Yarema said: Way to misrepresent the data. Why don't you add the steps from 10-15 and 15-20 as well? Oh right, because they are quite similar as 1-6 Expand
this overdosed guy is really a joke, cmon, he should be banned for misguiding people for fun.
the fake scientist still thinks final position is a realiable measure, it's beyond saving.
keithb said: You keep saying what others have said or thought and you're always wrong haha. Like Yarema said above. I set stamina higher for positions that lose more condition in matches. Thats it. But you still haven't worked out why its important.............. no surprise there.
More ground breaking results everyone; speed is important for centre backs as well as strikers!!
And there's more;
" 2/3rds of attributes continue to have zero effect on final season position" Who bloody knew!!
What are you even talking about when you say "The trouble with the 'pace/acc is everything' explanation is that it failed to account for players such as Kane and Lewandowski" What does that even mean?!?! They are accounted for lol.
More than half the stuff you say is just from your fantasy world. Its a complete fiction that you've created and then talk about. Its not real.
In your last testing you said jumping reach was super important for every position and now you've set it quite low. Before you said Mbappe was shit hahah. Now he's your 2nd best player lol. And lets not forget you said I was pissing in my own face for saying stamina was important haha. You said you didn't need it at all and now you say its 80%!! What level of reality are we supposed to be operating on? Because I cant operate on yours.
Keepers dont need technique
Forwards dont need concentration
Wingers and 10's can have jumping reach 1.
Centre backs dont need high stamina. Expand
use logical arguments with the crazy never wrong scientist , he will never get
before he said courtouis it1s not the best (ter stegen were is his prem 1.0), then he was the best, now let's take courtouis out of the test to not expose my bs
we want to know who is the best player, what if liverpool has a awesome season in a simulation and my position got lower than in another simulation, what this have to do with alisson be better thank ter stegen?
it's just randomness, that not prove nothing nothing nothing about atributes...c'mon einstein scientist (never wrong) get your scientific method together and don't do this bs
The biggest question for me is: why such massive changes?
From what I understand, the old weights were based on finding the cheapest/minimum attribute balance capable of achieving around 5th in the Premier League, whereas the new weights are being fitted to a much larger set of objective player rankings.
So it makes sense that the result could be very different: instead of asking “what minimum combination of attributes gets results?”, you're now asking “which attributes best explain the actual ranking of players?”
Still, the scale of the change is fascinating.
The new model seems to put an enormous premium on Pace, Acceleration, Stamina, Work Rate and Anticipation, while attributes such as Dribbling, Consistency, Important Matches or Natural Fitness become much less influential.
And then you have Finishing at only 0.4, which is pretty wild too.
Curious to hear what people think, especially about Stamina becoming #1 and the huge gap that now exists between the top attributes and everything else.
PS: Quick question: why are attributes like WorkRate, ImportantMatches, and NaturalFitness written without spaces? Is that just the naming format, and do they need to be written exactly like that in app.js as well? Also, should I add a comma after the final value, Consistency: 2.82, or should the last entry be left without one? Expand
his tests are absolutely a joke, mate. Do not believe.
keithb said: Nobody thinks your testing is good. No one. Aren't you Man City and you leave the rest of the league as it is? Yesterday you had genie scout default ratings as not that bad. No one can take you seriously.
Where did Harvest Green say attributes aren't linear? I haven't read everything he's contributed so must have missed it.
Again this testing is nonsense. In different years the players and opposition will be different. Its of no use at all unless people want to freeze the game the whole time they play it. You contradict yourself with every next master test and change your view like the wind.
Thousands of people and more have used the fm arena results and made the game too easy. Challenges such as win the champions league in 5+ nations, only taking jobs in div2 or below became incredibly easy.
You had Mbappe outside the top20 strikers and obviously lied to say it was Genie scout's fault. Complete lie as in premier league 1 you hadn't set hidden attributes. You lie a lot. And at the time you boldly declared premier league 1 to be the new gold standard. hahahaha. You do make people laugh a lot. Expand
ywah, he just holiday the season with man city with a random dude as striker got second position and then he holiday the season with mbappe or harry kane got second position too.
So of course the only way to view is the random dude is as good as mbappe of course.
They want anticipation, balance, finishing and depending on the striker you want then either dribbling and a bit of agility for fast striker or jumping reach and strength for target striker. Expand
mate in your rating (btw much better than the original post) what you would do to find like a complete forward?
