Just so you all know, the starting point isn't 10 for all attributes. See post from Zippo. Player starting attributes for Attribute Testing. So things like Pace and acceleration move to 20 for forwards with the plus 5.
And here is the FM Scout Definitive Guide to CA. This does seem to indicate some tapering off for over 16 and under 5.
NandaldiaN said: i think we can ask @Mark what training schedule is using this year Expand
I haven't had a chance to test any yet. I have been using an adaptation of Max's EBFM training from last year. Had a few injuries so have now tweaked it.
I took the great work done by @sponsorkindest with his QuadroWave X-4 tactic and tried to apply some of the approaches used by @A Smile with his deformation II tactic. I moved the AML back to ML as an IW Support and used focus attack down right flank and overlap left.
The testing used 2 sides in the EPL (Man City and Wolves), League One (Exeter and Wycombe) and VNL (Bromley and Kidderminister). Results were the best I have had with any tactic I have looked at. I am tempted to retry with a DW at ML to try and get better defence. See how this one goes first.
drake87 said: Why this is better ranked than 424 deformation II??? same points and lower goal difference Expand
Goal difference doesn't count. The FM Arena tests only go by points. They do 1200 games and convert it to points for 38 games. Obviously they are rounded to get to the points, so this tactic will have a fraction of a point more.
dzek said: Just selected them all (click on a player and then Ctrl + A) and then copy(Ctrl + C) them and paste them to an excel file. Let me know if it works or not! Expand
Yes it does. I hadnt realised how long it takes the program to put the data into the clipboard, so was was trying to paste before it had loaded. This is very helpful
Middleweight165 said: 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? Expand
FM23 I used MDW and trusted the ratings. Seemed to work
dzek said: To be honest, both programs have their good and bad points.
I was stuck with Genie Scout for many years and thought one year I would use FMRTE to see if it would help me better. What I find in GS as its best feature compared to FMRTE is its simplicity. Just this.
You can also import shortlist if I’m not wrong on FMRTE and sort them however you like. Now in terms of attributes weighting I think FMRTE excels for the reason that you can even set weightings for the strong/weak foot (which impacts CA/PA) but in GS is predefined under the hood for each position individually. Also another big help on FMRTE is that you can copy/paste anything within the program to anywhere you want and you dont need to take a screenshot then extract text from image etc.
Btw I’m not working or get any commission on FMRTE project I’m trying to help! Expand
When I previously have tried exporting from FMRTE I could only do 1 player at a time. Has this changed?
Snaipz said: Hey so I saw @AlexH sharing his excel file and I just wanted to share what I have, hopefully it helps someone selecting players for their tactic. All the info I gathered from this site is in there, big thanks to @Mark and @ZaZ probably some others I can't remember.
Thanks for this. It has given me some great ideas for improving my work. I really like the tool to converts the screenshots. Should save me a lot of time. Well done
I have used the top tactic (Deformation by @A Smile) and tried to integrate the best defensive tactic (Italian KO IV by @Delicious) to come up with something that is successful but still defensively sound.
One of the strikers moves back to an additional DM Vol Att, DL moves to Sup, and the Defensive line moves back to Higher from Much Higher. Attacking mentality drops to Balanced.
It seemed to deliver a solid defence and still performed reasonably well. I will now test it on Attacking.
The tests were done with Man City, Wolves in EPL ranked 1 and 20, Wycombe and Exeter in L1 ranked 8 and 20 and Bromley and Kidderminster in VNL ranked 11 and 23.
olimorris said: Ah, I hadn't explored ZAZ Blue enough to realise that. But you're absolutely right, alter the dictionary values (in the attribute weightings section) in the notebook. If it doesn't make sense, let me know on here or via a GitHub issue and I can take a look. Expand
I did spend a bit of time deriving and testing position scores for positions not originally included in the ZaZ Blue tests. I did also do extensive testing of tactics using different structures and they still seemed to work. So I do believe the ykykyky balanced ratings are ok for all positions. My only doubt would be on the GK position.
In terms of roles vs positions, I think this has been covered off pretty extensively, positions are far more important. If your player doesn't have the role it doesn't seem to impact. This may change in coming releases as the match engine undergoes major changes, however the the current version still seems to work with the ratings we have been using since the development of the ykykyky and MDW genie scout ratings.
olimorris said: Yeah would be really interesting to see that comparison. In my notebook it's possible to have multiple weightings dictionaries defined. You can then select which one to use and run the notebook to generate the output for each.
Would value your feedback on the tool so far. I'm mulling over turning it into a web based tool if enough people value its output. Expand
I am tied up with other FM stuff at the moment, so unfortunately haven't had the chance to look at your work. It does sound like something very beneficial to the community. I do have one question, ideally the tool would have the offset for the positional rating which I don't think you can download. I have always calculated this manually for my teams and key scouted players. Do you somehow derive this?
Hi @Zippo , is there any way we can get access to the set piece routines for the FM24 Hall of fame tactics. This would allow analysis on what is working and potentially lead us to better tactics
Hoping someone can help to differentiate the best (actually useful) attributes for two different DM roles. It seems that Volante is definitely a widely used role, but so is DM (Def) - just curious what a good balance/mix of attributes actually is given the importance to Pace/Acc vs Tackling/Marking if I actually want a good DM (Def) to close down games or alternate roles a bit. Or is it just no matter what, even for DM (Def) just get Pacey DMs with decent Jumping Reach and call it a day?
