saycarramrod said: @Mark Just curious if there's an inverse formula for this? For instance say I was looking for a player that was out of position that I wanted to convert and figure out their GS Rating if they went from 1 in a position to 20 (extreme example, but lets roll with it). If I have a CM that is a 1 for the position rating and is a 60% GS Rating, it's not as simple as adding the ~40% to that if he became a 20 in the position rating and becomes a 100% for the CM rating - so just curious if it's something you've looked into. Thanks! Expand
I think the best way to do this is looking at the general rating for each position which is at the following post
dzek said: Can we have the updated table about positions abilities and penaltys? FM21 had 6.5% in Accomplished and in FM22 has 8.5%? Expand
I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Middleweight165 said: @Mark Do you know what the GS potential rating is based on? I signed some young players whose potential rating was over 90% but now this has dropped. Looking at it more closely it seems to fluctuate. Why is this? Expand
Below are excerpts from guides on FM Scout where they have extensively looked at CA and PA to develop their tool. I hope this helps.
General
Well, first and foremost it is very important to understand that attributes are the most important thing. As a player develops, their attributes will increase and this drives the increase in CA, not the other way around. So it is important to have effective training for your players and give them game time at an appropriate level. For players 18 and younger, training is the most important. Above 18 getting adequate game time at an appropriate level becomes more important than training. Of course, a player also needs a good personality and determination in order to develop. A player with a poor personality may benefit from mentoring by a more senior player with a good personality.
Remember that the PA acts as a cap on the CA and hence the attributes. The player development does not depend on PA i.e. a young player with 180 PA will not necessarily develop faster than one with 100 PA. It simply means that the 100 PA player will reach his limit sooner and hence stop developing. For training, you can look to improve any weak attributes by selecting an appropriate additional focus that covers those attributes. The player will then spend more training time on those attributes causing them to rise leading to an increase in CA. You can look at the weights to decide which attributes are important for the players position. For example, Central Defenders have high weights for Decisions and Marking so you may choose to use 'Defensive Positioning' as that focusses on Marking, Positioning and Decisions. Role training covers several attributes that are considered key for a particular role.
Higher weighted attributes will essentially use up more CA than lower weighted ones. If a player already has a decent value for a highly-weighted attribute, further development in that attribute is essentially at the expense of potential growth in other attributes. So if you have a striker with 17 for Finishing and still some room for development, it could be better spent increasing his poor heading ability rather than trying to get him to have 20 for Finishing. Basically, try and develop well-rounded players with decent values in all the relevant attributes for their position and role. Regularly check on the training progress and change focus to better spread the development across attributes.
Current Ability
CA is a translation. It takes the attribute ratings, along with a few hidden attributes and calculates all of it into a number between 0 and 200. At that point in time, with those exact stats, that is the CA of the player.
This does not mean that if someone were to play out of this world, they would have a CA of 200, rather CA is the calculation of the overall player’s ability based on their stats. Not a form calculation.
CA can fluctuate, it is not static. As a player improves or decreases throughout the simulation, their CA can fluctuate accordingly. You as the manager do not see an overall increase or decrease in a set number as in FIFA, rather you see the attribute fluctuations within your player over time.
Potential Ability
PA is like CA, rather than it being a current representation of a player; PA is the potential that a player can reach. However, it does not mean that they will achieve their potential as is the case in real life.
Again, this can be misjudged by your staff and even yourself, there are guides and development tools available on FMScout to help you grow your players - but nothing is ever set in stone.
A player will only ever reach their maximum potential if they develop under the right circumstances. It can depend on multiple factors such as; age, personality traits, playing time, club facilities, mental attributes, hidden attributes, and youth staff.
Therefore, it is crucial for you as a manager to keep an eye on your staff and your youth players and plan out what is best for them.
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
I think the best way to do this is looking at the general rating for each position which is at the following post
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/13851/
I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Hope this helps.
Below are excerpts from guides on FM Scout where they have extensively looked at CA and PA to develop their tool. I hope this helps.
General
Well, first and foremost it is very important to understand that attributes are the most important thing. As a player develops, their attributes will increase and this drives the increase in CA, not the other way around. So it is important to have effective training for your players and give them game time at an appropriate level. For players 18 and younger, training is the most important. Above 18 getting adequate game time at an appropriate level becomes more important than training. Of course, a player also needs a good personality and determination in order to develop. A player with a poor personality may benefit from mentoring by a more senior player with a good personality.
Remember that the PA acts as a cap on the CA and hence the attributes. The player development does not depend on PA i.e. a young player with 180 PA will not necessarily develop faster than one with 100 PA. It simply means that the 100 PA player will reach his limit sooner and hence stop developing.
For training, you can look to improve any weak attributes by selecting an appropriate additional focus that covers those attributes. The player will then spend more training time on those attributes causing them to rise leading to an increase in CA. You can look at the weights to decide which attributes are important for the players position. For example, Central Defenders have high weights for Decisions and Marking so you may choose to use 'Defensive Positioning' as that focusses on Marking, Positioning and Decisions. Role training covers several attributes that are considered key for a particular role.
Higher weighted attributes will essentially use up more CA than lower weighted ones. If a player already has a decent value for a highly-weighted attribute, further development in that attribute is essentially at the expense of potential growth in other attributes. So if you have a striker with 17 for Finishing and still some room for development, it could be better spent increasing his poor heading ability rather than trying to get him to have 20 for Finishing. Basically, try and develop well-rounded players with decent values in all the relevant attributes for their position and role. Regularly check on the training progress and change focus to better spread the development across attributes.
Current Ability
CA is a translation. It takes the attribute ratings, along with a few hidden attributes and calculates all of it into a number between 0 and 200. At that point in time, with those exact stats, that is the CA of the player.
This does not mean that if someone were to play out of this world, they would have a CA of 200, rather CA is the calculation of the overall player’s ability based on their stats. Not a form calculation.
CA can fluctuate, it is not static. As a player improves or decreases throughout the simulation, their CA can fluctuate accordingly. You as the manager do not see an overall increase or decrease in a set number as in FIFA, rather you see the attribute fluctuations within your player over time.
Potential Ability
PA is like CA, rather than it being a current representation of a player; PA is the potential that a player can reach. However, it does not mean that they will achieve their potential as is the case in real life.
Again, this can be misjudged by your staff and even yourself, there are guides and development tools available on FMScout to help you grow your players - but nothing is ever set in stone.
A player will only ever reach their maximum potential if they develop under the right circumstances. It can depend on multiple factors such as; age, personality traits, playing time, club facilities, mental attributes, hidden attributes, and youth staff.
Therefore, it is crucial for you as a manager to keep an eye on your staff and your youth players and plan out what is best for them.
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