GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Just piggybacking off this to say that I haven't used the player names/clubs to calibrate my values. There's a good reason for this, and that is that in-game player ratings don't correspond exactly to actual performance.
You can see evidence of this in this OmegaLuke video, where technicals give substantially higher player ratings than physicals, even though physicals actually won all the games. Orion's coefficients, which use in-game player ratings to deduce the best attributes, I've found are outdone by HarvestGreen's data which assesses according to goals scored or games won.
So this is why I don't try and align the values to fit player ratings or the best players, as that would achieve the opposite of what I want to achieve, which is show players who punch above their weight in a way the in-game AI doesn't recognize.
But I think there is some value in comparing the results afterwards, just to make sure one isn't completely off-track. Regardless of rating, we know Haaland gets goals, so if he's not up there then there's something amiss.
Additionally I think it's notable how the starting data closely aligns with physicals matter and technicals don't. If you plug in HarvestGreen's data, it just so happens that the top players start in the top clubs in the game. That sounds as straightforward 2+2=4, except realize that this means that SI knows exactly how the attributes are skewed and disingenuous. If they believed what they tell you about how the game works, then we should see these initial players at top clubs failing to perform. In fact, I think perhaps this in-game rating bias towards technicals is to try and stop AI managers simply buying up completely lopsided physical beasts as the game goes on.
I can think of a reasonable counter-argument or two to the above, but there is also some circumstantial evidence as I see it. If you use Genie Scout default ratings, 7 out of 9 top players (one of each position) are white. If you use HarvestGreen's data it changes to 7 out of 9 being black. Either SI still has a racism problem where black people are portrayed as mentally/technically poor physical beasts, or this is intentional. Or both.
I forgot to say that 'sweeper' position is intended to be my attempt at a tutor rating, and for Target Striker I've simply upped jumping reach to 100, as high pace/acc ST is simply better than a slow target man and I'm not sure if heading or whatnot affects the target man's performance (jumping reach certainly matters). Expand
What are you on about?? You seem to be discovering a lot of things years after most people knew that already. Whats next? the sun is hot?
Haaland is clear in FM 24. Surely it hasn't taken this much research to determine that? Mbappe is the best lw. Glad we've been finally able to clear up that FM genie scout default ratings are way off.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I guess a better way of putting it is that I don't want to come across as being snide, as I'm not driven by putting other people down and I also think there's a lot of great info being posted by this Zippo fellow (does he run the joint as well? I don't know).
The obvious retort is, well don't be snide. But how else are you meant to point out contradictions? It's not like I'm calling him an idiot. I'm just saying, look I think you're mistaken on this matter and here's my reasoning why. My name is a reference to this problem. A lot of people will read it and get their knickers in a knot. But it's just a factual claim. Even if it's not true, the real point of contention here for me is apparently we can't debate the facts out in the open on certain matters because it is tantamount to humiliation for people. I don't want to humiliate people, I just want to have a sober discussion about the facts as I see them. And aside from that, what's wrong with getting some enjoyment out of saying 'ackshally you're wrong' sometimes?
In my other thread you said you agreed with the comment that my name isn't appropriate for a FM forum. I chose it for an FM forum because my experience with SI staff has been that if you point out inconvenient truths about the game mechanics, you get hounded as ruining the game for people and banned for being 'insulting' or 'trolling'. Whereas here seems to be a forum where you can say such truths about the game openly. This is an pseudonymous forum, which lessens the need for decorum than in everyday human interaction, but I recognize that there's still a fellow egotist on the other side of the screen. Expand
What a load of shit😂. Do you think we're five years old?! Exposing the truths about football manager has nothing to do with your username.
Clearly you're desperate to be someone in the community, but all you're mainly doing is regurgitating other people's work. Well done. Bravo. You're a nobody. But at least you've got that username, really sticking it to SI!!
nimus said: Could you please recommend a few world-class players for each position? I'm asking because I'm curious about which attributes are most important for each specific role. Expand
World class is tough.
But a few faves; Gadou(variable pa) Alex Freeman, Saba, Bouaddi, Leon Grgic, Monga, Bergvall, Paz, Yildiz, Yoro, Minteh, Gilberto Mora, Uzun,
Bar2 said: This tactic is very effective against teams on my level or weaker, but I end up losing heavily against stronger teams. What could be causing that?
And which attributes would you recommend for the players in each position in this tactic when making transfers? Expand
With this tactic you can go from non league to league winners in straight seasons and probably win the champions league the year after.