Thanks! Expand
I prefer to select the position rather than role. The key attributes for all DM roles are firstly Work Rate, then Pace and Stamina, then Passing, Decisions, Positioning, Teamwork, and Acceleration. Then train them in the role you will be using them the most ie Volante or DM De, and give them addition focus training of Defensive Positioning. This will give you the best result in my opinion.
Middleweight165 said: @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? Expand
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.
And here is the FM Scout Definitive Guide to CA. This does seem to indicate some tapering off for over 16 and under 5.
Hoping this helps inform some of your views.
My ratings came out before the machine learning ratings and are slightly different.
I haven't had a chance to test any yet. I have been using an adaptation of Max's EBFM training from last year. Had a few injuries so have now tweaked it.
No guarantees, but seems to be going alright now.
Here is the file
The testing used 2 sides in the EPL (Man City and Wolves), League One (Exeter and Wycombe) and VNL (Bromley and Kidderminister). Results were the best I have had with any tactic I have looked at. I am tempted to retry with a DW at ML to try and get better defence. See how this one goes first.
Goal difference doesn't count. The FM Arena tests only go by points. They do 1200 games and convert it to points for 38 games. Obviously they are rounded to get to the points, so this tactic will have a fraction of a point more.
ykykyky balanced ratings file link
Yes it does. I hadnt realised how long it takes the program to put the data into the clipboard, so was was trying to paste before it had loaded. This is very helpful
Thanks
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?
FM23 I used MDW and trusted the ratings. Seemed to work
I was stuck with Genie Scout for many years and thought one year I would use FMRTE to see if it would help me better. What I find in GS as its best feature compared to FMRTE is its simplicity. Just this.
You can also import shortlist if I’m not wrong on FMRTE and sort them however you like. Now in terms of attributes weighting I think FMRTE excels for the reason that you can even set weightings for the strong/weak foot (which impacts CA/PA) but in GS is predefined under the hood for each position individually. Also another big help on FMRTE is that you can copy/paste anything within the program to anywhere you want and you dont need to take a screenshot then extract text from image etc.
Btw I’m not working or get any commission on FMRTE project
When I previously have tried exporting from FMRTE I could only do 1 player at a time. Has this changed?
Excel file
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18Kku1AfHOGcHXyuUXjo23X5ETCH7bsy5/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=101720004536464855658&rtpof=true&sd=true
Squad attributes
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OT9j8s_YUS2kutouGIzIWyCmNlOhrQla/view?usp=drive_link
It goes to Documents\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2024\views
FM ratings by Mark
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LxZ4ncpzC2f2YG_hF8BFCsdRxV7Rlsz0/view?usp=drive_link
It goes to FM Genie Scout 24g\Ratings
My Genie scout view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pmonKM9DqBfEWqjMFN7J73N91zC_3bZP/view?usp=drive_link
It goes to FM Genie Scout 24g\Layouts
Thanks for this. It has given me some great ideas for improving my work. I really like the tool to converts the screenshots. Should save me a lot of time. Well done
I did. Still testing the different ratings files for FM24
Tested across 3 leagues with lower ranked sides plus Man City.
Enjoy
The Attacking version is much better.
One of the strikers moves back to an additional DM Vol Att, DL moves to Sup, and the Defensive line moves back to Higher from Much Higher. Attacking mentality drops to Balanced.
It seemed to deliver a solid defence and still performed reasonably well. I will now test it on Attacking.
The tests were done with Man City, Wolves in EPL ranked 1 and 20, Wycombe and Exeter in L1 ranked 8 and 20 and Bromley and Kidderminster in VNL ranked 11 and 23.
I did spend a bit of time deriving and testing position scores for positions not originally included in the ZaZ Blue tests. I did also do extensive testing of tactics using different structures and they still seemed to work. So I do believe the ykykyky balanced ratings are ok for all positions. My only doubt would be on the GK position.
In terms of roles vs positions, I think this has been covered off pretty extensively, positions are far more important. If your player doesn't have the role it doesn't seem to impact. This may change in coming releases as the match engine undergoes major changes, however the the current version still seems to work with the ratings we have been using since the development of the ykykyky and MDW genie scout ratings.
Would value your feedback on the tool so far. I'm mulling over turning it into a web based tool if enough people value its output.
I am tied up with other FM stuff at the moment, so unfortunately haven't had the chance to look at your work. It does sound like something very beneficial to the community. I do have one question, ideally the tool would have the offset for the positional rating which I don't think you can download. I have always calculated this manually for my teams and key scouted players. Do you somehow derive this?
Hoping someone can help to differentiate the best (actually useful) attributes for two different DM roles. It seems that Volante is definitely a widely used role, but so is DM (Def) - just curious what a good balance/mix of attributes actually is given the importance to Pace/Acc vs Tackling/Marking if I actually want a good DM (Def) to close down games or alternate roles a bit. Or is it just no matter what, even for DM (Def) just get Pacey DMs with decent Jumping Reach and call it a day?
Thanks!
I prefer to select the position rather than role. The key attributes for all DM roles are firstly Work Rate, then Pace and Stamina, then Passing, Decisions, Positioning, Teamwork, and Acceleration. Then train them in the role you will be using them the most ie Volante or DM De, and give them addition focus training of Defensive Positioning. This will give you the best result in my opinion.
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.
They are from the FM Arena testing results