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.

this tactic feels like a cheat more than the meta ones, it's unbeliavable how the AI is cracked on this.

@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 ??

Or the striker change the dinamics of everything?

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.

this is a banger, absolutely insane tactic.

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.

it's kind off topic but do you guys training player traits?

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.

I learn a lot about training in the training topic but found nothing about player traits.

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?

no difference at all, hahaha.

good, very nice, it seems hold up the ball drags down the results, was a nice try tough hahahaha.

But i will stick with it in my save, i like it watching the games.

Thanks ZaZ

Zaz, i'm playing with 1.46 version but i made these tweaks myself, i guess this version will get better results.

Besides i still sticking with low crosses, but i add take more risks OCBs, Shoot Less for wingbacks, i add too sit narrower for inside forward and i really do not know if it is a coincidence or not but after i add Hold up the ball instruction for Shadow Striker my team bang more and a lot of goals.

Shadow striker itself score more and give more assists, there is a game he made 3 assists and score 2 goals, that not happen never before this instruction. Maybe after your currents tests you should add this.

-----

In defence there is a difference in Argus for my team made sense, that is set off the step up more instruction and make balanced...at least watching the games it seems i suffer less from long balss and killing passes.

ZaZ, watching games i found the performance of my shadow striker very bad, does not participate well, score some goals but....

Did you test other roles in the AMC position like Atackind Mid or Channel Midfield?? The SS really outperformed all other roles?
(i read somewhere that the channel forward is the best if you play with striker)

it seems like ZaZ incresead penetration made a impact on the match engine....weel done

Mark, if you have to bring the shadow striker to a striker position in posession, what role do you would use?

I know the efficacy will go down but i want to use a striker, hahaaha, but struggling with the role for it.

so...aboslute no difference?

mate, the guy who made the top tactic just copy this version 1.5 with channel midfield, i see you did a 3.0 with inverted winger.

Try going up your box to box to MC position i guess the margin is narrow but will improve something.

good work, i'm using it in my save.

Lol, the new top tactic is literally, literally, this tactic without any changes (team and players - in possession and out possession) beside the box to box going up to channel mid (but with the same instructions).