You need to replace any players who are slow - acceleration and pace are the most important attributes.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: This simply isn't true. I just played a game with my 1 CA 20 NAT players to confirm, my ST went down to 61% in-match, 67% post-match. Perhaps it is true if match sharpness is also 100%. And if memory serves me correctly, natural fitness does not even affect condition fall rate, it is stamina that does.
As your stats show, the performance loss would be significant. It's not impossible to maintain ~100% condition, it's quite easy. Another reason is that you will also otherwise suffer exponentially greater injuries, as EBFM found injury rates of:
And those injuries create a vicious cycle of low match fitness & condition leading to more injuries. I would guesstimate injuries double overall if starting at 90-93% condition.
Is that really so? According to EBFM's data, the difference between the most intense and least intense settings were 1-2% condition difference by end of match.
Match sharpness is very important, more important than condition. It's performance impact is greater, and it's harder to maintain. So using rest is usually a bad idea, from my analysis of it.
These results might not be directly comparable, but you say that starting at 88% condition results in 16% worse performance. EBFM found that match sharpness 100% > 90% reduces win rate by 33.3% and injuries increased by ~25%.
I know I come across as a bit of a knob here with all of this, but it's partly that I can't resist knocking down falsehoods, and partly that I wrote a post on here about this very topic recently so I'm a bit of a zealot about it. I know I state a lot of things that turn out to be erroneous myself. This is just part of the process of discovery. Expand
Thought I'd F around and find out using the tactic, with Harvest training and won the champions League with Hibs in the third season. Obviously bought well along the way but lol
I've been playing with [Quickness]+[Match Practise]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Additional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] for a while, but I notice my players get injuries a lot and they don't have the injury icon as a con. I also rotate my players to not let them play while being at risk of getting an injury, although this isn't always unavoidable.
I was wondering if this is normal behaviour and I don't need to worry too much or if I maybe am doing something wrong or missing something. Or am I maybe even using the wrong training schedule? Expand
Are your players all set to automatic intensity? Alternatively just leave the second to last condition on rest as well. You will still see insane growth in speed and ca.
From the screenshots posted you really should try to adjust some of the weights to position. For example full backs and DM 's need stamina far more than centre backs. I would weight stamina quite highly for these positions, along with work rate. DM 's don't need dribbling either
debelizec19 said: Dear @keithb please can you explain what the trainig should look like for matches on tuesday and saturday(and other combinations) or give example? You mentiond that we need to be careful when we have matches on different days in week. So now I am little bit confused about training schedules on different days. I am using [Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+[Recovery]x7+[Double Intensity]+[Additional Focus Quickness]. Hope you understand what I am trying to understand Expand
Within the game you can make ALL your games to be played on Wednesday and Saturday and you should absolutely turn this on.
You can see evidence of this in this OmegaLuke video, where technicals give substantially higher player ratings than physicals, even though physicals actually won all the games. Orion's coefficients, which use in-game player ratings to deduce the best attributes, I've found are outdone by HarvestGreen's data which assesses according to goals scored or games won.
So this is why I don't try and align the values to fit player ratings or the best players, as that would achieve the opposite of what I want to achieve, which is show players who punch above their weight in a way the in-game AI doesn't recognize.
But I think there is some value in comparing the results afterwards, just to make sure one isn't completely off-track. Regardless of rating, we know Haaland gets goals, so if he's not up there then there's something amiss.
Additionally I think it's notable how the starting data closely aligns with physicals matter and technicals don't. If you plug in HarvestGreen's data, it just so happens that the top players start in the top clubs in the game. That sounds as straightforward 2+2=4, except realize that this means that SI knows exactly how the attributes are skewed and disingenuous. If they believed what they tell you about how the game works, then we should see these initial players at top clubs failing to perform. In fact, I think perhaps this in-game rating bias towards technicals is to try and stop AI managers simply buying up completely lopsided physical beasts as the game goes on.
I can think of a reasonable counter-argument or two to the above, but there is also some circumstantial evidence as I see it. If you use Genie Scout default ratings, 7 out of 9 top players (one of each position) are white. If you use HarvestGreen's data it changes to 7 out of 9 being black. Either SI still has a racism problem where black people are portrayed as mentally/technically poor physical beasts, or this is intentional. Or both.
Here are the values for FM24 blended.
