I have downloaded the Genie Scout data from the base save and selected all the squads. Each team will have 28 players, all from their U18 and U23 squads. All squad players were selected by their Ability Difference, that is the difference between Potential Ability and Current Ability, with the player having the highest gap getting the first position in the squad. I take the best side I can get as the run on eleven and then pick a reserve for each position but only a single DC and STC. This makes up 9 reserves. I am not sure how the AM will select players outside my first 11 but I have added 3 reserves, selecting a further GK, DC and STC. And then there are 5 additional players. I am also hoping to include Man City this time.
My theory is that the AM will choose from the reserves next but time will tell if this works. I have set all the managers up as unsackable. I am now importing all training schedules that I will be testing. I have added RDF and Hook on top of Passion4FM, FC Cadoni and ZaZ, plus of course mine. It should take about a day per 5 tests for each of the training schedules which will make it a week roughly. Probably do it quicker but that's what I am allowing.
If anyone has thoughts on this let me know. I am hoping to finish the set up this evening and start the testing tomorrow afternoon.
ZaZ said: Remember to run default training for reference too! It would also be nice to see how much the training affects results (if possible), since some training schedules are more focused in match bonuses. Expand
I will definitely run with the AM training first as a base.
CBP87 said: In your initial assessment, was the AM in charge of general and individual training? Expand
Yes, I didn't touch training in the previous runs as I thought the AM would change anything I did anyhow.
The intent with the 7 sides is to make the managers unsackable, and then drop their main players to reserves. I will bring in their best 22 best potential players by position. Lock in play the selected players if possible, and see how they develop over a season. The best development is the winner.
The second part will be to test the individual focus for the best training tactics. Once again it will be based on improvement.
Please let me know if you think I should adjust the methodology.
Today I ran a test to see if the Assistant Manager would change your training set up on holiday tests. Turns out they don't. They don't even change the individual position or focus training. So I am now keen to test training set up ups and their impact on player development. Our recent advice from our friends from China on their observations using machine learning have fueled this.
Firstly I will use the same league I used for the Genie Scout rating test. I will use the same 7 teams. Testing will involve a base test, and then use 4 training schedules to ascertain the best two. I have selected ZaZ, FC Cadoni, Passion FC and a hybrid that I use - lets call it MDW. If you have another training schedule that is working really well please let me know and I will consider including it. After selecting the best two I am going to test individual focus using my old approach and the one suggested by the machine learning guys.
It might take me a while to get my act together but hang in there and keep your eyes on this for the results. It might be a game changer.
You have 4 strikers in your side and Huanca would be your 5th. I have run the ratings against all 5 strikers using each of the ratings files. I would be tempted to buy him. He doesn't rate well in my MDW ratings file but goes well in the Y50 and even the ykykyk files.
I think from the analysis I have, done that the machine learning works. I personally will be using the full ykykyk ratings file as I think it will be more stable longer term. I will now balance that ratings file and derive the unrated positions as best I can.
@ZaZ prefers the chopped down versions because you get better value players. I prefer to try and get players you can keep as you progress. And I certainly move between the approaches and value what ZaZ does immensely.
My focus beyond changing my ratings file is to upgrade my approach to individual training focus. There were some notes in the machine learning example relating to that. I am exploring how I improve on that aspect in my games. At some stage I will provide my learnings on that front.
OpticFawn said: Hey, @Mark and @ZaZ This is weird, this player according to genie under the zaz 25 under 50 rating has the guy rated better than all of my strikers but looks the worst? what do you guys think I'm seeing this on other players.
José Huanca rating = 73.1
Dennis = 69.65
Junior Arias = 71.18
As you can see Jose is the highest by a fair bit and looks the worst out of the 3. Expand
I am sorry mate but I cant replicate the issue. I have done the manual calculations and also set 3 identical players up in my test save and get different results and orders to what you have.
All I can think of is it hasn't loaded properly or it has somehow changed.
If you could get a copy of your save linked I would happily investigate further if you want. But as it stands I really don't know what is going on.
In the balanced version I added positions not covered by the original and then made the top rated player from each position roughly even which allows you to find players across positions. This is done by adjusting the overall weighting for the position and doesn't impact ratings from within the position itself because all the attribute weightings remain the same.
For example the top rated GK was previously 62.4 on the save I have, and the top rated Fast Striker was 87.5. All the other positions were somewhere in between. Now the top rated player for each position is around the 91 or 92 mark.
