Mark said: I did. Still testing the different ratings files for FM24 Expand
I'm always one FM behind, so have just started on FM23. I read in this thread you flittered between yk balanced ratings and the MDW22. Do you prefer one?
Also I had a quick look at some players using the MDW22. The highest rated player interested in joining me had 9/10 Pace and Acceleration. Would you still sign this player? It didnt sit right with me that I'd sign players with such low speed, as we are always pushing that physicals are the most important, but this might be subjective bias. What are your thoughts?
What is the etiquette of testing tactics published by other authors on different sites? Of course referencing them as the author and not claiming the tactic as my own. I'm thinking of the well known names in the community who always publish successful tactics and it would be nice to compare them against the tactics here. Is it allowed?
Mark said: I am sorry, I am overseas at the moment and have a trip across the Simpson Desert when I get back so wont be able to respond thoroughly. If you go back to The original thread for my ratings I think it explains the logic. Otherwise I will try and answer this in 4 or 5 weeks when I am back. Expand
Thanks! I'm actually still playing FM22 so I'll edit this more in line with the best attributes for that game version. How did you choose the weightings?
Falbravv said: If you want to follow key attributes, you don't need multiples ratings. For example, i made my own GS rating only with 9-10 attributes, and it gives me great results. The aim is to give energy on top key attributes.
If you want to play the game with a different approach, with all the attributes (but some of them are 100% useless), take Mark GS to find players. Expand
Falbravv said: To be honest, it's not better. But it's more realistic because you follow more attributes.
Second point to be honnest, it was said a lot of time here, if you made a Rating which include Pace, Acc, Anticipation and 4-5 good attributes, you will find top players for the META, not for the general game.
In my Rating Haaland is 10 points ahead form the rest, it seems always realistic Expand
Maybe I have a mental block but I'm struggling to allow myself to sign a LB from the semi pro leagues because he has 16 in Acceleration and Pace but low stats in everything else and 10% less in @Mark ratings, when i have a LB who has average stats across the board
Falbravv said: If you want to follow key attributes, you don't need multiples ratings. For example, i made my own GS rating only with 9-10 attributes, and it gives me great results. The aim is to give energy on top key attributes.
If you want to play the game with a different approach, with all the attributes (but some of them are 100% useless), take Mark GS to find players. Expand
This is what I am trying to understand. Why would I choose Marks over just focusing on the key attributes? What approach is that? More realistic or better?
@Mark I'm still using your ratings for GS. Would you change anything to your ratings? Could you explain in laymans terms how your ratings work? What is the benefit of me using your ratings and not just focusing on those top key attributes identified here?
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important. Expand
Zippo said: Hi. Sorry, I don't get what you mean. Expand
You compared a Bournemouth against higher average CA teams, Man City, Liverpool. I'm curious to know what you think would happen if you compared teams with the same CA but one of those teams eg Bournemouth like your test had a higher scores in the important attributes.
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams
Chriswin4 said: Is there a way perhaps to try and moneyball this mother? So if we work on the basis of the table and maybe figure out a base of attributes that aren't important per position. So for example let's say a 50 rating of importance/weight per the YKYKYKY balanced genie scout ratings. If we give those attributes of 50 an in game value of say 10? This is based on managing in the Premier League. Could we then somehow get the evaluation of a player down to one single number through an equation. Going from attributes that are weighted 50 right through to 100+. Do you guys think this is possible? I read in another thread Mark had come up with RCAT or something? Expand
This is something I am interested in as well. Managing in the lower leagues its difficult to find good players, this project is too advanced for me though
@Zippo How do you think teams would compare with a same average CA but one with more points distributed in the key attributes and the other with a more even distribution and less points in the key attributes and both using the same tactics?
I'm using @Mark GS ratings to choose players but I'm wondering if I would be better using @ZaZ which I believe is more weighted to these key attributes
Mark said: I have successfully used just very tall CBs for lower league comps but not sure it would work for serious leagues. Higher leagues I would definitely used a good GS rating file like ykykyk balanced Expand
I'm using that ratings file and he scores highly. Would you follow that more that specific attributes?