I forgot to say that 'sweeper' position is intended to be my attempt at a tutor rating, and for Target Striker I've simply upped jumping reach to 100, as high pace/acc ST is simply better than a slow target man and I'm not sure if heading or whatnot affects the target man's performance (jumping reach certainly matters).
What are you on about?? You seem to be discovering a lot of things years after most people knew that already. Whats next? the sun is hot?
The obvious retort is, well don't be snide. But how else are you meant to point out contradictions? It's not like I'm calling him an idiot. I'm just saying, look I think you're mistaken on this matter and here's my reasoning why. My name is a reference to this problem. A lot of people will read it and get their knickers in a knot. But it's just a factual claim. Even if it's not true, the real point of contention here for me is apparently we can't debate the facts out in the open on certain matters because it is tantamount to humiliation for people. I don't want to humiliate people, I just want to have a sober discussion about the facts as I see them. And aside from that, what's wrong with getting some enjoyment out of saying 'ackshally you're wrong' sometimes?
In my other thread you said you agreed with the comment that my name isn't appropriate for a FM forum. I chose it for an FM forum because my experience with SI staff has been that if you point out inconvenient truths about the game mechanics, you get hounded as ruining the game for people and banned for being 'insulting' or 'trolling'. Whereas here seems to be a forum where you can say such truths about the game openly. This is an pseudonymous forum, which lessens the need for decorum than in everyday human interaction, but I recognize that there's still a fellow egotist on the other side of the screen.
What a load of shit😂. Do you think we're five years old?! Exposing the truths about football manager has nothing to do with your username.
Clearly you're desperate to be someone in the community, but all you're mainly doing is regurgitating other people's work. Well done. Bravo. You're a nobody. But at least you've got that username, really sticking it to SI!!
World class is tough.
But a few faves; Gadou(variable pa) Alex Freeman, Saba, Bouaddi, Leon Grgic, Monga, Bergvall, Paz, Yildiz, Yoro, Minteh, Gilberto Mora, Uzun,
Congratulations on the 95!!!
And which attributes would you recommend for the players in each position in this tactic when making transfers?
With this tactic you can go from non league to league winners in straight seasons and probably win the champions league the year after.
You need to replace any players who are slow - acceleration and pace are the most important attributes.
As your stats show, the performance loss would be significant. It's not impossible to maintain ~100% condition, it's quite easy. Another reason is that you will also otherwise suffer exponentially greater injuries, as EBFM found injury rates of:
(starting) 100% condition = 8 in-match injuries
(starting) 80% condition = 20 in-match injuries
(starting) 60% condition = 87 in-match injuries
And those injuries create a vicious cycle of low match fitness & condition leading to more injuries. I would guesstimate injuries double overall if starting at 90-93% condition.
Is that really so? According to EBFM's data, the difference between the most intense and least intense settings were 1-2% condition difference by end of match.
Match sharpness is very important, more important than condition. It's performance impact is greater, and it's harder to maintain. So using rest is usually a bad idea, from my analysis of it.
These results might not be directly comparable, but you say that starting at 88% condition results in 16% worse performance. EBFM found that match sharpness 100% > 90% reduces win rate by 33.3% and injuries increased by ~25%.
I know I come across as a bit of a knob here with all of this, but it's partly that I can't resist knocking down falsehoods, and partly that I wrote a post on here about this very topic recently so I'm a bit of a zealot about it. I know I state a lot of things that turn out to be erroneous myself. This is just part of the process of discovery.
Come across as? Bit?
Yes but the mother of your children is also your sister so
It's certainly different. And I agree with you
There is no option to show my Youth (U19) Team.
They have a different name then, search for that. Which club are you?
as you seem to know a lot about Genie Scout. I have a question.
I hope it's fine I post it here. =)
I want to see my U19 via Genie Scout but don't know how to import it into Genie.
Do you know a workaround for that?
Help would be much appreciated =)
thanks in advance
Asliv
You search by teams, your team and then it's an option there.
And this players personality?
I've been playing with [Quickness]+[Match Practise]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Additional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] for a while, but I notice my players get injuries a lot and they don't have the injury icon as a con. I also rotate my players to not let them play while being at risk of getting an injury, although this isn't always unavoidable.
I was wondering if this is normal behaviour and I don't need to worry too much or if I maybe am doing something wrong or missing something. Or am I maybe even using the wrong training schedule?
Are your players all set to automatic intensity? Alternatively just leave the second to last condition on rest as well. You will still see insane growth in speed and ca.
Within the game you can make ALL your games to be played on Wednesday and Saturday and you should absolutely turn this on.