ZaZ said: Thank you for the results! I'm a researcher from the field of optimization, which is closely related to machine learning, so I have no doubts their experiment holds lots of value. I'll try to boost the goalkeeper scores of my best version and add to my tactic page, as well as linking here so they can also see your filters. Looking forward for your next improvements or any suggestions.
P.S.: Just to be clear, Y50 is the one that subtracts 25 from all under 50 using chinese as base, right? Expand
Mark said: I am now running more thorough testing to see which GS Ratings work best. I have taken the ZaZ EPL Test League and downloaded the ratings for EPL players for each ratings filter including the GS default. I set up coaches for the top 9 teams and set all tactics to ZaZ Blue DM. I will do at least 3 runs and then look at the predictions for each position versus the end player ratings for each position.
It should be interesting to see performance against this data set. Expand
So my work here is now complete. There were some issues. There were 2 of the managers that didn't work because I hadn't taken control of them, That left us with 7 sides we have control of. One of course was Man City whose Manager was sacked every test as they couldn't compete against the ZaZ Blue tactics.
The methodology was to take the best rated XI for each ratings and compare the average ratings for each side. I ran 5 tests and then dropped any player that had less than 50 games over the 5 runs or 190 games. I only selected players rated best from the 7 teams we were working with who all used ZaZ Blue DM tactics.
So they were playing the same role for the majority of the time and played substantial games in the role.
I have to say the results very much favor the Chinese machine learning research we were all interested in.
I tested 6 ratings files plus the default Genie Scout rating file. The main ratings files were ZaZ, my MDW, ykykyk the one based on the Chinese machine learning research, and 3 variants of that proposed by @ZaZ.
I used either end of season team of the year for the squad or the highest positional rating to determine the position for each player. Players with less than 50 games of the 5 tests were excluded. Only players in the 7 controlled teams were included, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs.
First we have the control test which is the default Genie Scout ratings. Here is their side:
So of the main 3 ratings files, MDW, ykykyk and ZaZ here are the results:
And here are the 3 test tactics from ZaZ using the Chinese machine learning technology.
The Analysis from our Chinese friends has been very impressive,
Petrades said: Sorry for the Dutch, Seuntjes is both 7 on pace and acc Expand
I therefore assume jumping reach is the one that is 16 and natural fitness moves as well. If that is the case then the Chinese ratings and my ratings would both have the first one in front.
What ratings are you using and can you translate the attributes so I can check the calculations
ZaZ said: I would never get that SS with 7 acceleration and pace. Lower league is full of those low speed players, which is why it's so easy to win there. Expand
I cant translate this language but I thought from the placement of the numbers that the first player has 14 Acc and 9 Pace and the second has 7 Acc and 16 Pace. If that is right then it is more understandable the the ratings are close. I make it just favoring the second player. If the attributes don't align with the English version then I understand.
Petrades said: @Mark I have a question about your view. Is it not better to check also the best roll of the player? Or is positional rating better? Expand
That is a great question. You definitely need their positional ability to be 13+ and then you look at positional rating. Role rating really doesn't seem to impact.
I agree with @ZaZ that Acc and Pace are most important attributes for DC and especially in lower leagues. The stats you gave don't look like lower league though. The chinese site had the following as the most important stats ie over 50 rating:
I think my answer would depend on some of these other stats as I dont think the margin is big based on the ones you have provided.
Sure I will get to that in the next 24 hours.
My theory is that the AM will choose from the reserves next but time will tell if this works. I have set all the managers up as unsackable. I am now importing all training schedules that I will be testing. I have added RDF and Hook on top of Passion4FM, FC Cadoni and ZaZ, plus of course mine. It should take about a day per 5 tests for each of the training schedules which will make it a week roughly. Probably do it quicker but that's what I am allowing.
If anyone has thoughts on this let me know. I am hoping to finish the set up this evening and start the testing tomorrow afternoon.
I will definitely run with the AM training first as a base.
CBP87 said: In your initial assessment, was the AM in charge of general and individual training?
Yes, I didn't touch training in the previous runs as I thought the AM would change anything I did anyhow.
I definitely am. And thanks for asking.
The second part will be to test the individual focus for the best training tactics. Once again it will be based on improvement.
Please let me know if you think I should adjust the methodology.
Firstly I will use the same league I used for the Genie Scout rating test. I will use the same 7 teams. Testing will involve a base test, and then use 4 training schedules to ascertain the best two. I have selected ZaZ, FC Cadoni, Passion FC and a hybrid that I use - lets call it MDW. If you have another training schedule that is working really well please let me know and I will consider including it. After selecting the best two I am going to test individual focus using my old approach and the one suggested by the machine learning guys.
