duxa92 said: Hey! Will ykykyky rating work well with Positive Tiki Taka - Shadow Striker Tweak ( v2 )? This tactic is more possession focused, so I can suppose attributes like Technic, Passing, First touch and Vision could be more valuable. Also IFs are more similar to a Fast Striker, than a classical Winger. And is it necessary to chase for Finishing for STs an IFs? For ex. will be player with 10-12 Finishing effective as a ST in EPL for a top club like City, Liverpool? Expand
The ykykyky ratings should work for any tactic. They are based on what works for positions so changing roles shouldn't impact. The only position not included in the ratings file is stopper, which is rarely used now.
In terms of actual attribute scores, don't worry about that. Just get your players at around the average rating for the league and they will be fine using a tactic from near the top of the FM Arena table like you are suggesting.
The ykykyky genie scout file is at post #103 page 4. I haven't done a genie scout file based on the attributes that appear to be the best value. As I said above, I just use filters.
I am testing whether they work. I have selected the worst side from a lower division and swapped in the players using each of 3 systems, the default, ykykyky, and ykykyky using the value filters with average attribute scores for the division. I also capped the rating scores to select players below the 15th side in the league to keep the side lowly rated in the league.
Interestingly each of the selected teams is totally different. I will run 3 or 4 tests for each and see if there is a consistent result. I will post the results when they are done.
Gracolas said: Hey @Mark sorry but im feeling quite stupid today What you're saying is that the best attribute per position (CA cost wise) would be Vision for DCs, Off the ball for DRL and so on? Meaning, if i only train these attributes i will get my players to the best performance possible instead of just train them for quickness. Am I wrong? Expand
It is ykykyky position weighting divided by CA cost. So whilst I haven't tested it I think so. I have been cycling through the attributes with more than 15 on my table by position using additional focus. But I am also using filters to try and target players with those attributes when buying players.
saycarramrod said: Ah, I see now, thanks. Theoretically, could I use the ratings above to create a GS file based just on those attributes at the ratings listed for the best supposed value? Expand
There is nothing to stop you doing that. But if you do it the way I have said you can differentiate the players with the ykykyky ratings
saycarramrod said: @Mark Will try this - just want to make sure I understand that in GS I will change the rating for each position with the above screenshot and search only with that for best player/position% I can find and they should (theoretically) be lower cost but better performace? If you have the re-rated file please feel free to share so I don't mess it up/misunderstand the ratings! Thanks! Expand
I just use the ykykyky rating file but use the filters with the attributes highlighted above. For example, with a DC I look at the Squad / Analyst Report for defenders and get the highest attributes for the Division I am in for Passing, Vision, Composure and Work Rate and put those values into the filter on Genie Scout, rounding up. I then make sure the players have 20 out of 20 for DC.
I decided to try and find a way to get best value for money for buying players. I have used the ykykyky ratings file which finds the best players by position, I know just using acceleration and pace will result in pretty good players especially in lower divisions. What I decided to focus on was attributes with low CA cost, using the attribute cost table, but big positional impact ie high weighting in the ykykyky rating file. I only looked at rating weights of 50 or higher.
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go.
At post #31 above I gave my views on training including additional focus. @ZaZ provided some additional advice on preventing injury through training at post #38. I thought I would provide a few more tips on my approach to managing.
I always set up 5 selection groups and review it each time I sign new players. The groups are Best XI, Second XI, Potential, Speed, and Size. A summary of each - Best XI is obviously your best side based on ykykyky balanced GS Ratings. Second XI once again self evident, the back up team with second best player in each position based on GS Ratings. Potential is the team of players that would benefit most and has the most improvement based on GS Ratings. Speed uses the player with the best Acceleration for each position based on the players from the first 3 sides. Size uses the player with the best height/weight for each position based on the players from the first 3 sides.
I then use the Best XI as the default side, and drag in players from the Second XI if and when there are injuries or suspensions. If we have a congested schedule I will rotate the squads between these 2 selection groups. I use the Potential side for Cup games and late in the season if there are games that don't matter. For the other 2 selection groups, I look at the scouting report for the coming game and if Acceleration or Pace are mentioned in the weaknesses I use the Speed group, and if Determination or Bravery is mentioned in the weaknesses I use the Size group.