It's not a complain, but i want to find a mixed striker, what your recomendations to edit in rating to find those players?
I never said Coutouis is not the best player at the start of the game, i said he is the best player and in the rating he lost to Ter Stegen.
Oblak with 20ish reflexes 19 one-one, 18 handling and 15 aerieal reach lost to some dudes in Equador with 120-130ca just because he lost some pace (??????????) due this age.
There is no way he is not a better goalkeeper than dudes with 120-130ca just because they are taller tham him.
When i use genie scout i want to know who is the best players in the filter i selected (like just english players for example), not who is the best cost effective players.
People are misguiding using this rating because of that.
I get that yeah 1 speed is better to train than 5 passing because of Ca cost, i agree with you, but in the rating when you put ZERO evaluate in passing, is like it's useless in the match engine and that's not true at all.
Think about it, If i do a draft with friends i would use genie scout to select the best pick to play for my team next season, your rating indicates that a 130ca gk is better than a 170ca gk like Oblak just because Oblak has 11 pace. And we all know that Oblak would perform much better than that 130ca gk.
Is that not easy to see?
Yarema said: Bottom line is people are looking for who is a better player right now kind of rating, not who you can train to be better in 5 seasons. You severely undervalue pace and acceleration for example because you argue that it's easy to train it up, which might be true but it takes a lot of time and some luck.
Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure, but most of people looking for ratings aren't after that. They simply want a scoring system that will tell them player X is better than player Y, and I think you've strayed further and further from the original intention with each iteration. Expand
Thank you, it's exactly message what i'm try to send here.
doesn't matter if the player with 160ca would be much better if his ca was better distributed but right now for my team he is a better pick to me as a starter than the 120ca .
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Passing, first touch, long shots, and technique have negligible benefit or even possibly negative correlation for outfield players.
If you don't want to take my word for it, refer to HarvestGreen's data on this:
You're also not attempting a fair example. No players are going to have 20 passing, first touch, long shots, and technique. Nor is a player going to have 20 dribbling and 5 in those other stats. Expand
You are right there is no such a player with 20 and 14 dribling as i mentioned but if it existed he would be worst than i player with 20 dribbling and zero in all other atribbutes because in your rating dribbling is rated 50ish in all positions and the other technical atribbutes are zero.
And we know in the game the player with 20is and a little less dribbling would perform better.
Maybe that is not cost effective from it ca, it could be better if we could choose the atriibutes and relocate better for it ca, ok i get it.
But what i want to infer here, it's people use genie scout to find the best players to play the game in their teams now, not the better cost effective ca
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you doubt it, you can edit an English Premier League's team in the editor to match these attributes and see if they come ~7th in combination with Knap tactic as I claim they do. For hiddens, convert the values here (simply divide by 4).
It requires a bit of work, but the difficult legwork is already done. It would take about 30 minutes, and then perhaps another 30 minutes to test.
I have tried to state clearly that while the attribute templates are very reliable (plug those figures in and you *will* get 7th on average and with not too much variation), weightings have the downside of being unable to distinguish between 1 acc/20 pace and 10 acc/10 pace.
You mention 'prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more important for a GK than reflexes' and 'aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1vs1', which are examples of this inherent lack of discrimination. I have attempted a weighted weights version in attempt to try and compensate for this problem, however my comparison testing found that it did performed worse than the standard Premier League 1.0 weights under normal playing conditions (8.333 position result average vs 7.333 for standard Premier League 1.0 weights).
The comparison tests included a control of Orion's weights, which averaged 13.166 position, so my weightings are definitely worth using above any random set of values, and I daresay anyone else's weights presented so far.
You say that my weightings 'show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers'. This irks me because this is just straight up disinfo. Now maybe what you mean to say is that sometimes a 100 CA goalkeeper can supposedly perform at the highest level, but cmon man, anyone can load up my ratings with the starting database in 3 minutes and see this: Expand
mate i don't discredit your research, i think it's valid when we talk about cost effective relatively.
but people don't use the ratings for that, they use to find the best players, so when you put in your ratings ZERO for long shot, technique, first touch, etc. It will fall apart. It will not show the best players, but the more cost effective maybe.