I usually only sign 6'0+ CBs because I think any smaller and there'll get beaten in the air. This might be true for real life but is it true in the game?
I feel like someone here will have measured whether height has any effect or not.
Found a quality cheap CB but he's 5'10, basically looking for someone to give me some comfort about signing him His Jumping Reach is 11
@Zippo When choosing the attributes why did you eliminate Jumping Reach, Balance, Finishing from your list when these scored higher than others in the attribute testing? Obviously JR and Finishing are quiet position specfic but balance is generic?
I'm just interested, I have been using GS with Marks file, but I want to eliminate GS use now, so I'm going to try and focus on the method you have used here
ZaZ said: Sorry, Green is better defensively and I added a version to use together with Blue. If you just want to use the same shape, then Solid is the best I could do. Expand
I'm also using 'Encourage' shout when drawing and 'Praise' shout when winning.
I watch games on key highlight mode.
Is there anything else I can do to increase my chance of winning without micro managing games?
Thanks!
Edit - theres a new section that theyve been moved to
I'm always one FM behind, so have just started on FM23. I read in this thread you flittered between yk balanced ratings and the MDW22. Do you prefer one?
Also I had a quick look at some players using the MDW22. The highest rated player interested in joining me had 9/10 Pace and Acceleration. Would you still sign this player? It didnt sit right with me that I'd sign players with such low speed, as we are always pushing that physicals are the most important, but this might be subjective bias. What are your thoughts?
Thanks mate! Enjoy your trip, sounds epic!
Thanks! I'm actually still playing FM22 so I'll edit this more in line with the best attributes for that game version. How did you choose the weightings?
For example, i made my own GS rating only with 9-10 attributes, and it gives me great results.
The aim is to give energy on top key attributes.
If you want to play the game with a different approach, with all the attributes (but some of them are 100% useless), take Mark GS to find players.
Could you share your GS ratings?
Second point to be honnest, it was said a lot of time here, if you made a Rating which include Pace, Acc, Anticipation and 4-5 good attributes, you will find top players for the META, not for the general game.
In my Rating Haaland is 10 points ahead form the rest, it seems always realistic
Maybe I have a mental block but I'm struggling to allow myself to sign a LB from the semi pro leagues because he has 16 in Acceleration and Pace but low stats in everything else and 10% less in @Mark ratings, when i have a LB who has average stats across the board
For example, i made my own GS rating only with 9-10 attributes, and it gives me great results.
The aim is to give energy on top key attributes.
If you want to play the game with a different approach, with all the attributes (but some of them are 100% useless), take Mark GS to find players.
This is what I am trying to understand. Why would I choose Marks over just focusing on the key attributes? What approach is that? More realistic or better?
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important.
Yeah thats great thanks
You compared a Bournemouth against higher average CA teams, Man City, Liverpool. I'm curious to know what you think would happen if you compared teams with the same CA but one of those teams eg Bournemouth like your test had a higher scores in the important attributes.
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams
This is something I am interested in as well. Managing in the lower leagues its difficult to find good players, this project is too advanced for me though
@Zippo How do you think teams would compare with a same average CA but one with more points distributed in the key attributes and the other with a more even distribution and less points in the key attributes and both using the same tactics?
I'm using @Mark GS ratings to choose players but I'm wondering if I would be better using @ZaZ which I believe is more weighted to these key attributes
I'm using that ratings file and he scores highly. Would you follow that more that specific attributes?
I feel like someone here will have measured whether height has any effect or not.
Found a quality cheap CB but he's 5'10, basically looking for someone to give me some comfort about signing him
I'm just interested, I have been using GS with Marks file, but I want to eliminate GS use now, so I'm going to try and focus on the method you have used here
Ok mate thanks, just wanted to check first