I only generally train 2 tactics, ZaZ Blue 4.0 and Winx V4. They are a similar structure so I can easily move between them. Winx uses an MC instead of AMC and plays wider instead of ZaZ Blues attack down the middle. I use ZaZ Blue as the default and only move to Winx if the opposition defence is breaking down and stopping the middle attacks or if we are getting a few unexpected results. When we get 2 or 3 goals in front or we cop 4 or 5 yellow cards I just set the mentality to Cautious.
I like to control all the teams for the club so I can ensure that all the players stay match fit and have the opportunity to fulfil their promise. It also means that if a player is out of form you can manage it, that is you can drop him until his form improves and give an up and coming player a run at the top grade. I find this is particularly useful for strikers.
Anyhow, I hope this has helped someone. It has certainly worked for me.
Middleweight165 said: @Mark Why did you come to the choice of using the ykykyk file? Didn't the ZaZ under minus 25 score higher when you did your test? I understand that ZaZs gives more value but why do you think ykykyk is more stable longer term? Expand
Testing wasn't a huge sample. I think if you believe in the machine learning work then you go with their total results. I had a lot of faith in my original ratings and these seem to be slightly better. So I continue to use the ykykyky one successfully.
I found that taking control of U18 selections didn't get followed so I have been managing both my lower grades for some time. It is good to have everyone match fit
So can I add, that what I posted was the additional focus aspect. You should also train each player to the position and role you want to play them in. Also check all players after each match and set any that are fatigued to rest for a few days. This will limit the injuries.
There have been a lot of questions about training focus for each position over many months on this website. I have generally approached this by looking at which individual additional training focus would suit the position best. After analysing the machine learning weightings against attributes that each individual additional training focus covers I think a rolling approach of between 1 and 4 training focuses should be used depending on the position.
To take the most advantage of the additional focus you need to have some of the training sessions that allow individual focus training in your weekly training schedules. The best schedules for this are Aerial Defence, Ground Defence, Chance Creation and Chance Conversion.
Here are the Training Focus calculations based on the GS Ratings, with the best individual focus schedules in blue for each position.
If you look at the ones that score at 150 points and above and then stick them into a 12 week schedule it looks like this:
After the 12 week cycle you need to start again at the top.
Rhumble said: Not sure if its been mentioned before , what does Genie Scout take into account when it gives its percentage ratings for positions , does it calculate whether a player is natural , accomplished etc... and what footed a player is , or is it purely on the attributes and weighting.
Ive tried adding up the main attributes and getting an average of ykykyk Balanced and i also look at pace and acceleration ,, the ones i work out on my own who i think will be a better fit for a position, never seem to be the players with the highest percentage for that position on Genie Scout, is it better to use Genie scouts position percentage for finding a player for a position , or just use quickness and the main attributes that are weighted 100 - 60 Expand
Look at post #185 for positional offsets. I correct this back to normal and then deduct 2.5% offset for each point below 20 the player is in that position.
I do my own calculations after using either ykykyky or my own ratings. Both seem to work really well both for selection purposes in my squad and analysing the players my scouts find. You cant go wrong using players with high acceleration, and using the higher rated attributes from the machine learning ratings will always get you someone worthwhile. You can do as much work or as little as you feel comfortable with.
Also take into account injury proneness, professionalism and how players will fit into the club dynamics. The main thing is that you enjoy yourself.
dzek said: I will ask you if you can try and average it as it is in the game. I mean lets say "Ilaix Moriba" Has natural position as AMC but his attributes in GS says that it will be better in RB by far and with many more players like Haaland from striker to AMC etc. Expand
Cant say I have ever worried about the General Rating. It takes too long to retrain people from scratch. It could just be minor errors in the balancing I did that throws that up. It is not exact as you cannot use partial percentages and attribute weightings are limited to whole numbers and cant go above 100. So there are major limitations on getting it exact. I rely more on the Positional Ratings. At least there they have some existing ability that can be built upon. I doubt the attributes are identical but in my game Moriba would be best as a central midfielder, MC, DM, AMC and maybe left winger. I wouldn't try outside of that. He could fill in as a right winger but I would do that sparingly.