Take a look at your picture here from GenieScout, there is a GK from KV Mechelen 112Ca better than Mamardashville 148ca..near as good as Diogo Costa and Verbruggen.
But he is not that good, am i right?
Your rating show that, well forGk with 110-120ca he is the best cost effective in the game but not the best player to play for my team now.
There is no way in hell Courtouis it's not the best Gk in the game, there is no way a Gk from Indepediente Del Valle and Burnley better than Oblak, just because the Aerial Reach and Pace (???) is a little bit better than Oblak (discredit for all other atributes).
So you misguiding people when we talk about find the best players to play for my team now.
But you help a lot, and helped me a lot when we talk about cost effective for training.
treath said: he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc. Expand
not mention other positions that infer a player like a winger or midfield with 20 passing 20 first touch 20 long shoot 20 technic and 14 driblling are worst than a player with 20 driblling and 5 on the rest.
keithb said: Now I'm not an expert, but could it be that if the most important attribute for keepers is 9 out of 20, this could lead to them being crap? Probably not, but just a mad idea I had.
Anyway its food for thought! Expand
he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc.
@ZaZ I'm using this tactic on my save (always using at least one striker even if it's not meta), but i notice that this tactic and your Autumn 4.5 have different instructions.
It's little things, like pressing etc, but do you think if i insert the autumn tactic and just move up the AMC to striker CHF and less runs it would be better ??
Zaz, correct me if i'm wrong but the only difference your tactic have with Brembov31 is the CHM don't roam in his tactic.
The rest of it all instructions are literally the same. And despite the points be higher the Xg are lower, so i guess it's more to the randomic than to the quality of instructions.
I was winning 5x1 first half with 2.04xg (bad night for the adverssary gk) and the opponent 0,23xg. Easy win i tought.
But second half i do not know what happening, in 15 minuts 3 goals for them and a post ball...5x4 and the xg now is 2.04 for me (no changes) and 2.54 for them.
I put this tactic and change out defenders and atacking payers for mid....after that...there is no highlights and the xg do not change at all, it was like the game freezing and the ball keep in the midfields all time.
this overdosed guy is really a joke, cmon, he should be banned for misguiding people for fun.
the fake scientist still thinks final position is a realiable measure, it's beyond saving.
More ground breaking results everyone; speed is important for centre backs as well as strikers!!
And there's more;
" 2/3rds of attributes continue to have zero effect on final season position" Who bloody knew!!
What are you even talking about when you say "The trouble with the 'pace/acc is everything' explanation is that it failed to account for players such as Kane and Lewandowski" What does that even mean?!?! They are accounted for lol.
More than half the stuff you say is just from your fantasy world. Its a complete fiction that you've created and then talk about. Its not real.
In your last testing you said jumping reach was super important for every position and now you've set it quite low. Before you said Mbappe was shit hahah. Now he's your 2nd best player lol. And lets not forget you said I was pissing in my own face for saying stamina was important haha. You said you didn't need it at all and now you say its 80%!! What level of reality are we supposed to be operating on? Because I cant operate on yours.
Keepers dont need technique
Forwards dont need concentration
Wingers and 10's can have jumping reach 1.
Centre backs dont need high stamina.
use logical arguments with the crazy never wrong scientist , he will never get
before he said courtouis it1s not the best (ter stegen were is his prem 1.0), then he was the best, now let's take courtouis out of the test to not expose my bs
it's just randomness, that not prove nothing nothing nothing about atributes...c'mon einstein scientist (never wrong) get your scientific method together and don't do this bs
You are Just misguidind people for fun
he test nothing to nothing and think he is right answer for everything
Stamina: 5.2 → 18.78 (+13.58)
Pace: 6 → 17.36 (+11.36)
Acceleration: 6 → 17.24 (+11.24)
Work Rate: 4.4 → 12.6 (+8.2)
Anticipation: 5.2 → 11.64 (+6.44)
Concentration: 5.2 → 9.46 (+4.26)
Jumping Reach: 5.2 → 9.24 (+4.04)
While on the other side:
Natural Fitness: 4.8 → 1.58 (-3.22)
Important Matches: 5.2 → 2.04 (-3.16)
Aggression: 4.4 → 1.26 (-3.14)
Consistency: 5.2 → 2.82 (-2.38)
Dribbling: 5.2 → 2.92 (-2.28)
Professionalism: 5.2 → 3 (-2.2)
The biggest question for me is: why such massive changes?