It might take me a while to get my act together but hang in there and keep your eyes on this for the results. It might be a game changer.
Will do
You have 4 strikers in your side and Huanca would be your 5th. I have run the ratings against all 5 strikers using each of the ratings files. I would be tempted to buy him. He doesn't rate well in my MDW ratings file but goes well in the Y50 and even the ykykyk files.
I think from the analysis I have, done that the machine learning works. I personally will be using the full ykykyk ratings file as I think it will be more stable longer term. I will now balance that ratings file and derive the unrated positions as best I can.
@ZaZ prefers the chopped down versions because you get better value players. I prefer to try and get players you can keep as you progress. And I certainly move between the approaches and value what ZaZ does immensely.
My focus beyond changing my ratings file is to upgrade my approach to individual training focus. There were some notes in the machine learning example relating to that. I am exploring how I improve on that aspect in my games. At some stage I will provide my learnings on that front.
José Huanca rating = 73.1
Dennis = 69.65
Junior Arias = 71.18
As you can see Jose is the highest by a fair bit and looks the worst out of the 3.
I am sorry mate but I cant replicate the issue. I have done the manual calculations and also set 3 identical players up in my test save and get different results and orders to what you have.
All I can think of is it hasn't loaded properly or it has somehow changed.
If you could get a copy of your save linked I would happily investigate further if you want. But as it stands I really don't know what is going on.
For example the top rated GK was previously 62.4 on the save I have, and the top rated Fast Striker was 87.5. All the other positions were somewhere in between. Now the top rated player for each position is around the 91 or 92 mark.
I hope this makes sense.
Hope this helps someone
ZaZ 25 under 50 Balanced
P.S.: Just to be clear, Y50 is the one that subtracts 25 from all under 50 using chinese as base, right?
That is correct ZaZ.
It should be interesting to see performance against this data set.
So my work here is now complete. There were some issues. There were 2 of the managers that didn't work because I hadn't taken control of them, That left us with 7 sides we have control of. One of course was Man City whose Manager was sacked every test as they couldn't compete against the ZaZ Blue tactics.
The methodology was to take the best rated XI for each ratings and compare the average ratings for each side. I ran 5 tests and then dropped any player that had less than 50 games over the 5 runs or 190 games. I only selected players rated best from the 7 teams we were working with who all used ZaZ Blue DM tactics.
So they were playing the same role for the majority of the time and played substantial games in the role.
I have to say the results very much favor the Chinese machine learning research we were all interested in.
I tested 6 ratings files plus the default Genie Scout rating file. The main ratings files were ZaZ, my MDW, ykykyk the one based on the Chinese machine learning research, and 3 variants of that proposed by @ZaZ.
I used either end of season team of the year for the squad or the highest positional rating to determine the position for each player. Players with less than 50 games of the 5 tests were excluded. Only players in the 7 controlled teams were included, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs.
First we have the control test which is the default Genie Scout ratings. Here is their side:
So of the main 3 ratings files, MDW, ykykyk and ZaZ here are the results:
And here are the 3 test tactics from ZaZ using the Chinese machine learning technology.
The Analysis from our Chinese friends has been very impressive,
I therefore assume jumping reach is the one that is 16 and natural fitness moves as well. If that is the case then the Chinese ratings and my ratings would both have the first one in front.
What ratings are you using and can you translate the attributes so I can check the calculations
I cant translate this language but I thought from the placement of the numbers that the first player has 14 Acc and 9 Pace and the second has 7 Acc and 16 Pace. If that is right then it is more understandable the the ratings are close. I make it just favoring the second player. If the attributes don't align with the English version then I understand.
MDW Part Time Training
if you you are full time you will need to research more to find ZaZ's
That is a great question. You definitely need their positional ability to be 13+ and then you look at positional rating. Role rating really doesn't seem to impact.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/1831-zaz-blue/page-1/#:~:text=My%20training%20schedules,Just%20ignore%20them!
CD 1
Marking 15
Tackling 15
Heading 15
Jumping 15
Speed 11
Acc 11
Dribling 11
Anticipation 11
CD 2
Marking 11
Tackling 11
Heading 11
Jumping 11
Speed 15
Acc 15
Dribling 15
Antycypation 15
I agree with @ZaZ that Acc and Pace are most important attributes for DC and especially in lower leagues. The stats you gave don't look like lower league though. The chinese site had the following as the most important stats ie over 50 rating:
I think my answer would depend on some of these other stats as I dont think the margin is big based on the ones you have provided.