dzek said: Indeed but i think there is a problem with weightings because in my save there is no one player who the best position in "General Rating" is FS or TS. The most player are better in FB, WB or W. Expand
You can adjust the weightings for positions to offset this. I tried around a dozen different saves and averaged it. It is not perfect, so you can adjust as you see fit
lordus said: I am new to this... What exactly does the weight coefficient do in Genie Scout? The values there are exactly the values you get when generating a player with 20 in all attributes for a specific position. For example FS is 109% and the weight in Genie Scout is 109 (based on "ykykyk balanced" ). Expand
The weighting eg 109% for FS is the balancing aspect that allows you to compare players across positions. Otherwise all the top players would be from one position. You can strip the weightings out if you want and just make all positions 100%. I would suggest you save that rating with a different name in case you don't like the results.
Rhumble said: Im finishing off a save on 2021 , do you think the ykykyky balanced will work on 2021 , or is there a disparage between the attributes needed ,, the file works on 2021 , but im guessing the attributes are based on 2022 , is there much difference i need to make it work for 2021 or should i forget using it for 2021 Expand
You definitely use the ratings in 2021 version. The changes each year are quite minimal. Pace and Acceleration have always had the biggest impact, but some positions more than others.
lordus said: First of all good work! I love meta-analyses like this! If you compare within a position, that's great! But if I want to find out which position a youth player should play in the future, the result is usually Winger or FB. For example, if I create a player with 20 in all attributes, a winger gets 120% and a FS gets 109%. Or do I just normalize the result to 100%? Is it even possible to decide in this way which position is the best for a player? Expand
That is an interesting question and one I have thought about a few times. I have meant to run some tests on this but have yet to get to it. Leave it with me and I will have a look in a few weeks.
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/11281/
should be
The ykykyky ratings should work for any tactic. They are based on what works for positions so changing roles shouldn't impact. The only position not included in the ratings file is stopper, which is rarely used now.
In terms of actual attribute scores, don't worry about that. Just get your players at around the average rating for the league and they will be fine using a tactic from near the top of the FM Arena table like you are suggesting.
I am testing whether they work. I have selected the worst side from a lower division and swapped in the players using each of 3 systems, the default, ykykyky, and ykykyky using the value filters with average attribute scores for the division. I also capped the rating scores to select players below the 15th side in the league to keep the side lowly rated in the league.
Interestingly each of the selected teams is totally different. I will run 3 or 4 tests for each and see if there is a consistent result. I will post the results when they are done.
It is ykykyky position weighting divided by CA cost. So whilst I haven't tested it I think so. I have been cycling through the attributes with more than 15 on my table by position using additional focus. But I am also using filters to try and target players with those attributes when buying players.
There is nothing to stop you doing that. But if you do it the way I have said you can differentiate the players with the ykykyky ratings
I just use the ykykyky rating file but use the filters with the attributes highlighted above. For example, with a DC I look at the Squad / Analyst Report for defenders and get the highest attributes for the Division I am in for Passing, Vision, Composure and Work Rate and put those values into the filter on Genie Scout, rounding up. I then make sure the players have 20 out of 20 for DC.
I then ranked the attributes after calculating the attribute weight divided by CA cost.
I think the attribute scores that are above 15 are the ones to use. I have been using the Division average and adding a point or 2 and searching for players. I seem to be getting pretty good players using this approach. My most recent save is tier 8 in the English system. I struggled early and was 6 wins 2 draws and 2 losses after the first 10 games. I restarted the save and bought 10 players using this approach, to cover all outfield positions using ZaZ Blue 4.0. Won the first 10 games.
If you give it a try, please let me know how you go.
I always set up 5 selection groups and review it each time I sign new players. The groups are Best XI, Second XI, Potential, Speed, and Size. A summary of each - Best XI is obviously your best side based on ykykyky balanced GS Ratings. Second XI once again self evident, the back up team with second best player in each position based on GS Ratings. Potential is the team of players that would benefit most and has the most improvement based on GS Ratings. Speed uses the player with the best Acceleration for each position based on the players from the first 3 sides. Size uses the player with the best height/weight for each position based on the players from the first 3 sides.