From what I understand, the old weights were based on finding the cheapest/minimum attribute balance capable of achieving around 5th in the Premier League, whereas the new weights are being fitted to a much larger set of objective player rankings.
So it makes sense that the result could be very different: instead of asking “what minimum combination of attributes gets results?”, you're now asking “which attributes best explain the actual ranking of players?”
Still, the scale of the change is fascinating.
The new model seems to put an enormous premium on Pace, Acceleration, Stamina, Work Rate and Anticipation, while attributes such as Dribbling, Consistency, Important Matches or Natural Fitness become much less influential.
And then you have Finishing at only 0.4, which is pretty wild too.
Curious to hear what people think, especially about Stamina becoming #1 and the huge gap that now exists between the top attributes and everything else.
PS: Quick question: why are attributes like WorkRate, ImportantMatches, and NaturalFitness written without spaces? Is that just the naming format, and do they need to be written exactly like that in app.js as well? Also, should I add a comma after the final value, Consistency: 2.82, or should the last entry be left without one?
his tests are absolutely a joke, mate. Do not believe.
Where did Harvest Green say attributes aren't linear? I haven't read everything he's contributed so must have missed it.
Again this testing is nonsense. In different years the players and opposition will be different. Its of no use at all unless people want to freeze the game the whole time they play it. You contradict yourself with every next master test and change your view like the wind.
Thousands of people and more have used the fm arena results and made the game too easy. Challenges such as win the champions league in 5+ nations, only taking jobs in div2 or below became incredibly easy.
You had Mbappe outside the top20 strikers and obviously lied to say it was Genie scout's fault. Complete lie as in premier league 1 you hadn't set hidden attributes. You lie a lot. And at the time you boldly declared premier league 1 to be the new gold standard. hahahaha. You do make people laugh a lot.
ywah, he just holiday the season with man city with a random dude as striker got second position and then he holiday the season with mbappe or harry kane got second position too.
So of course the only way to view is the random dude is as good as mbappe of course.
It's a joke really.
They want anticipation, balance, finishing and depending on the striker you want then either dribbling and a bit of agility for fast striker or jumping reach and strength for target striker.
mate in your rating (btw much better than the original post) what you would do to find like a complete forward?
It's not a complain, but i want to find a mixed striker, what your recomendations to edit in rating to find those players?
Oblak with 20ish reflexes 19 one-one, 18 handling and 15 aerieal reach lost to some dudes in Equador with 120-130ca just because he lost some pace (??????????) due this age.
There is no way he is not a better goalkeeper than dudes with 120-130ca just because they are taller tham him.
When i use genie scout i want to know who is the best players in the filter i selected (like just english players for example), not who is the best cost effective players.
People are misguiding using this rating because of that.
I get that yeah 1 speed is better to train than 5 passing because of Ca cost, i agree with you, but in the rating when you put ZERO evaluate in passing, is like it's useless in the match engine and that's not true at all.
Think about it, If i do a draft with friends i would use genie scout to select the best pick to play for my team next season, your rating indicates that a 130ca gk is better than a 170ca gk like Oblak just because Oblak has 11 pace. And we all know that Oblak would perform much better than that 130ca gk.
Is that not easy to see?
Yarema said: Bottom line is people are looking for who is a better player right now kind of rating, not who you can train to be better in 5 seasons. You severely undervalue pace and acceleration for example because you argue that it's easy to train it up, which might be true but it takes a lot of time and some luck.
Secondly if you compare 2 players with same "key" attributes, one is 120 CA the other is 160 CA the 2nd one will perform better. Probably even significantly, those 1% here and 1% there add up. Can a team of 120s finish 7th in PL? Sure, but most of people looking for ratings aren't after that. They simply want a scoring system that will tell them player X is better than player Y, and I think you've strayed further and further from the original intention with each iteration.
Thank you, it's exactly message what i'm try to send here.
doesn't matter if the player with 160ca would be much better if his ca was better distributed but right now for my team he is a better pick to me as a starter than the 120ca .
If you don't want to take my word for it, refer to HarvestGreen's data on this:
You're also not attempting a fair example. No players are going to have 20 passing, first touch, long shots, and technique. Nor is a player going to have 20 dribbling and 5 in those other stats.
