wasn't 100% on this theory). But apart from these two things, I don't think I disagree about anything EBFM presented.
With HarvestGreen I think I've only ever disagreed on certain things open to interpretation. For instance I favor a different training schedule to him, but this is because he weights attributes differently in his thinking, i.e. just how negatively should 'decisions' growth be weighted.
I've pushed back against people on a few things. One was about player fitness. Another was about player personality attributes being random or not.
There are more I've forgotten, but the player personality one is one I ended up conceding on. It turned out player personality attributes are not just random, and that wasn't someone's 'work' it was just a claim made that I subsequently tested and changed my mind on. But I really can't think of anything more substantial than that I've had to retract.
Whatever tactic you use, the ratings will work well.
The values are necessarily quite a bit airy fairy anyway. The main thing it's doing is that it's prioritizing key attributes that are universally good such as pace, acc, dribbling, work rate, pressure, and so forth. But then when it comes to something like 'long shots' say, maybe that deserves a 1% weighting or maybe it's 11%.. but this is only going to move the overall needle a fraction of a percent anyway. But then if you add up all these little errors together, that might end up being an error of ~3%.
A simple change you could do to tailor it more to other tactics I guess is to simply reduce the pace/acc weighting by ~10-20%. I think that was the gist of the main difference I saw in HarvestGreen's findings of tactic differences.
Thanks, appreciate your answers and your work, good man 👍
And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big.
Ok great 👍, thanks for answer, just wondered if I want to use other style than gegenpress, or just create my own tiki taka tactic is those ratings still helpful? Or they just to support meta gegenpress tactics?
I have a guy for DM position with 70 rating in general for DM position and 69 for volante role which im using in my tactic and a guy with 68 general rating for DM position but 71 for Volante role: so which rating is more important general or role?? I hope this make sense
Top 30 tactics are just slight tweaks of someone else who found meta first, which was knap this year.
Well done Knap as always
at least i'm able to have kids
I don't see anything wrong with nickname like that
That's the last Championship Manager before the 2D match engine...
CM 01/02 was last... and im still playing it too
Thanks Knap! My old eyes and brain to overwhelmed with that new UI
Or in tactics there is not PI and TI to set anymore?
work best with original for me
There is a lot of 3 at the back tactics that will give you great results even with small teams but those tactics never achieve any good scores on this tests for some reason.