I then use the Best XI as the default side, and drag in players from the Second XI if and when there are injuries or suspensions. If we have a congested schedule I will rotate the squads between these 2 selection groups. I use the Potential side for Cup games and late in the season if there are games that don't matter. For the other 2 selection groups, I look at the scouting report for the coming game and if Acceleration or Pace are mentioned in the weaknesses I use the Speed group, and if Determination or Bravery is mentioned in the weaknesses I use the Size group.
I only generally train 2 tactics, ZaZ Blue 4.0 and Winx V4. They are a similar structure so I can easily move between them. Winx uses an MC instead of AMC and plays wider instead of ZaZ Blues attack down the middle. I use ZaZ Blue as the default and only move to Winx if the opposition defence is breaking down and stopping the middle attacks or if we are getting a few unexpected results. When we get 2 or 3 goals in front or we cop 4 or 5 yellow cards I just set the mentality to Cautious.
I like to control all the teams for the club so I can ensure that all the players stay match fit and have the opportunity to fulfil their promise. It also means that if a player is out of form you can manage it, that is you can drop him until his form improves and give an up and coming player a run at the top grade. I find this is particularly useful for strikers.
Anyhow, I hope this has helped someone. It has certainly worked for me.
Yep
Testing wasn't a huge sample. I think if you believe in the machine learning work then you go with their total results. I had a lot of faith in my original ratings and these seem to be slightly better. So I continue to use the ykykyky one successfully.
To take the most advantage of the additional focus you need to have some of the training sessions that allow individual focus training in your weekly training schedules. The best schedules for this are Aerial Defence, Ground Defence, Chance Creation and Chance Conversion.
Here are the Training Focus calculations based on the GS Ratings, with the best individual focus schedules in blue for each position.
If you look at the ones that score at 150 points and above and then stick them into a 12 week schedule it looks like this:
After the 12 week cycle you need to start again at the top.
Ive tried adding up the main attributes and getting an average of ykykyk Balanced and i also look at pace and acceleration ,, the ones i work out on my own who i think will be a better fit for a position, never seem to be the players with the highest percentage for that position on Genie Scout, is it better to use Genie scouts position percentage for finding a player for a position , or just use quickness and the main attributes that are weighted 100 - 60
Look at post #185 for positional offsets. I correct this back to normal and then deduct 2.5% offset for each point below 20 the player is in that position.
I do my own calculations after using either ykykyky or my own ratings. Both seem to work really well both for selection purposes in my squad and analysing the players my scouts find. You cant go wrong using players with high acceleration, and using the higher rated attributes from the machine learning ratings will always get you someone worthwhile. You can do as much work or as little as you feel comfortable with.
Also take into account injury proneness, professionalism and how players will fit into the club dynamics. The main thing is that you enjoy yourself.
Cant say I have ever worried about the General Rating. It takes too long to retrain people from scratch. It could just be minor errors in the balancing I did that throws that up. It is not exact as you cannot use partial percentages and attribute weightings are limited to whole numbers and cant go above 100. So there are major limitations on getting it exact. I rely more on the Positional Ratings. At least there they have some existing ability that can be built upon. I doubt the attributes are identical but in my game Moriba would be best as a central midfielder, MC, DM, AMC and maybe left winger. I wouldn't try outside of that. He could fill in as a right winger but I would do that sparingly.
You can adjust the weightings for positions to offset this. I tried around a dozen different saves and averaged it. It is not perfect, so you can adjust as you see fit
The values there are exactly the values you get when generating a player with 20 in all attributes for a specific position. For example FS is 109% and the weight in Genie Scout is 109 (based on "ykykyk balanced" ).
The weighting eg 109% for FS is the balancing aspect that allows you to compare players across positions. Otherwise all the top players would be from one position. You can strip the weightings out if you want and just make all positions 100%. I would suggest you save that rating with a different name in case you don't like the results.
You definitely use the ratings in 2021 version. The changes each year are quite minimal. Pace and Acceleration have always had the biggest impact, but some positions more than others.
If you compare within a position, that's great! But if I want to find out which position a youth player should play in the future, the result is usually Winger or FB. For example, if I create a player with 20 in all attributes, a winger gets 120% and a FS gets 109%. Or do I just normalize the result to 100%? Is it even possible to decide in this way which position is the best for a player?
That is an interesting question and one I have thought about a few times. I have meant to run some tests on this but have yet to get to it. Leave it with me and I will have a look in a few weeks.