You are right there is no such a player with 20 and 14 dribling as i mentioned but if it existed he would be worst than i player with 20 dribbling and zero in all other atribbutes because in your rating dribbling is rated 50ish in all positions and the other technical atribbutes are zero.
And we know in the game the player with 20is and a little less dribbling would perform better.
Maybe that is not cost effective from it ca, it could be better if we could choose the atriibutes and relocate better for it ca, ok i get it.
But what i want to infer here, it's people use genie scout to find the best players to play the game in their teams now, not the better cost effective ca
It requires a bit of work, but the difficult legwork is already done. It would take about 30 minutes, and then perhaps another 30 minutes to test.
I have tried to state clearly that while the attribute templates are very reliable (plug those figures in and you *will* get 7th on average and with not too much variation), weightings have the downside of being unable to distinguish between 1 acc/20 pace and 10 acc/10 pace.
You mention 'prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more important for a GK than reflexes' and 'aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1vs1', which are examples of this inherent lack of discrimination. I have attempted a weighted weights version in attempt to try and compensate for this problem, however my comparison testing found that it did performed worse than the standard Premier League 1.0 weights under normal playing conditions (8.333 position result average vs 7.333 for standard Premier League 1.0 weights).
The comparison tests included a control of Orion's weights, which averaged 13.166 position, so my weightings are definitely worth using above any random set of values, and I daresay anyone else's weights presented so far.
You say that my weightings 'show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers'. This irks me because this is just straight up disinfo. Now maybe what you mean to say is that sometimes a 100 CA goalkeeper can supposedly perform at the highest level, but cmon man, anyone can load up my ratings with the starting database in 3 minutes and see this:
mate i don't discredit your research, i think it's valid when we talk about cost effective relatively.
but people don't use the ratings for that, they use to find the best players, so when you put in your ratings ZERO for long shot, technique, first touch, etc. It will fall apart. It will not show the best players, but the more cost effective maybe.
Take a look at your picture here from GenieScout, there is a GK from KV Mechelen 112Ca better than Mamardashville 148ca..near as good as Diogo Costa and Verbruggen.
But he is not that good, am i right?
Your rating show that, well forGk with 110-120ca he is the best cost effective in the game but not the best player to play for my team now.
There is no way in hell Courtouis it's not the best Gk in the game, there is no way a Gk from Indepediente Del Valle and Burnley better than Oblak, just because the Aerial Reach and Pace (???) is a little bit better than Oblak (discredit for all other atributes).
So you misguiding people when we talk about find the best players to play for my team now.
But you help a lot, and helped me a lot when we talk about cost effective for training.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc.
not mention other positions that infer a player like a winger or midfield with 20 passing 20 first touch 20 long shoot 20 technic and 14 driblling are worst than a player with 20 driblling and 5 on the rest.
Anyway its food for thought!
he blindly trust this prem 1.0 ratings that show pace is more importante for a GK than reflexes and his gk are a phisical monster.
the problem is people trust this ratings blindly i made tests with this rating with gsscout and it show goalkeepers with 100 or 110 pa better than great goalkeepers just because they are tall and have enough aerial reach and jumping reach to surpass lack of reflexes, 1-1, etc.
It's little things, like pressing etc, but do you think if i insert the autumn tactic and just move up the AMC to striker CHF and less runs it would be better ??
Or the striker change the dinamics of everything?
The rest of it all instructions are literally the same. And despite the points be higher the Xg are lower, so i guess it's more to the randomic than to the quality of instructions.
I was winning 5x1 first half with 2.04xg (bad night for the adverssary gk) and the opponent 0,23xg. Easy win i tought.
But second half i do not know what happening, in 15 minuts 3 goals for them and a post ball...5x4 and the xg now is 2.04 for me (no changes) and 2.54 for them.
I put this tactic and change out defenders and atacking payers for mid....after that...there is no highlights and the xg do not change at all, it was like the game freezing and the ball keep in the midfields all time.
i made a topic about it, is training player traits because off the time it takes prejudicial for player growth?
Do you guys know about that, i did not find anything about it.
Is it better not learn at all?
Sometimes my AssMan give me advice about traits and i agree with him often and my players start to training the traits.
But now i'm thinking the player is losing training time to learn some uselles trait and will develop less trought the season....am i right?
Is there a good trait worth it to learn?